I recently attended the Celebrate Recovery Summit 2005 at Saddleback Church in Southern California. The primary purpose of the conference was to train new leaders who would return to their churches and inaugurate the Celebrate Recovery (CR) program. Saddleback’s pastor, Rick Warren, describes CR as “a biblical and balanced program to help people overcome their hurts, habits, and hang-ups…[that is] based on the actual words of Jesus rather than psychological theory [emphasis added].” 1

As a long-time critic of psychological counseling and 12-Steps therapies in the church (see The Seduction of Christianity and archived TBC newsletter articles and Q&As), I was pleased to have the opportunity to learn firsthand from those who are leading and/or participating in the program, to better understand what was intended in CR, and to see how it is implemented. What I learned right away was that the 3,000 or so in attendance had a tremendous zeal for the Lord and an unquestionable sincerity in desiring to help those who were struggling with habitual sin. This was my impression in all of my interactions—with individuals, in small groups, in workshop sessions, and in the general worship sessions. The CR Summit lasted three (eight- to nine-hour) days and covered nearly every aspect of Celebrate Recovery.

Nevertheless, other thoughts ran through my mind as I reviewed whether or not I had missed something significant in my previous criticisms of 12-Steps recovery therapies. Is Celebrate Recovery’s 12-Steps program truly different—that is, “biblical and balanced…rather than psychological”—as Rick Warren believes? Furthermore, is he simply naïve when he says in his “Road to Recovery” series of sermons, “In 1935 a couple of guys formulated, based upon the Scriptures, what are now known as the classic twelve steps of Alcoholics Anonymous and used by hundreds of other recovery groups. Twenty million Americans are in a recovery group every week and there are 500,000 recovery groups. The basis is God’s Word [emphasis added].” Or is Celebrate Recovery another alarming example of a way that seems right to a man but one that is turning believers to ways and means other than the Bible to solve their sin-related problems? Let’s consider these questions in light of some A.A. and 12 Steps background information.

To begin with, 12-Steps programs are not just a Saddleback Church issue. Increasing numbers of evangelical churches are sponsoring Alcoholics Anonymous (A.A.) and Narcotics Anonymous (N.A.) meetings and/or creating their own self-help groups based upon A.A.’s 12-Steps principles. Bill Wilson, one of the founders of A.A., created the 12 Steps. Wilson was a habitual drunk who had two life-changing events that he claims helped him achieve sobriety: 1) he was (mis)informed by a doctor that his drinking habit was a disease and was therefore not his fault, and 2) he had an experience (which he viewed as spiritual enlightenment) that convinced him that only “a Power greater than” himself could keep him sober. Attempting to understand his mystical experience, he was led into spiritism, a form of divination condemned in the Scriptures. His official biography indicates that the content of the 12-Steps principles came to him “rapidly” through spirit communication. Certainly not from God.

Celebrate Recovery began 14 years ago at Saddleback and is used in more than 3,500 churches today, making it evangelical Christianity’s most prominent and widely exported 12-Steps church program. Warren considers CR to be “the center of living a purpose-driven life and building a purpose-driven church” and recently announced that Chuck Colson’s Prison Fellowship would begin implementing CR in every prison where the ministry is functioning.

Celebrate Recovery is a very complex methodology that attempts to bring biblical adjustments to the 12-Steps program originated by A.A. and utilized in numerous other “addiction” recovery programs. The complexity, however, applies to the setting up and implementation of the program as well as to the strict rules that govern its execution. Although there are many problems related to “making it work,” there is only space in this article to address some fundamental issues. Let’s begin with the implications regarding the name of the program.

Reflecting A.A.’s influence upon CR, the term “Recovery” is significant. All those in A.A. are “recovering” alcoholics, who, according to A.A., never completely recover. Recovery is a term that primarily denotes a process of physical healing. A.A. teaches that alcoholism is a disease for which there is no ultimate cure. Although CR rejects A.A.’s view of alcoholism as a disease and calls it sin, the title nevertheless promotes the A.A. concept in contradiction to what the Bible teaches. Sin is not something from which a believer is “in recovery.” Sin is confessed by the sinner and forgiven by God. The believer is cleansed of the sin right then. “I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the LORD; and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin” (Ps 32:5 [2]).

At the 2005 Celebrate Recovery Summit, every speaker introduced himself or herself in the A.A. “recovery” mode, with this “Christianized” difference: “Hi, I’m so and so…and I’m a believer in Jesus Christ who struggles with issues of (alcohol, drug, codependency, sex, or whatever) addiction.” The audience then applauded to affirm the individual for overcoming the “denial” of his or her habitual sin. Not to confess some “addiction” or specific sin struggle raises suspicions of “being in denial.” Throughout the three-day conference, there was never a hint from any of the speakers that anything about A.A., 12 Steps, or CR might not be biblical. Moreover, where Celebrate Recovery programs were not available, those “in recovery” were encouraged to attend A.A. or N.A. meetings.

Rick Warren, on video, reassured the Summit attendees that CR was no man-made therapy. He insisted that CR was based upon the “actual words of Jesus Christ from the eight Beatitudes, which parallel the 12 Steps” and identified his own “Higher Power: His name is Jesus Christ.” I don’t find “Higher Power,” which is a misrepresentation of God, in the Bible. Nor can I fathom why a Bible-believing Christian would want to promote Bill Wilson’s concept and methodology. Why not simply rely on what the Bible teaches?

Is God’s way completely sufficient to set one free from so-called addictions? Did A.A.’s founders provide a more effective way? If so, what did the church do for the nearly 2,000 years prior to Bill Wilson’s “spiritually enlightened” way to recovery? Moreover, if Wilson’s method really works, why are some in the church trying to add Jesus as one’s Higher Power and the Beatitudes to it? On the other hand, if the effectiveness of the 12-Steps program is questionable at best and detrimental to the gospel and to a believer’s life and growth in Christ, why attempt to “Christianize” such a program? It is imperative that all believers ask themselves whether or not they truly believe that the Scriptures and the enablement of God’s Holy Spirit are sufficient for “all things that pertain to life and godliness” (2 Pt 1:3 [3]). A rejection of this biblical teaching is the only possible justification for turning to ways the Bible condemns: “the counsel of the ungodly” (Ps 1:1 [4]) and “a way which seemeth right unto a man.”

How dependent is Celebrate Recovery upon (with minor modifications) A.A.’s 12 Steps? Completely! Those going through CR’s small group take from 12 to 16 months to complete the 12-Steps program. Many go through more than one small group and often become leaders in one while attending others. Without Bill Wilson’s principles, the CR program would be reduced to a handful of misapplied Bible verses. Tragically, the most obvious biblical problem with such an approach to overcoming habitual sins seems to be dismissed by all 12-Steps advocates: the Bible never offers a by-the-numbers self-help methodology for deliverance from sin or for living a sanctified life. God’s way involves obedience to His full counsel and maturity in Christ through the enablement of His Holy Spirit.

Warren’s CR program views the 12 Steps as generally compatible with Scripture yet seeks out verses that appear to biblically reinforce each step. In doing so, however, scriptural interpretations are forced upon concepts that either have no direct relationship to the Bible or that pervert the true interpretation of the scripture intended to support the particular step. CR’s attempt to use the Beatitudes as biblical principles for overcoming habitual sins, for example, is a serious distortion of the Word of God.

Search as you may, you’ll find no commentaries that even hint at such a use of the Beatitudes. Why? Simply because the Beatitudes all have to do with seeking the Kingdom of God and nothing to do with solving an individual’s so-called addictions. Again, why try to legitimize from Scripture Wilson’s “ungodly counsel” from “seducing spirits [bringing] doctrines of devils” (1 Tm 4:1)?

Consider, for example, the “Beatitudes-justified” first three steps: (1) We admitted we were powerless over our addictions and compulsive behaviors. That our lives had become unmanageable. “Happy are those who are spiritually poor.” (2) Came to believe that a power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity. “Happy are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted.” (3) Made a decision to turn our life and our will over to the care of God (modified from A.A.’s “God as we understood Him”). “Happy are the meek.” This is more than a misdirected attempt to sanctify (in Rick Warren’s words) Bill Wilson’s “biblically vague” 12 Steps.2 It both abuses the Scriptures and reinterprets Wilson.

In these foundational steps, Wilson is summarizing his beliefs based upon his experiences as a “recovering alcoholic.” He felt “powerless” because he believed alcoholism was an incurable disease that consequently made his life “unmanageable.” Since he couldn’t “cure” himself (although millions do without 12-Step or other therapies!), he put his faith in “a power greater than ourselves,” whom he called God, and “understood” Him by fabricating Him out of beliefs discovered in his study of different religions and religious experiences. That’s more than “biblically vague.” It’s a false religion.

So why would Celebrate Recovery or the multitudes of other Christianized 12-Steps groups try to reconcile the Word of God with Wilson’s definitely erroneous and demonically inspired methodology? The deluded response is: “Because it works!” But does it?

Pragmatism is the fuel that powers “the way that seems right” and governs much of what is being lauded in the church today. Not only is this unbiblical, but too often there is nothing beyond enthusiastic testimonials to support the claim that something actually works. The reality for the 12-Steps program of A.A. and N.A. is that there is no research evidence proving that they are more effective than other treatments. Furthermore, the most extensive studies related to “addictions” conclude that most drug and alcohol abusers recover without any psychotherapeutic treatment or self-help therapies.3

The many problems inherent within a Christianized 12-Steps program—and particularly???Celebrate???Recovery—are too numerous for this brief article. Yet, consider these observations: CR is highly promoted as completely biblical and not psychological, yet the key speakers for CR Summit 2005 were clinical psychologists Drs. John Townsend and Henry Cloud. Psychologist David Stoop, the editor of Life Recovery Bible (CR participants’ mandatory paraphrase Bible, polluted with psychotherapy commentary), is a favorite speaker at Saddleback’s CR Large Group meetings. The CR leadership manual advises, “Have Christian psychotherapists volunteer their time to help instruct and support your leaders.”4

CR’s entire program content is marbled with psychobabble such as this “solution” from its Adult Children of the Chemically Addicted group’s dogmas:“The solution is to become your own loving parent….You will recover the child within you, learning to accept and love yourself.”5 This is biblical?! Honoring the psychologically contrived “disorder” of codependency, CR’s Codependency and Christian Living group made this humanistic and biblically false statement: “Jesus taught….A love of self forms the basis for loving others.”6

A.A.’s 12-Steps methodology, along with its antibiblical psychotherapeutic concepts and practices permeates Celebrate Recovery, yet no one at the Summit with whom I spoke seemed concerned. CR’s small group meetings are the antithesis of the way the Bible instructs mature believers to help those young or struggling in the faith to grow. Pastors and elders can be small group leaders, but not for teaching purposes. No leader may biblically instruct or correct but may only affirm the “transparency” of the participant sharing his feelings. “Cross-talk,” or comments by others, are prohibited to allow the freest expression possible. Much of this “expression” reinforces psychotherapeutic myths. The two-hour meetings usually open with the spiritually anemic Serenity Prayer and the recitation of the 12 Steps. Leaders are drawn from those who have completed one or more 12-Step groups. Some leaders work through one “addiction” in a small group while leading another group. It’s not unusual for a leader to put in eight to ten hours in CR functions per week, every week. Serious Bible study and discipleship are not part of the Celebrate Recovery “biblical” emphasis.

Let no one think that presenting these critical concerns about Celebrate Recovery in any way lessens the biblical obligation (Gal 6 [5]) of the church to minister to those struggling with habitual sin. The issue is not whether we should minister, but how we should minister: man’s way or God’s way? Man’s way, or a mixture of biblical teaching and ungodly counsel, is contrary to God’s way. Man’s way leads to death. Applying Scripture to man’s way leads to a slower death, akin to what would result when pure water is added to a toxic drinking fountain. We desperately need to take heed to God’s admonition through the Prophet Jeremiah: “For my people have committed two evils; they have forsaken me the fountain of living waters, and hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water” (Jer 2:13 [6]). TBC

Endnotes

1. Celebrate Recovery Summit 2005 Handbook, 61.

2. Celebrate Recovery Senior Pastor Support Video, 2003.

3. The Harvard Mental Health Letter, Vol. 16, No. 12, 1-4; See also:

www.stats.org/issuerecord.jsp?issue=true&ID=8.

4. Celebrate, 31.

5. Ibid., 342.

6. Ibid., 350.

Audio version of this newsletter is here [6].

Source URL:
http://www.thebereancall.org/node/2568
 

Although there are far too many examples of apostasy influencing the church today to cite in this brief series of articles, there is one spurious trend that encompasses nearly all of what the above verses address. It’s called the Emerging Church Movement (ECM). The ECM is a development among evangelicals that appears to have some worthwhile goals: 1) It professes to speak to today’s culture about the relevancy of Christianity and the value of the gospel of Jesus Christ; and 2) It desires to keep young evangelicals continuing in the faith. The movement involves a number of churches (mostly non-denominational), some supportive ministries and parachurch organizations, and the support of a number of prominent evangelical leaders and authors.

The ECM has no official organization or leadership, although some of its adherents have “emerged” as recognized leaders and spokesmen. For many of those helping to promote the movement, their motivation to “try something different” grew out of the frustration of their own very limited success in evangelizing and discipling young people. Some of the leaders were in seeker-sensitive and purpose-driven churches, and they saw firsthand that their church-growth marketing schemes were not effective for drawing those in their late teens, 20s, and early 30s. The main fare of most consumer-driven churches features contemporary music with shallow, repetitive choruses, topical 30-minutes-or-less sermons (mostly psychology-based), a host of social programs to attract the lost (and the fleshly nature of Christians), and “Bible studies” that address everything but the Bible (see “Consumer Christianity I & II”, TBC, 2/05 [5] , 3/05 [5] ). For a surprising number of young adults, that was a spiritual turnoff.

In his book The Emerging Church (with contributions and endorsement by Rick Warren), Dan Kimball relates his own breakthrough in overcoming the frustrating experiences in trying to motivate the young people in the evangelical church where he was youth pastor. He tells about watching a concert on the youth-oriented MTV network late one night that was a candlelit, all-acoustic performance. Recognizing that MTV certainly knows its audience and the youth culture, he refashioned his church’s youth room into a subdued, “catacombish,” candlelit environment and had the worship band use acoustic guitars, forgoing their usual flashing light show and loud electric music. He was delighted by the reaction of one usually unresponsive teen who said, “I like this. This was really spiritual.”

That was an epiphany for Kimball. As he expanded the service with what he considered more “authentic Christian” elements and liturgy, it attracted hundreds, young and old alike. He is convinced he’s found what the church of today needs: “As the emerging church returns to a rawer and more vintage form of Christianity, we may see explosive growth much like the early church did.”

On the contrary, the “explosive growth” in the early church came from an approach that is almost nonexistent in the ECM. Peter’s confrontational address to the crowd on Pentecost in Acts chapter 2 is directly at odds with the modus operandi of the emergent leaders. In the power of the Holy Spirit, Peter’s preaching brought conviction of sin, repentance, and belief; 3,000 came to Christ that day. Kimball’s “vintage form of Christianity,” featuring rituals, ceremony, candles, incense, prayer stations, and images to create a spiritually experiential atmosphere for evangelicals is “vintage” only in the sense that it is an imitation of the later unbiblical Eastern Orthodox and medieval Roman Catholic liturgies. The early New Testament church knew nothing of this idolatrous and sense-oriented worship.

Ironically, emergent churches around the world, in their attempt to “reconstruct” the church, are passing each other like ships in the night. Kimball’s efforts at spiritual stimulation by introducing to young evangelicals the liturgical bells and smells of Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran, and high-church Episcopal and Presbyterian rituals, stands in contradiction to some European cathedrals and churches going emergent. Europeans are trying to revive their congregations, deadened by centuries of imagery and ritual, by covering their gothic interiors with decorated drapery, exchanging the organ and traditional hymns for electric guitars and contemporary choruses, and adding throw pillows for comfortable seating to create a seeker-friendly environment. These churches are abandoning the very things that are “spiritually” alluring to American emergent evangelicals. Regarding both sensual approaches, Scripture tells us, “the flesh profiteth nothing.”

In reading the works of the ECM leaders, we would agree with many of their criticisms of current Christianity. There is plenty to oppose as apostasy and the abandonment of the Word increases in Christendom. The ECM’s corrections, however, rather than having restorative value for the church, are just as contrary to the Scriptures. Even worse, they go far beyond subtly “weaning evangelicals off the Word” to rendering the Bible and its doctrines as the enemy when it comes to drawing the world in general and, specifically, our postmodern culture, to the love of Jesus.

The Emergent Church Movement claims to desire—above all things—to show the love and life of Christ to a culture that is distrustful of the Christianity it perceives as oppressive and absolutist. We’re assured by ECM writers that “numbers of postmoderns are attracted to Jesus but detest His church” and can therefore be reached by the emerging church approach. It professes to be more amenable to the culture, more viable in its practice of Christianity, and truer to what Jesus had in mind for His church on earth.

Admirable—but let’s see how true it is to the Scriptures. As Isaiah exhorted, “To the law and to the testimony [i.e., God’s Word]: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them” Isaiah 8:20 [6]).

First of all, one has to wonder what a postmodern—a person characterized chiefly by his or her general disdain for authority and absolutes, particularly those dealing with moral issues and religion—thinks about this “Jesus” to whom he or she is supposedly drawn. The critical question is “Jesus who?” Is it the biblical Jesus they like, the one who declared absolutely, “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father but by me” (John 14:6 [7])? What about the authoritarian Jesus, who announced, “If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love” (John 15:10 [8])? His words weren’t referring only to the Ten Commandments but rather to every instruction He gave. Is that the Jesus a postmodern desires? What about the Jesus who gave mankind an ultimatum: “He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him” (John 3:36 [9])?

The biblical Jesus certainly does not accommodate postmodernism, which is one more example of humanity’s rebellion against its Creator. The good news is that Jesus offers deliverance from the delusion of postmodernism, as well as all the other man-centered isms: “If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; and ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free” (John 8:31,32 [10]). The bad news is that the emerging church approach attempts to accommodate Jesus and the Scriptures (actually “another Jesus” and a corrupted and emasculated Word) to our postmodern culture.

Although some regard the Emerging Church Movement as nothing more than a passing spiritual fad among young evangelicals, its potential for shipwrecking the faith of our next generation (should the Lord not yet return for His saints) is staggering. Here are just a few of the faith-destroying beliefs as espoused in the writings of the emergent leaders. First of all, foundational to the ECM is the subversion of the Bible. It’s akin to Satan’s scheme to destabilize Eve’s trust in what God commanded: “Yea, hath God said…?” (Genesis 3:1 [11]). They give lip service to the importance of God’s Word while undermining its inerrancy, authority, and sufficiency.

Rob Bell writes in Velvet Elvis, following 22 pages of weakening the authority of the Bible (making statements such as “It is possible to make the Bible say whatever we want it to, isn’t it?” and “With God being so massive and awe-inspiring and full of truth, why is his book capable of so much confusion?”): “[L]et’s make a group decision to drop once and for all the Bible-as-owner’s-manual metaphor [i.e., God’s specific instructions for mankind]. It’s terrible. It really is….We have to embrace the Bible as the wild, uncensored, passionate account it is of experiencing the living God.”1 No! “Holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost” (2 Pt 1:21 [12]).

His view, common to most emergent writers, is that the key to the authority of Scripture is one’s interpretation, and that is most authoritative when the interpretation takes place in a community and validated by a “group decision”: “Community, community, community. Together with others, wrestling and searching and engaging the Bible as a group of people hungry to know God in order to follow God.”2

Although we find thousands of times throughout the Bible clear, direct, and absolute commands prefaced by phrases such as “Thus saith the Lord” and “The word of the Lord came to me,” we’re now told that understanding and obedience to what God said are subject to a community’s interpretation. Consequently, ECM churches disdain preaching and authoritative teaching, yet they delight in discussion, causing some to dump the pulpit in favor of a dialogue-led Starbucks environment. As the goals of the community change, we’re told the interpretation may also change.

The claim that the ECM approach has not jettisoned sound doctrine is either a delusion or an outright deception. This becomes clear when one asks for a biblical position on an issue. Kristen Bell acknowledges in a Christianity Today emerging church article, “I grew up thinking that we figured out the Bible…that we knew what it means. Now I have no idea what most of it means, and yet I feel like life is big again—like life used to be black and white, and now it’s in color.”3 Brian McLaren, the most prominent of the emergent leaders, echoes Bell’s “doctrine” of avoidance regarding what the Bible says about homosexuality:

Perhaps we need a five-year moratorium on making [doctrinal] pronouncements. In the meantime, we’ll practice prayerful Christian dialogue, listening respectfully, disagreeing agreeably. When decisions need to be made, they’ll be admittedly provisional. We’ll keep our ears attuned to scholars in biblical studies, theology, ethics, psychology, genetics, sociology, and related fields. Then in five years, if we have clarity, we’ll speak; if not, we’ll set another five years for ongoing reflection.4
TBC has received numerous letters from parents and evangelical pastors who find their young people seeking out emergent churches for the “new” experiences, which they offer in abundance: religious art (primarily impressionistic images of “Jesus”), “biblical” films, rituals based upon Catholic/Orthodox liturgy, community, personal relationships, contemplative spirituality and mysticism (some include yoga), Bible dialogues, ecumenical interaction with “people of faith,” a social gospel, plans to save the planet, restore the kingdom, and so forth.

Regarding the seductive nature of such things, few evangelicals, young or old, have a defense. Too many function as biblical illiterates, meaning they know some things about the Bible and are capable of reading it but simply haven’t made any effort, outside of following along with their pastor’s teaching on Sundays. They are the spiritual con man’s delight.

Satan’s seduction of Eve began subtly, “Yea hath God said?” It was a confusion tactic, setting her up to believe his lie and reject what God had said: “And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die.” That was his punch line to destroy the human race. Eve fell for it; Adam went along.
One finds a strikingly similar approach in the writings of the ECM leaders in regard to destroying faith in the gospel: Brian McLaren leads with doubts about what God had said:

The church latched on to that old doctrine of original sin like a dog to a stick, and before you knew it, the whole gospel got twisted around it. Instead of being God’s big message of saving love for the whole world, the gospel became a little bit of secret information on how to solve the pesky legal problem of original sin.5

He says elsewhere, “I don’t think we’ve got the gospel right yet. What does it mean to be saved?…None of us have arrived at orthodoxy.”

British emergent leader and Zondervan author Steve Chalke delivers the punch line that unabashedly rejects the essential gospel belief that Christ paid the full penalty for the sins of mankind necessary to satisfy divine justice. Incredibly, he condemns that doctrine as a form of “cosmic child abuse” and a “twisted version of events morally dubious and a huge barrier to faith.”6 This is where these emergent pied pipers, wittingly or unwittingly, are seductively leading our youth.

Hopefully, the above will move you to prayer and action regarding the biblical strengthening of your own children and the youth in your fellowship. If you need more motivation (this brief article allowed me to give you only the tip of the “emerging” iceberg), see our TBC Extra page (p. with multiple emergent leaders’ quotes helpfully compiled in Roger Oakland’s latest book Faith Undone: The emerging church…a new reformation or an end-time deception? TBC

Endnotes

1. Velvet Elvis: Repainting the Christian Faith (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2005), 044-45, 062-63.
2. Ibid., 053.
3. Andy Crouch, “The Emergent Mystique,” Christianity Today, November 2004, Vol 48, No 11, 36ff.
4. http://www.christianitytoday.com/leaders/newsletter/2006/cln60123.html [13] .
5. Brian McLaren, The Last Word and the Word After That (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2005), 134.
6. Steve Chalke and Alan Mann, The Lost Message of Jesus (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2003), 182-83.

Published on thebereancall.org (http://www.thebereancall.org)

But now Crouch must deal with the worst slur of 21st-century Christendom: his network, critics say, is soft on Islam.

The charge followed TBN’s recent decision to drop the half-hour Zola Levitt Presents from its broadcast schedule. Network officials told the show’s producers they were no longer interested in running the show after its longtime host, Zola Levitt, passed away this spring from lung cancer.  Levitt’s ministry says . . . “TBN, you see, is modifying its programming to be suitable for broadcast in Arab nations.” Zola Levitt Ministries offered no elaboration but added it would “join the good company of Hal Lindsey in dusting our feet.”

“Dusting” refers to Jesus’ admonition to his apostles: if people don’t want to hear the Good News, “when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet” (Mt 10:14).

But the inclusion of Lindsey . . . was intended to inflame evangelicals.  This January, Lindsey announced to followers that his “The International Intelligence Briefing” would no longer air on TBN after the network asked him to temper his statements on Islam. He cited no examples. TBN originally denied Lindsey’s claim, but network spokesperson John Casoria eventually retracted that statement, telling the conservative website  WorldNetDaily that TBN was concerned Lindsey “placed Arabs in a negative light.”

This isn’t the first time TBN has faced the charge that it coddles Muslims. In January 2002, Crouch published an open letter to disgruntled TBN programmers explaining his fire-and-brimstone-free approach to proselytizing among Muslims.

“Let’s be careful how we treat the Arabs and Islam,” Crouch wrote. “Let’s not slam Mohammed and Islam. Let’s reach out to them in love.” Similarly, TBN released a statement after canning Zola Levitt Presents that read, “As to TBN being accused of reaching out to the Muslim world with the love of God, TBN must plead guilty. When Jesus gave his disciples the Great Commission, he said, go into ‘ALL nations,’ not just the non-Muslim ones.”

(Arellano, Orange County Weekly, 9/14/06)

WHO GETS THE DECISION CARDS?
      
As far back as 1955 Dr. James E. Bennet and Rev. Jack Wyrtzen met with Billy Graham.  Graham told them “that if some minister, who was a modernist, sent 50 of his people to Graham’s meetings, and they were saved, he (Billy) would not tell them not to return to that modernistic church, because it would be unfair to the pastor!”283

The Bible says that we are to “have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them” (Ephesians 5:11).  We are not to invite them on our platforms and praise them as “deeply committed believers” when they don’t even believe (much less obey) the Bible.

A letter from the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association (written by W H. Martindale) dated February 29, 1968 stated: “Mr. Graham, under no conditions, suggests affiliating with those who are, in their doctrines, contrary to the Scriptures.”284  Yet 11 years prior to this letter, Graham had had Norman Vincent Peale on his platform.  Peale had written 46 books, the first one published in 1937.285  His book, ‘The Power of Positive Thinking’ had already been in print for several years so his viewpoint was well-known.286

It should also be mentioned that the committee for the 1957 New York Crusade was made up of about 120 modernists and unbelievers compared to about 20 fundamentalists.  The Executive Committee was comprised of about 15 modernists and only 5 fundamentalists.287  Many of those on the committees denied the virgin birth, bodily resurrection of Christ, a literal heaven and a literal hell, the inspiration of Scripture, etc.  The sad part is that those who went forward at this meeting were turned over to these modernist churches.  After all, Graham usually only gives decision cards to those who participate in his meetings.  (One exception was in the 1970s when Graham turned over decision cards to a Catholic diocese who had no official involvement in the crusade.)288  Therefore, all the fundamentalists who do not participate do not get any of the names.  In other words, Graham’s crusades only end up helping the liberal and unscriptural churches to prosper and grow.  Can this be pleasing to God?

Graeme Keith, chairman of the Carolinas Billy Graham Crusade Committee, is quoted in the Charlotte Observer (March 1, 1996) as saying: “We have Jewish, Catholic, Protestant and other denominations represented on the committee….Our goal is to make it the finest crusade Dr. Graham has ever conducted.”  Graham has even gone further afield on occasion.  At his 1966 World Congress on Evangelism in Berlin, Ethiopian Emperor Haile Selassie, who is head of the Coptic Orthodox Church, was featured.  The Coptic Church is a blend of Christianity, Judaism, animism and paganism.”289

I have a copy of a letter that the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association sent to an inquirer in 1968.  Rev. W H. Martindale, writing for Billy Graham, stated: “There are many aspects of the Christian life that Mr. Graham does not touch upon because he does not believe that they are the duty and responsibility of the evangelist.  Mr. Graham believes that we are saved through the blood of Christ, however, this aspect of Christian doctrine he does not emphasize in his messages.  This is the duty and prerogative of the pastors.  Every effort is made to see that the inquirers are oriented in a Bible preaching church.”290  The last sentence simply IS NOT TRUE!  The inquirers ARE NOT sent to Bible-believing churches in most cases.  “Cases are documented to show that some ministers have actually gone forward at the invitation and then into the counselor’s room and their cards have been sent to liberal churches in their community which they, the ministers, have opposed from their own pulpits.”291  For example, in Graham’s 1952 Pittsburgh crusade, the Pittsburgh Sun-Telegraph reported that Graham said: “Many of the people who reach a decision for Christ at our meetings have joined the Catholic Church and we have received commendations from  Catholic publications for the revived interest in their Church following our campaigns.  This happened both in Boston and Washington.  After all, one of our prime purposes is to help the churches in a community.  If after we move on, the local (sic) churches do not feel the efforts of these meetings in increased membership and attendance, then our crusade would have to be considered a failure.”292  [Emphasis in the original.]

Did you notice that Graham was only interested in a church’s increased membership-but nothing was said about a person receiving Christ as his or her personal Lord and Savior.  This is what is important-not church membership!  Church membership could increase a 1000-fold but if people are not being saved, then all is in vain.  Graham also gave a boost to the Catholic Church (in 1952) when he added that he “hoped to hear Bishop Fulton J. Sheen at one of the masses at St. Paul’s Cathedral tomorrow.”293  [Emphasis in the original.]

“In 1968, Graham was in a meeting in San Antonio, Texas.  He said that the Roman Church had given “tremendous cooperation” in areas where he had held crusades.  He added, “A great part of our support today comes from Catholics.  We never hold a crusade without priests and nuns being much in evidence in the audience.”294

By 1973 nuns were singing in the choir at Graham’s crusades.295   Continuing on with Graham’s ecumenical outlook, the June 10, 1966 issue of ‘Time’ said that volunteers “will tactfully receive those stepping forward to make a decision for Christ, [and] steer them to the nearest church of their chosen denomination….”296

In Poland in 1978, “Graham taught nuns and priests how to evangelize.  A picture taken at the famous Polish Shrine of the Black Madonna shows Graham welcoming pilgrims to the worship of their Virgin.”297

NO ASSURANCE OF SALVATION
      
In 1983, The Florida Catholic reported that 600 people were turned over to the Catholic Church from the Orlando crusade.298  “On the evening of June 9, 1982, the names of 2100 inquirers were given to priests at Pope John XXIII Seminary in Weston, Massachusetts.”299  During the June 1992 Crusade in Philadelphia,”approximately 1,200 Catholics in the Archdiocese and about 700 Catholics from elsewhere took steps…in response to Dr. Graham’s ‘altar calls.’”  The individuals…were referred to about 250 parishes, said sister Josephine Kase, I. H. M., Assistant Director of the Archdiocesan Office for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs.”300
 
In 1987 at the Denver crusade, 500 individuals were referred to the St. Thomas Moore Roman Catholic Church from just one service!301  One Catholic who went forward at this meeting didn’t know how to express his feelings but the Catholic counselor, Donald Willette, was there to help out.  He said: “Catholics have trouble with the expression ‘Born again.’  “…I try to help people understand what this experience means, in light of the teaching of the [Catholic] Church.”302  So, even if Graham were definitely preaching the true Gospel of Christ, by allowing his sermon to be “reinterpreted” by the counselors, would negate all the good that would have been done.  The “reinterpretation” is done in light of the Catholic Church’s teaching-not in accordance with the Scriptures.

“A Catholic nun, Macrina Scott, director of the Catholic Biblical School in Denver, says she trained about 80 counselors and Bible teachers to assist Billy Graham’s Rocky Mountain Crusade last July [l987].303

“By September 1992, the Catholic diocese of Portland, Oregon, had set a goal to supply 6,000 of the 10,000 counselors needed for the Graham crusade.  All Catholics responding to the altar call were channeled to Catholic churches.”304

Surprisingly, around 1993 a retired missionary wrote to Graham’s organization asking if he was sending new converts back to the Catholic Church.  T. W. Wilson (who died on May 25, 2001)305, a member of the Graham team, responded: “I do not know where you got your information-but I’m sure you have been misinformed.”  Isn’t it amazing how they are still trying to conceal this plain fact?

“At the 1996 Charlotte Crusade held by Evangelist Billy Graham, the decision cards of 1700 Catholic responders to his invitation to commit their lives to Christ were given to the local Catholic Diocese for follow up.”306   The Catholic priests do not believe in salvation by faith.  They teach that salvation is obtained through infant baptism.  “Catholic teaching states that anyone who claims to have the assurance of salvation through God’s power or mercy has committed the sin of presumption.307  According to the Catholic paper, ‘Our Sunday Visitor,’ we are told that “Presumption is a sin against hope.  It is a rash confidence of obtaining eternal salvation….A person who says that he or she is assured of salvation is presuming….”308  This is in direct contradiction to God’s Word:  “These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that you may believe on the name of the Son of God” (I John 5:13). I John 2:5 says: “But whoso keepeth His word, in Him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in Him.”

“Converts” are also turned over to the Jewish synagogues.  The Rabbis do not believe in Jesus.  Other inquirers are sent back to the liberal Protestant ministers (like New Ager and Mason, Norman Vincent Peale) who deny the atonement of Jesus Christ and the literal meaning of the Scriptures.  Since the Bible clearly teaches that we are only saved through the blood of Christ and His atonement and Graham “does not emphasize” this doctrine, how many of these  inquirers are actually being saved?  Notice that Martindale also says that this doctrine (as well as others) is the prerogative of the pastors, yet these individuals are not being sent back to churches (in most cases) where the pastor, priest, or rabbi will teach this doctrine.  This is spiritual suicide for these people.

The book, “Billy Graham and His Friends” can be ordered from www.wrwpublications.com
 

In order for the emerging church to succeed, the Bible has to be looked at through entirely different glasses, and Christianity needs to be open to a new type of faith. Brian McLaren calls this new faith a “generous orthodoxy.”1 While such an orthodoxy allows a smorgasbord of ideas to be proclaimed in the name of Christ, many of these ideas are actually forbidden and rejected by Scripture.

Pagitt believes that he is part of a cutting-edge response to the new postmodern world. It’s a response he and others see as completely unique, never having been tried before in the history of man. Pagitt states:

It seems to me that our post-industrial times require us to ask new questions-questions that people 100 years ago would have never thought of asking. Could it be that our answers will move us to re-imagine the way of Christianity in our world? Perhaps we as Christians today are not only to consider what it means to be a 21st century church, but also and perhaps more importantly-what it means to have a 21st century faith.2

Many people I meet at conferences who come from a wide variety of church backgrounds tell me the church they have been attending for years has radically changed. Their pastor no longer teaches the Bible. Instead, the Sunday morning service is a skit or a series of stories. The Bible seems to have become the forbidden book. While there are pastors who do still teach the Bible, they are becoming the exception rather than the rule.

Emergent leaders often say the message remains the same, but our methods must change if we are going to be relevant to our generation. The measure of success for many pastors today is how many are coming, rather than how many are listening and obeying what God has said in His Word. Let’s consider how Doug Pagitt uses the Bible in his own church. He states:

At Solomon’s Porch, sermons are not primarily about my extracting truth from the Bible to apply to people’s lives. In many ways the sermon is less a lecture or motivational speech than it is an act of poetry-of putting words around people’s experiences to allow them to find deeper connection in their lives… So our sermons are not lessons that precisely define belief so much as they are stories that welcome our hopes and ideas and participation.3

What Pagitt is describing is a contextual theology; that is, don’t use the Bible as a means of theology or measuring rod of truth and standards by which to live; and rather than have the Bible mold the Christian’s life, let the Christian’s life mold the Bible. That’s what Pagitt calls “putting words around people’s experiences.” As this idea is developed, emerging proponents have to move away from Bible teachings and draw into a dialectic approach. That way, instead of just one person preaching truth or teaching biblical doctrine, everyone can have a say and thus come to a consensus of what the Bible might be saying. Pagitt explains:

To move beyond this passive approach to faith, we’ve tried to create a community that’s more like a potluck: people eat and they also bring something for others. Our belief is built when all of us engage our hopes, dreams, ideas and understandings with the story of God as it unfolds through history and through us.4

You may not have heard the term before, but contextual theology is a prominent message from the emerging church. In his book, Models of Contextual Theology (1992), Stephen B. Bevans defines contextual theology as:

… a way of doing theology in which one takes into account: the spirit and message of the gospel; the tradition of the Christian people; the culture in which one is theologizing; and social change in that culture, whether brought about by western technological process or the grass-roots struggle for equality, justice and liberation.5

In other words, the Bible in, and of itself, is not free-standing-other factors (culture, ethnicity, history) must be taken into consideration, and with those factors, the message of the Bible must be adjusted to fit. As one writer puts it, “Contextual theology aims at the humanization of theology.”6 But two questions need to be asked. First, will the contextualizing of Scripture cause such a twisting of its truth that it no longer is the Word of God, and secondly, is Scripture ineffective without this contextualization? To the first, I give a resounding yes! And to the second, an absolute no. The Word of God, which is an inspired work of the living Creator, is far more than any human-inspired book and has been written in such a way that every human being, rich or poor, man or woman, intelligent or challenged will understand the meaning of the Gospel message if it is presented in their native language; and thanks to the tireless work of missionaries for centuries, the Gospel in native languages is becoming a reality in most cultures today.

Dean Flemming is a New Testament teacher at European Nazarene College in Germany and the author of Contextualization in the New Testament. In his book, he defends contextual theology:

Every church in every particular place and time must learn to do theology in a way that makes sense to its audience while challenging it at the deepest level. In fact, some of the most promising conversations about contextualization today (whether they are recognized as such or not) are coming from churches in the West that are discovering new ways of embodying the gospel for an emerging postmodern culture.7

These “churches in the West” Flemming considers “most promising” are the emerging churches. He would agree with Bevans’ model of theology, but he has an answer to the emerging church’s dilemma. He states:

Many sincere Christians are still suspicious that attempts to contextualize theology and Christian behavior will lead to the compromising of biblical truth … we must look to the New Testament for mentoring in the task of doing theology in our various settings.8

There’s good reason some Christians are suspicious. But it can seem harmless at first because Flemming suggests the answer is in the New Testament, which he believes should be used as a prototype or pattern rather than something for doctrine or theology. New Testament theology is always open for change, he says, but we can learn how to develop this change by studying New Testament stories and characters. The premise Flemming presents of contextualizing Scripture is that since cultures and societies are always changing, the Word must change with it and be conformed to these changes. But I would challenge this. The Bible says the Word is living, active, and powerful:

For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged 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)

And if the Word is this powerful, then it is stable and eternal as well. God, in His magnificence, is the Author of Scripture, and He surpasses time, culture, and societies. Contextualizing says people and cultures change, and therefore God’s Word must change. But, on the contrary, it’s people who need to change to conform to Scripture. If we really believe that the Bible is God’s Word, this would be clear to see; but if we think to ourselves that the Word is not infallible, not inspired, then contextualization would be the obvious expectation.

While certain parts of the Bible may be read as poetry (as Pagitt suggests), for indeed the Bible is a beautifully written masterpiece, it is also a living mechanism that is not to be altered-rather it alters the reader’s heart and life. It is much more than putting words around people’s experiences as emergents suggest.

The Bible tells us God is always right; it is man who is so often wrong. When we rely upon human consensus, we will end up with man’s perspective and not God’s revelation. This is a dangerous way to develop one’s spiritual life-the results can lead to terrible deception.

Brian McLaren put it well when he admitted it isn’t just the way the message is presented that emerging church proponents want to change … it’s the message itself they are changing:

It has been fashionable among the innovative [emerging] pastors I know to say, “We’re not changing the message; we’re only changing the medium.” This claim is probably less than honest … in the new church we must realize how medium and message are intertwined. When we change the medium, the message that’s received is changed, however subtly, as well. We might as well get beyond our naivete or denial about this….9

While reaching today’s generation for the cause of Christ is something we as Christians should all desire, we must remember Jesus Christ challenged us to follow Him and be obedient to His Word. Scripture commands us to “be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind” (Romans 12:2). But the emergents are leading followers in the opposite direction, teaching that the Word of God needs to be conformed to people and cultures instead of allowing it to conform lives through Jesus Christ…. reimagining Christianity allows a dangerous kind of freedom; like cutting the suspension ropes on a hot air balloon, the free fall may be exhilarating but the results catastrophic.(From Faith Undone (http://www.lighthousetrails.com/faithundone.htm), pp. 42-45.)

Click here for endnote references… http://www.lighthousetrailsresearch.com/blog/index.php?p=735&more=1&c=1

http://www.lighthousetrailsresearch.com/newsletter072307.htm

The message of the goddess has gained a hearing in the church as well. The philosophy of the goddess is currently being taught in the classrooms of some of our seminaries. In a growing number of seminaries the student population is becoming increasingly female, and many of these women have a feminist outlook on life. Mary Daly, who considers herself to be a Christian feminist, says this about traditional Christianity: “To put it bluntly, I propose that Christianity itself should be castrated.” The primary focus of the “Christian” feminist is to bring an end to what they perceive as male-dominated religion by “castrating” the male influence from religion. Daly continued by saying,

“I am suggesting that the idea of salvation uniquely by a male savior perpetuates the problem of patriarchal oppression.”(Alice Hageman, Theology After the Demise of God the Father: A Call for the Castration of Sexist Religion, New York: Association Press, 1974, 132.)

Reverend Susan Cady, co-author of Sophia: The Future of Feminist Spirituality and pastor of Emmanuel United Methodist Church in Philadelphia, is one example of the direction that Daly and others are taking the church. The authors of Sophia state that, “Sophia is a female, goddess-like figure appearing clearly in the Scriptures of the Hebrew tradition.”

Wisdom Feast, the authors’ latest book, clearly identifies Jesus with Sophia. Sophialogy presents Sophia as a separate goddess and Jesus as her prophet. The book takes liberty with Jesus by replacing the masculine deity with the feminine deity Sophia. Another example of how goddess “thealogy” (note feminist spelling for theology) is making its way into the liberal church is through seminars held on seminary campuses.

One such seminar was held at the Perkins School of Theology at Southern Methodist University. “Wisdomweaving: Woman Embodied in Faiths” was held at the school in February of 1990. If one looks at the schedule of the seminar, it is obvious that the emphasis was not on orthodoxy. Linda Finnell, a follower of Wicca and one of the speakers, spoke on the subject of “Returning to the Goddess Through Dianic Witchcraft.” Two of the keynote speakers were of a New Age persuasion. In fact, one, Sr. Jose Hobday, works with Matthew Fox and Starhawk at the Institute for Creation Spirituality.

http://www.probe.org/cults-and-world-religions/cults-and-world-religions/the-goddess-and-the-church.html [1]
Source URL:
http://www.thebereancall.org/node/6109

Buddhists, Catholics, Hindus, Muslims, Protestants Meditate for Peace [Exceprts]

ANURADHAPURA, Sri Lanka (UCAN) – Silence filled the soundproof room as people sat on the floor, their eyes closed.

This odd grouping of people in a strange setting seemed to be doing nothing.

They had come together at Nuwarawewa Rest House, a well-known tourist hotel in Anuradhapura, 200 kilometers (about 125 miles) north of Colombo.

Amid the barely audible hum of the air conditioners, more than 100 people – half of them local religious leaders, the other half lay guests – meditated on peace for six hours a day for five days, July 3-7.

Intense extended meditation was the cornerstone of the “Peace Building and Reconciliation” workshop run by Centre for Peace Building and Reconciliation (CPBR), which says meditation is common to all religions. So the Buddhists, Catholics, Hindus, Muslims and Protestants all sat in silence and meditated.

The organizers used silence to stress the urgent need for peace in a country plagued by decades of civil war between Tamil separatists and the Sinhalese-led government. They chose a conference room overlooking a large reservoir built by a long dead king that is renowned for its calm serenity.

To Sri Lankan Buddhists, ancient Anuradhapura is sacred because that is where bhavana (meditation) was introduced to Sri Lanka about 2,200 years ago.

Many locals and foreign tourists quietly watched the meditating people from corridors, an unusual sight in a tourist resort more attuned to entertainment.

Source URL:
http://www.thebereancall.org/node/5784
Links: [1] http://www.catholic.org/printer_friendly.php?id=24788&section=Cathcom

Even now a new form of the faith seems to be taking hold within the broad tradition of evangelicalism. Calling themselves “emerging Christians,” or in some instances “the Emergent Church,” a movement of mostly younger believers are re-shaping the traditional faith in ways that is creating excitement among some, and deep worry among more established Christian leaders.

This past February, Scot McKnight, a professor at North Park Seminary in Chicago wrote an article [detailing] the significance of this new movement within the traditional faith.

“Emerging churches are communities that practice the way of Jesus within postmodern cultures. This definition encompasses nine practices. Emerging churches identify with the life of Jesus, transform the secular realm, live highly communal lives, they welcome the stranger, serve with generosity, participate as producers, create as created beings, lead as a body, and take part in spiritual activities.”

For instance, one of the central concerns of the emergent Christian movement is the desire for their faith community to be all-inclusive — to welcome the stranger. This concern has resulted in high tolerance for people of other faiths. Emergent Christians have serious doubts about doctrinal ideas which hold that some are in and some are out — that is in or out with God.

Emergent Christians hear Jesus’ words, “Whoever is not against us is for us,” as a challenge to find ways to include rather than exclude others. This means, of course, that emerging Christians are not very evangelistic — at least in the traditional sense. For the most part we will not find them trying to convert people from one faith to another or from no faith to their faith.

Emergent Christians also tend toward a more liberal social view. They are concerned about the poor and about the environment. The emphasis here for emergent Christians is on serving and being generous. They think it is more important to live and act in faithful ways rather than obsessing about what we should believe. This concern for people and the world is not a stance related to any political party. For emerging Christians, caring about people in this world is their mission in life.

http://www.decaturdaily.com/decaturdaily/religion/columns/070428.shtml

[TBC: The person who truly cares about an individual is willing to share the “words of eternal life” (John 6:68) with them. Most "Emergent" Christians dismiss the authority of the Scriptures, deny the literal fulfillment of prophecy, and find reasons to excuse almost any behavior. They promote a Jesus conjured up from their own imagination and offer a gospel of good works centered on establishing “His” kingdom on earth. This is the old liberalism and communal counterculture dressed in biblical garb. Tragically, they are a magnet to today’s evangelical youth.]

www.thebereancall.org

By NICOLE WINFIELD, Associated Press Writer

Pope Benedict XVI has reasserted the universal primacy of the Roman Catholic Church, approving a document released Tuesday that says Orthodox churches were defective and that other Christian denominations were not true churches.

Benedict approved a document from his old offices at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith that restates church teaching on relations with other Christians. It was the second time in a week the pope has corrected what he says are erroneous interpretations of the Second Vatican Council, the 1962-65 meetings that modernized the church.

On Saturday, Benedict revisited another key aspect of Vatican II by reviving the old Latin Mass. Traditional Catholics cheered the move, but more liberal ones called it a step back from Vatican II.

Benedict, who attended Vatican II as a young theologian, has long complained about what he considers the erroneous interpretation of the council by liberals, saying it was not a break from the past but rather a renewal of church tradition.

In the latest document — formulated as five questions and answers — the Vatican seeks to set the record straight on Vatican II’s ecumenical intent, saying some contemporary theological interpretation had been “erroneous or ambiguous” and had prompted confusion and doubt.

It restates key sections of a 2000 document the pope wrote when he was prefect of the congregation, “Dominus Iesus,” which set off a firestorm of criticism among Protestant and other Christian denominations because it said they were not true churches but merely ecclesial communities and therefore did not have the “means of salvation.”

In the new document and an accompanying commentary, which were released as the pope vacations here in Italy’s Dolomite mountains, the Vatican repeated that position.

“Christ ‘established here on earth’ only one church,” the document said. The other communities “cannot be called ‘churches’ in the proper sense” because they do not have apostolic succession — the ability to trace their bishops back to Christ’s original apostles.

The Rev. Sara MacVane of the Anglican Centre in Rome, said there was nothing new in the document.

“I don’t know what motivated it at this time,” she said. “But it’s important always to point out that there’s the official position and there’s the huge amount of friendship and fellowship and worshipping together that goes on at all levels, certainly between Anglican and Catholics and all the other groups and Catholics.”

The document said Orthodox churches were indeed “churches” because they have apostolic succession and that they enjoyed “many elements of sanctification and of truth.” But it said they lack something because they do not recognize the primacy of the pope — a defect, or a “wound” that harmed them, it said.

“This is obviously not compatible with the doctrine of primacy which, according to the Catholic faith, is an ‘internal constitutive principle’ of the very existence of a particular church,” the commentary said.

Despite the harsh tone of the document, it stresses that Benedict remains committed to ecumenical dialogue.

“However, if such dialogue is to be truly constructive, it must involve not just the mutual openness of the participants but also fidelity to the identity of the Catholic faith,” the commentary said.

The document, signed by the congregation prefect, U.S. Cardinal William Levada, was approved by Benedict on June 29, the feast of Sts. Peter and Paul — a major ecumenical feast day.

There was no indication about why the pope felt it necessary to release the document, particularly since his 2000 document summed up the same principles. Some analysts suggested it could be a question of internal church politics, or that it could simply be an indication of Benedict using his office as pope to again stress key doctrinal issues from his time at the congregation.
 

Founder/Founding date: As a movement rather than an organized group, there is no founder or founding date, per se.  The philosophical roots extend to Gnosticism.  E.W. Kenyon (1860-?) was perhaps the earliest modern exponent to blend the movement’s eastern mystical and New Age elements with Christian teaching.

Official Publications: None.  Two prominent publications are Kenneth Copeland’s “Believer’s Voice of Victory” and Kenneth Hagin’s “The Word of Faith” magazines.  There are scores of books, newsletters, pamphlets by various authors Hagin, Kenyon, Copeland, Capps, Price, etc.

Organizational Structure: Has no key universally acknowledged leader or central headquarters.  The teachers of the movement all have their own churches and followings.

Unique Terms: The God-kind of faith; the force of faith; the Anointing; spirit-man; spiritual death of Christ; born-again Jesus; authority of the believer.

Other Names: Word-of-Faith, Positive Confession, Faith-formula, Health & Wealth Gospel.
 
HISTORY

Born in 1860, E. W. Kenyon is generally recognized as the founding father of the modern Word-Faith Movement.  Beginning as a Methodist, he became quite ecumenical, associating with the Baptists.  Some of his work even resulted in the founding of a few Primitive Baptist Churches.  Late in life, Kenyon moved into Pentecostalism.  At the same time, he combined elements of the metaphysical cults, such as Christian Science, New Thought theology, and Unity School of Christianity (D.R. McConnell, A Different Gospel, pp.31-35).  “The doctrines of correct thinking and believing accompanied by positive confession, with the result of calling a sickness a symptom (denial of reality supported by a Gnostic dualism) are not found in Christian writings until after New Thought and its offspring had begun to develop them.  Therefore, it is not unreasonable to state that the doctrine originated and developed in these cults, and was later absorbed by Christians in their quest to develop a healing ministry” (H. Terris Neuman, An Analysis of the Sources of the Charismatic Teaching of Positive Confession, p. 43).

Though obviously not the movement’s originator, some have also called Kenneth Hagin the “grand-daddy of the faith teachers” (Sherry Andrews, “Kenneth Hagin < Keeping the Faith,” Charisma, October 1981, p. 24).  In a survey of readers of Charisma (a major Charismatic magazine) concerning those ministers that influence them the most, Kenneth Hagin was 3rd, ranked behind only TV evangelist Pat Robertson, and the heir apparent to the Word-Faith movement throne, Kenneth Copeland (Kenneth Hagin, Jr., Charisma, “Trend Toward the Faith Movement,” August 1985, pp. 67-70).

DOCTRINE – GOD
           
Word-Faith teachers claim that God operates by spiritual law and is obliged to obey the faith-filled commands and desires of believers.  He not only reveals prosperity teaching supernaturally to the Word-Faith teachers, but personally and verbally confirms their unique interpretations of Scripture (Copeland, Laws of Prosperity, pp. 60-62).

They say the Abrahamic Covenant is the basis for commanding God to do His part in the covenant.  Robert Tilton says, “we make our own promises to do our part, then we can tell God, on the authority of His word, what we would like Him to do.  That’s right, you can actually tell God what you would like His part in the Covenant to be” (God’s Miracle Plan for Man, p. 36). Kenneth Copeland says, “as a believer, you have a right to make commands in the name of Jesus.  Each time you stand on the Word, you are commanding God to a certain extent, because it is His Word” (Our Covenant with God, p. 32).  Copeland goes so far as to say that “God was the lesser party and Abraham was the greater” in the covenant between them (Copeland, Legal and Vital Aspects of Redemption, 1985, Audio Tape #01-0403).

The Faith teachers also make God into a big man.  Copeland says, “God is…a being that stands somewhere around 6′-2,” 6′-3,” that weighs somewhere in the neighborhood of a couple of hundred pounds, little better, and has a hand span of nine inches across” (Spirit, Soul, and Body, 1985, Tape #01-0601).  Morris Cerillo, in an alleged out-of-body experience, describes God: “Suddenly, in front of this tremendous multitude of people, the glory of God appeared.  The form that I saw was about the height of a man 6 feet tall, maybe taller, and twice as broad as a human body, with no distinguishing features such as eyes, nose, or mouth” (The Miracle Book, pp. x-xi).

DOCTRINE – MAN

Word-Faith teachers say that not only is God a big man, but man is a little god.  Kenneth Hagin has asserted, “man…was created on terms of equality with God, and he could stand in God’s presence without any consciousness of inferiority…. He made us the same class of being that He is Himself…. He lived on terms equal with God…. The believer is called Christ, that’s who we are; we’re Christ” (Zoe: The God Kind of Life, pp. 35-36, 41).  “God’s reason for creating Adam was His desire to reproduce Himself…He was not a little like God.  He was not almost like God.  He was not subordinate to God even” (Copeland, Following the Faith of Abraham, 1989, Tape #01-3001).  He also proclaims, “You don’t have a God in you < you are one!” (Copeland, The Force of Love, 1987, Tape #02-0028).  Morris Cerillo says “the whole purpose of God was to reproduce Himself. …you’re not looking at Morris Cerillo, you’re looking at God, you’re looking at Jesus” (The End Time Manifestation of the Sons of God, Audio Tape 1, Sides 1 & 2).

DOCTRINE – CHRIST

The deity of Christ is compromised.  Kenneth Copeland, in relating what Christ supposedly told him, says, “don’t be disturbed when people accuse you of thinking you are God…the more you get to be like Me, the more they are going to think that way of you.  They crucified Me for claiming that I was God.  But I didn’t claim I was God.  I just claimed I walked with Him and that He was with Me” (Copeland, “Take Time to Pray,” Believer’s Voice of Victory, #15, 2 February 1987, p. 9).  “Jesus was on the earth just a man, not the son of God” (Frederick K.C. Price, Tape #RP 19, May 1993).  And Kenneth Hagin says, “You are as much the incarnation of God as Jesus Christ was” (The Word of Faith, December 1980, p. 14).

DOCTRINE – ATONEMENT
 
The very important doctrine of the atonement of Christ is distorted.  Frequently Word-Faith teachers unduly over-emphasize the spiritual death instead of the physical death of Christ.  “Physical death will not remove sins” (Hagin, The Name of Jesus, p. 29).  In other words, it took the spiritual death of Jesus to atone for sins.  “Do you think that the punishment of our sins was to die on the cross?  If that was the case, the two thieves could have paid our price.  No, the punishment was to go into hell itself and to serve time in hell separated from God” (K. C. Price, Ever Increasing Faith Messenger, June 1990, p. 7).

According to Word-Faith teachers, when Adam rebelled, or “committed high treason,” he not only betrayed God by turning over to Satan what God had given him, he also took on the nature of Satan.  So, to redeem mankind and creation from Satan’s legal control, Jesus, as the second Adam, had to die not only physically but spiritually.  This may be acceptable among some evangelicals.  But where it has led Word-Faith teachers is not.  They say Jesus not only bore our sins on Calvary, but also took on the actual nature of Satan himself.  “Just as Adam died spiritually, Jesus died spiritually.  The spiritual death He suffered caused His physical body to die…. When Jesus accepted the sin nature of Satan into His Spirit He cried ‘My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?’ He was separated from God… He was ushered into the bowels of hell” (Kenneth Copeland, Classic Redemption, p. 13; emphasis added).  “Spiritual death means having Satan’s nature” (Hagin, The Name of Jesus, p. 31).

Just a man on earth, and taking on the nature of Satan at the cross, Jesus becomes just a sinner in need of redemption.  At the resurrection Jesus is a born again man from the pit of hell.  “Jesus was born again in the pit of Hell….The Church started when Jesus was born again in the gates of Hell” (Charles Capps, Authority In Three Worlds, pp. 212 13).

OTHER DOCTRINES
    
1) Positive Confession: The Theology of the Spoken Word (Rhematology), or thought actualization, is commonly known as positive confession.  It stresses the inherent power of words and thoughts.  Each person predestines his own future by what he says verbally and by how well he uses spiritual laws.  As such, it is as if we live in a mechanistic universe instead of a personal one (see, Kenneth Copeland, Laws of Prosperity, p. 15; Charles Capps, The Tongue A Creative Force, pp. 117-118; Releasing the Ability of God, pp. 98-99, 101-104).

2) The Gospel of Health: Isaiah 53 is used to justify blanket coverage for the physical healing of every Christian who has enough faith.  “…it is the plan of our Father God in His great love and His great mercy that no believer should ever be sick, that every believer should live his life full span down here on earth and that every believer should finally just fall asleep in Jesus” (Hagin, Seven Things You Should Know About Divine Healing, p. 21).  Hagin also denies having a headache for forty-five years, labeling such as “simply symptoms rather than any indication of a headache” (In the Name of Jesus, p. 44).

3) The Gospel of Wealth: A central tenet of the prosperity gospel is that God wills the financial prosperity of every Christian.  If a believer lives in poverty, he/she is living outside God’s intended will.  “You must realize that it is God’s will for you to prosper” (Copeland, Laws of Prosperity, p. 51).
 
BIBLICAL RESPONSE

1) God is the unique, Sovereign of the Universe (1 Timothy 6:15).  God is pure spirit (John 4:24).  There is no biblical basis for teaching that God has His own body, as an essential part of His nature or being.  This would be more in line with Mormonism than orthodox Christianity.

2) Man is unique from the rest of Creation, but is not Divine.  He was created in the image of God (Genesis 1:26, 27; 9:6), but bearing God’s image does not make him a “little god.”  By definition, God is an “uncreated” or self-existent Being.  Obviously, humans were created and therefore are not self-existent or divine; only God has a divine nature (Galatians 4:8; Isaiah 1:6-11, 43:10, 44:6; Ezekiel 28:2; Psalms 8:6-8).

3) Christ is Eternal, the Only Begotten Son, and the Only Incarnation of God (John 1:1, 2, 15; 1:14, 18; 3:16; 1 John 4:1).  In Him dwelt the fullness of the Godhead bodily (Colossians 2:9).  By receiving the limitations of humanity (Philippians 2:6-7) Jesus forwent the exercise of some of His prerogatives as God.  But He did not cease to be God.  It is also impossible for the natures of God or man (Christ was both on earth) to cease being what they are.

4) The nature of the atonement had to do with Jesus’ physical death on the cross being the payment for sins (Hebrews 9:22).  Christ said, “It is finished” (John 19:30), which translates tetelistai meaning “paid for in full.”  Payment for our sins took place on the cross (Matt. 26:28; 1 Pet. 2:24; Col. 1:20-22; Heb. 10:10, 12, 14, 19 20). There was nothing more to pay beyond the cross (Heb. 10:18).

5) God is the only One who ever created reality by the power of His Word (Genesis 1:3).  He does not have or need “faith.”  Faith is depending on something outside ourselves.  If God depends upon something outside Himself, He is not Supreme and therefore not God.  Man, not God, is in need of faith.  The faith referenced in Mark 11:22 and Hebrews 11:3 is clearly “the faith which has God as its object,” not “the kind of faith that God has.”

6) The use of words for Positive Confession < One may help or hurt another by words of encouragement or condemnation, by telling the truth or misleading, etc.  But to treat words as if they were some “star wars” type weapon by which reality is manipulated or altered is not biblical, but occultic.
 
RESOURCES
           
A Different Gospel (Updated Edition) D.R. McConnell. Warns of the movement’s cultic nature in its doctrine of healing and its understanding of the atonement, and demonstrates how far the movement’s doctrine of prosperity is from Scripture’s true teaching. Chapter end-notes, Bibliography, 195 pages, softcover. $8.

Christianity in Crisis, Hank Hanegraaff.  Documents the antibiblical doctrines of the Word-Faith Movement and shows their systematic subversion of the historic Christian faith.  Appendices, Notes, Bibliography, Scripture and Subject indexes, 447 pages, hardcover. $17

Profile is a regular feature of the Watchman Expositor published by Watchman Fellowship, Inc. Readers are encouraged to begin their own religious research notebooks using these articles.  Back issues of Profile are made available at a nominal fee.  Resource items are subject to changes in availability and price.  Free subscriptions may be ordered from the subscription page.
          
© Copyright 2000 Watchman Fellowship, Inc.. All rights reserved. Address all technical questions and comments to our webmaster.