“The pastors of America have metamorphosed into a company of shopkeepers and the shops they keep are churches. They are preoccupied with shopkeeper’s concerns-how to keep the customers happy, how to lure customers away from competitors down the street, how to package the goods so that the customers will lay out more money. The marketing strategies of the fast-food franchise occupy the waking minds of these entrepreneurs; while asleep they dream of the kind of success that will get the attention of journalists.” —Eugene Peterson
Peterson’s statement strikes at the root of the modern evangelical church today. Don’t speak on controversial issues. Make sure your social media strategy keeps up with the latest trends. Watch where the “market” is driving the tastes of the most “customers” and shift your marketing strategy in that direction. God help us.
What might look like “market dominance” and “success” in this false narrative for so many of these types of ministries will turn out to be more like cotton candy. Appealing to the eyes and the flesh, and yet truly amounting to just a little bit of colored sugar spun into a frenzy that appeals to children and those who hunger for flash over substance.
Give me a church where men stand before their congregation and open up their Bibles and thunder, “Thus says the Lord.” They aren’t harvesting social media followers or their brand. They aren’t gathering up lieutenants who are loyal to them more than to Jesus. No, these men and the churches they lead are content to be faithful and be forgotten.
These types of men aren’t tending to their shops, strategizing how they can better market to the masses under the guise that they are doing evangelism. These men are more on their knees than on TikTok, more in the Word than on Instagram. Instead of selfies they are selfless. Instead of harvesting followers, they are walking with the Savior in humble obedience.
It’s not flashy. It’s doesn’t draw a crowd. But the world doesn’t need a phenom, or a CEO. We need pastors who will gently lead us to Jesus.
“How blessed is the man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked, Nor stand in the way of sinners, Nor sit in the seat of scoffers! But his delight is in the law of Yahweh, And in His law he meditates day and night. And he will be like a tree firmly planted by streams of water, Which yields its fruit in its season And its leaf does not wither; And in whatever he does, he prospers.” Ps 1:1–3 (LSB)
I believe that Psalm 1 sits at the beginning of the sacred psalter because it lays before its readers (and singers) a theme that is apparent throughout—that there are two significant influences upon the hearts of man, the influence of the wicked and the godly.
The blessed man or woman has discriminating tastes in what comes into his or her mind and heart. Discernment means that the godly do not give space to the counsels of those who hate God and His word. They don’t travel with them, nor stand and converse, nor will they sit and take counsel together. The blessings of the righteous are not simply that they receive the Word (His law) and meditate upon them. Yes, this is true. But the blessings also include the omission of the poisonous influences of the wicked as well.
This is essential for many modern Christians to consider because we often like to “have our cake and eat it too,” as the saying goes. In an outmoded time and place, Christians used to speak and write about the need for Christians to be “consecrated.” By this, they meant that followers of Christ were to be set apart and declared holy. As unattainable as it might be, perfect purity was still longed for and sought after. I don’t remember when I last heard a sermon on consecration, nor did I hear another Christian reference this seemingly antiquated idea.
Has “consecration” been rightly relegated to the dustbin of concepts we have “grown out of” as modern Christians who fear being called “fundamentalists” more than being called “worldly?” Have we matured to the point when we can have a heaping dose of wicked counsel alongside a large scoop of sound doctrine and be unharmed?
This type of thinking reminds me of a video I recently saw of two boys bailing water out of a sinking boat. One was bailing the water out of the boat, while the other was unintentionally adding water to another part of the little boat. No matter how hard they tried, they couldn’t get the boat to stay afloat.
Let’s be honest. I have heard Christians claim that they can watch filthy things at the movies and on TV and that it doesn’t affect them spiritually. Maybe they are somehow stronger spiritually than most. But Psalm 1 seems to say that the blessed one won’t do that. They won’t sit down with the ones who will mock Christ and learn from them. They won’t walk with the ones who justify sin. And they won’t stand as if one of the unregenerate and converse as if our worlds and eternal destinies are the same—because they aren’t.
I’m not advocating for a legalistic set of rules and acceptable practices for Christians. That’s been done and has failed miserably. But I am saying that some of us need to consider what we permit to influence our thinking and lifestyles. We can’t hope to be totally separated, as the Amish have tried and failed, because that isn’t what Christ has called us to do. We can’t escape the world by isolationism. Instead, we need to be set apart as holy, preferring the company of God and His people and the Word to the company and wisdom of this world. By this, I don’t mean we physically separate or stay apart from interacting with our unbelieving neighbor. We dare not do that for the sake of the gospel and for the influence of this world. However, there is a big difference between engaging with people as Jesus did and engaging in their sinful activities, which Jesus did not do.
I think as we do this, we will see our lives, our families, and our churches grow more spiritually healthy and vibrant, like trees planted by streams of water. And as we grow in spiritual health, the taste of the world’s wisdom will begin to fade away and lose its allure.
“Then Satan stood up against Israel and incited David to number Israel.”1 Chronicles 21:1 (LSB)
A few quick thoughts I had as I read the above words:
1. When Satan wanted to attack a group (in this case, Israel) he went t after their leader.
2. Satanic attack often comes in the form of temptations. For David it was pride.
3. Satan didn’t cause David to act. He simply presented an opportunity to trip himself up. David was completely guilty for his actions.
4. Although not stated in the above verse, the consequences of David’s actions don’t only hurt him, but affect a large group of those who depend upon his faithful leadership.
If you’re a Christian leader of any kind, be wary. Our enemy is looking for someone to devour. Don’t let it be you or those entrusted to your care.
“Moreover, Jehoshaphat said to the king of Israel, “Please inquire first for the word of Yahweh.” Then the king of Israel gathered the prophets together, about four hundred men, and said to them, “Shall I go against Ramoth-gilead to battle or shall I refrain?” And they said, “Go up, for the Lord will give it into the hand of the king.” But Jehoshaphat said, “Is there not yet a prophet of Yahweh here that we may inquire of him?”” (1 Kings 22:5–7 LSB)
As I was reading the passage above, I noticed something I hadn’t seen before in my previous readings in 1 Kings.
King Jehoshaphat requested that King Ahab first inquire about the will of God before agreeing to go to war with him. Ahab obliged by calling 400 so-called prophets who told him that the Lord approved of the war.
But Jehoshaphat was not fooled. Something didn’t sit right with the message these prophets gave. The text doesn’t tell us why, but Jehoshaphat didn’t accept these 400 prophets as speaking from the Lord. As a matter of fact, this is what caught my eye.
Again, it says in verse 7, “But Jehoshaphat said, “Is there not yet a prophet of Yahweh here that we may inquire of him?”” It is almost as if the king told Ahab, “Yes, yes, I have heard the popular opinion of all these men, but…don’t you have any actual prophets of Yahweh, or only these fakers? I’d actually like to hear what Yahweh has to say.”
Ahab doesn’t seem to be confused because he knows that his sleight of hand trick hasn’t worked. He knows that he has been keeping the good stuff in the back and hasn’t brought out the real prophet of Yahweh. Ahab wasn’t looking for truth, only for a confirmation of his preconceived plans.
You know, some people claim to want the truth, but they want their truth, as the current foolishness of our day would say. But the truth is a stubborn thing. Something is either true or it is not. And the number of people you get to back a lie doesn’t increase its truthfulness. A lie is always a lie no matter how many false prophets can lip-sync in unison the siren song of the culture or popular opinion.
We need to ask ourselves this as well. Do I really want to know the truth, or am I wanting to fit in, to follow with the cool crowd (whoever the “cool kids” might currently be)?
Appeals to “science” or straw man arguments, or the number of books written or Instagram followers may sway those who want to affirm their own preconceived notions, but popularity and doctrine don’t equal truth. Whether it is the cultural doctrines of gender politics, abortion, or feminism, or the theological doctrines of eschatology, pneumatology, or ecclesiology. Memes don’t prove the truth. Mic drop blog posts and Facebook rants bring more heat than light.
What we need is to hear a true prophet of Yahweh speak. God has spoken, and He has done so perfectly in His Word. So, instead of gathering polemics and talking points from Fox News, CNN, Twitter, or YouTube, for those of us called out by Christ, let’s open our Bibles and listen to God speak.
In the 2017 World War II movie, The Darkest Hour, Winston Churchill cries out in frustration, “You cannot reason with a tiger when your head is in its mouth!” Although these words are more than likely an artistic embellishment for cinema, they do fairly sum up Churchill’s frustration with the policies of Neville Chamberlain that sought to appease Adolph Hitler by ignoring his aggressions in Europe. Chamberlain truly believed that by signing the Munich Agreement and giving the Sudetenland to Germany along with Hitler’s promise not to continue invading other nations, that Europe would be saved. Chamberlain famously came home and declared that they he had achieved “peace for our time.” Chamberlain thought Hitler was a misunderstood man, when he was in fact the blood-thirsty tiger that would never be satisfied. Churchill understood this and knew that war was the only way to stop him.
The notion of appeasement is not only shared among politicians. Unfortunately, in a world that requires vigilance and sometimes engagement in theological battles, there are those who would seek appeasement and compromise for the sake of “peace in our time.” But as I hope to demonstrate with some examples from recent history, appeasement, and compromise in the face of theological liberalism are always the easier route, but they never achieve the promise they claim.
Setting the Stage: The Fundamentalist and Modernist Controversy
To be clear, we need to understand that prior to the mid-19th century, “evangelical” was synonymous with “fundamentalism.” All Christians who identified with the evangel, the gospel message of Christ, were “evangelicals.” Fundamentalism was a movement that derived its name from those evangelical Christians that sought unity across denominational lines but were committed to certain “fundamental” doctrines that have been accepted by historic Christianity. The number of these fundamentals varied at times, but they almost always included:
The inerrancy of Scripture
The virgin birth of Christ
The substitutionary vicarious atonement of Christ
The bodily resurrection of Christ
The reality of miracles
The imminent and physical return of Christ
Fundamentalists stated that a person had to minimally ascribe to these core doctrines to be within the historic Christian Church because a denial of these doctrines often leads to a wholesale denial of the faith. Modernists (theological liberals), on the other hand, wanted to focus not on the content of belief, but rather the feeling or spirit of Christianity. By denying the need to subscribe to core doctrines of the faith, they could cover the fact that they denied many or all of them, while still insisting they were a part of the Christian church and represented Christianity.
Fundamentalism rejected this minimalistic and emotion drive religion as inadequate at best, and heretical at worst. Several courageous defenders rose up in obedience to Scripture’s call to purify the church:
2 John 9–11 (ESV): “Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God. Whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting, for whoever greets him takes part in his wicked works.”
Galatians 1:8–9 (ESV): “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.”
1 Timothy 6:20–21 (ESV): “O Timothy, guard the deposit entrusted to you. Avoid the irreverent babble and contradictions of what is falsely called “knowledge,” for by professing it some have swerved from the faith. Grace be with you.”
By the middle of the 19th century, theological liberalism has already entered almost all mainline denominations. This was possible because liberal theologians subscribed to the biblical creeds of their denominations and institutions while at the same time teaching non-evangelical theology. Following German liberal Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768-1834), modernists asserted that Christianity was not primarily about doctrine, but rather a “feeling, intuition and experience.”[1] As such, Schleiermacher set the stage for the setting aside of doctrine in favor of a Christianity that affirmed a faith based upon feelings and experiences.
Along with the growth of liberal Christianity came a desire to put aside doctrinal differences among different denominations to bring unity around an ecumenical spirit. This led to the establishment of the World Council of Churches in 1948, made up of “churches which accept our Lord Jesus Christ as God and Savior.”[2] That brief doctrinal statement was all that was required of those joining the WCC, and none were required to expand on what they meant by those words.
Often portrayed as ignorant, uneducated, backwards, anti-science, and anti-progressive by liberals, and “fighting fundamentalists,” uncharitable, ungracious, and divisive, by evangelicals, the fundamentalists stood their ground and called the church to put out of its churches, missions agencies, educational institutions, and para-church organizations all those that were unfaithful to Christ and His Word. But not everyone within evangelicalism agreed with them, thinking there was a better way—a middle way.
My next post will highlight two examples of this attempt to navigate a middle way.
[1] Iain H. Murray, Evangelicalism Divided: A Record of Crucial Change in the Years 1950 to 2000 (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth Trust, 2000), 5.
Always Reforming 