A headline from USA Today grabbed my attention this weekend: “Religious family abandons U.S., gets lost at sea.” Yep, you don’t see that one every day. It feeds right into the media frenzy about Christians being crazy freaks. But that isn’t how I was thinking about this news item. Let me quote from the article before I give my thoughts.
A northern Arizona family that was lost at sea for weeks in an ill-fated attempt to leave the U.S. over what they consider government interference in religion will fly back home Sunday.
Hannah Gastonguay, 26, said Saturday that she and her husband “decided to take a leap of faith and see where God led us” when they took their two small children and her father-in-law and set sail from San Diego for the tiny island nation of Kiribati in May….
Hannah Gastonguay said her family was fed up with government control in the U.S. As Christians they don’t believe in “abortion, homosexuality, in the state-controlled church,” she said.
U.S. “churches aren’t their own,” Gastonguay said, suggesting that government regulation interfered with religious independence.
Among other differences, she said they had a problem with being “forced to pay these taxes that pay for abortions we don’t agree with.”
The Gastonguays weren’t members of any church, and Hannah Gastonguay said their faith came from reading the Bible and through prayer.
“The Bible is pretty clear,” she said….
Hannah Gastonguay said the family will now “go back to Arizona” and “come up with a new plan.”
This family’s foolish escapade provides the perfect illustration of the “martyr complex” that seems quite prevalent among American Christians.
Christians think we have it so rough in America. It is unjust that the government permits homosexual marriage or allows abortions. The government requires building permits and safety codes, and encroaches on our liberties in other ways, too. What makes this especially difficult is the perception that America was once a truly Christian nation.
Now, I’m not trying to belittle abortion and the marriage issue. These are important concerns. But do you think that Paul and the early Christians might not have chafed at the treatment they received from the hands of Nero? Were there calls for Christians to vacate Rome? Now, in the face of actual persecution with actual deaths and severe punishments being meted out, I definitely think we have to allow for the “get out of Dodge” option. But American Christians today, for the most part, know nothing of that sort of real persecution.
The mention of persecution, however, brings up a great point. Jesus promised us that in the world we would “have tribulation” (John 16:33). He said we would be “hated by all for [His] name’s sake” (Matt. 10:22). Paul promised us that “through many tribulations we must enter the kingdom of God” (Acts 14:22). The word wasn’t to flee for your lives but to stay and “endure to the end.”
It is far easier to set our hopes in a Christian “Geneva,” so to speak. To aim for a “holy huddle till the rapture,” and find solace in a counter-culture society that some might call a cult. It’s easier if everyone you have to interact with thinks like you do, and looks like you do. That’s much nicer than having to deal with the ugly realities of being a light in a dark world. It’s easier to tuck tail and run. But we aren’t called to that. We are called to: “be blameless and innocent, children of God without blemish in the midst of a crooked and twisted generation, among whom [we are to be shining] as lights in the world, holding fast to the word of life” (Phil. 2:15-16).
I don’t have time to more fully develop these thoughts, so I’ll encourage you to read other similar posts on this topic. But while I’m at it, what are your thoughts on this question? Do you feel the urge to hunker down and hide? Is that right or wrong? Am I too harsh on this poor family from Arizona?
Finally, the long-awaited interview of Rick Warren by John Piper has posted. Just last week, the 90 minute interview was released. I found the interview interesting and informative. I do think Rick Warren has gotten a bad wrap from us Reformed folk.
Warren doesn’t like to identify with the Calvinist label. Can we really blame him? He wishes that proponents of the Doctrines of Grace would be more gracious. I wish the same.
In the interview, it comes out that Warren is a monergist and believes in unconditional election. He’s uneasy with limited atonement as popularly conceived. His book The Purpose Driven Life was not originally intended for unbelievers, and he never expected it to sell as well as it did. Warren bemoans some of what he said in the book, wishing he would have been more clear in his emphasis on repentance.
Piper has very little criticism of The Purpose Driven Life really, and the book is what the interview is primarily about. Piper is aghast at some of the bitter reviews he’s read of the book. In Piper’s reading of it, he just doesn’t see it that way.
John Piper does challenge Rick Warren with regards to ensuring the legacy he leaves through his influence over thousands of pastors is one that encourages them to go deep and to explicitly root their ministries in theology. Part of Piper’s aim in the interview too, is “that the thousands of pastors and lay people who look to Rick for inspiration and wisdom will see the profound place that doctrine has in his mind and heart.”
I believe that Warren took the opportunity to clarify himself and his ministry and ran with it. He knew he was speaking to many critical voices through this interview. That said, he doesn’t come across as artificial or canned. The impression I got is that it’s the same Rick Warren, and that he’s been misunderstood more than people are willing to admit.
Am I now a rip roaring Warren guy? No. I’m cautious still with Warren’s ministry. But I am happy to have heard what I did of it. I’m more optimistic and hopeful for him and his influence. I’m also thankful that people like John Piper are willing to interact with people like Rick Warren. I think that there is a friendship budding here which can have a positive effect both ways. Piper can be encouraged to be more practical and think bigger dreams, and Warren can be challenged to be more explicit about how theology shapes his vision, and to be more careful with his influence over pastors all over the world.
The naysayers and critics will dismiss this interview altogether. They’ve already judged Warren (contrary to Romans 14), and now are going to be even tougher and more critical of John Piper. But I am willing to bet that if you listen to Piper’s three conference messages shared at Saddleback last month, you won’t find him back-pedaling. Piper apparently didn’t end up speaking at Saddleback church beyond the DG conference that Saddleback hosted. But 2,000 people attended the conference and so an important message was shared to the people who were in attendance.
I’ve spoken my mind about the Warren-Piper scandal before You can see several posts on this question here. And I’m willing to hope for the best on this. I doubt we’ll see Piper waver and falter in his message now. I am not sure we’ll see Warren change. But I hope people are challenged to think through secondary separation and other matters that something like this raises. Do we have to be ultra-critical of anyone not quite like us? Do we have to think the worst when we see a 2 minute video clip of someone being grilled on Larry King Live? Can we agree to disagree on such questions over someone’s ministry? Is it okay that I approve of Piper’s embrace of Warren and that you disapprove of it? Can we still be friends and get along?
I hope this scandal is behind us now. God will be (and is) the judge. We can rest in His sovereignty. Until then, remember, we’re not ministering on behalf of Piper or Warren or anyone else. We have to be faithful with where God has put us. I’m not of Piper or of Warren. I’m of Christ. But I respect both of these men and pray God’s continued blessing on their ministry.
Most of you have probably heard of the Ergun Caner scandal. Caner, a dynamic speaker, was dean of Liberty University until recently. He came under fire for making self-contradictory statements about his past. He was raised Muslim and it seems that after 9/11/2001 his memories about his past changed in a dramatic fashion. I haven’t been following the scandal all that closely, but there must be truth to it as Liberty deposed him from his position as dean (although they keep him on as a professor, still).
Anyway, Tom Chantry of Christ Reformed Baptist Church in Milwaukee, put out a series of articles in which he set the Caner story in a wider context of evangelicalism’s ills. The posts which most caught my attention centered on Charles Finney and his legacy left to evangelicalism. Chantry views Caner as being a step-child of Finney’s in a sense. Caner’s appeal and widespread acceptance could only have happened in a post-Finney evangelical world.
The reason I’m including fundamentalism in this post, is I believe Chantry’s comments about how Finney shaped evangelicalism apply equally to fundamentalism. In this post I’m going to summarize Chantry’s 3 posts and quote extensively from the last post. I would encourage you to read the entire series however and study out the issue of Charles Finney even further, if you haven’t already.
Encountering Finney
In the first post, Chantry describes his horror of reading through much of Finney’s systematic theology book in school. He was absolutely stunned that someone who believed in a works-oriented salvation scheme to appease an angry god could be accepted as a Christian minister worth emulating. That will sound incredulous if you haven’t heard of Finney’s aberrant theology before. Apparently his theology has been edited down through the years but even still, it is readily apparent that he denied substitutionary atonement. Along the way, according to Chantry, he redefined such fundamental terms as “faith” and “justification”. For more on Finney’s bad theology, read this piece by Phil Johnson.
Charles Finney’s Step-children
In the next piece, we learn how Finney became so influential among evangelicals (who could never be the true children of Finney as they would never accept his godless theology of self-reformation). I appreciate Chantry’s care to distinguish true evangelicals from Finney and his belief that many who revere Finney have been mislead and themselves are genuinely Christian. We learn how it was the methodology of Finney which was most revered, even though those who used it should have looked into the theology behind that methodology. I have previously written of Finney’s impact on evangelicalism through his invention of the altar call. Chantry confirms my research that the altar call seemed to originate from Finney.
…And Finney Begat Caner…
Chantry’s third installment (and I believe one more is coming this week), centers on the connection between Finney and Caner. Caner again would only be a step-child not a true child of Finney. Chantry points out how evangelicalism as a whole has been primed to recieve characters like Caner. I will now quote from the third article at some length.
Without Finney, there could have been no Caner. The reason is that Finney’s influence has created an atmosphere within the Evangelical church in which Caner’s style of preaching, and indeed his multiple deceptions, might flourish.
I have argued that the Caner scandal belongs to all evangelicals. His behavior is a reflection on the state of the evangelical church at large, and we must all take ownership of what has happened. What exactly is the state of post-Finney Evangelicalism, and how has it allowed for the likes of Ergun Caner?
After introducing things, Chantry goes on to discuss several characteristics of Evangelicalism that are Finney’s legacy and also apply to Caner’s appeal.
Evangelical Manipulation
Finney’s manipulation consisted of the “artful, unfair, and insidious” control of the emotional state of his hearers in order to bring about a “decision” which was anything but. We make decisions when we decide to take a certain course of action, generally after thoughtful consideration. Finney’s “decision” had nothing to do with thought. His hearers were whipped into a terror over the thought of hell. This sudden emotional state was a work of Finney’s art, and he knew how to mold it into a decision to follow God. He utilized every form of pressure to bring about the desired end.
Over the years evangelists have learned that other emotions can be equally well utilized to bring about a decision. Various moral crusaders have capitalized upon a manufactured sense of outrage, while missions promoters have made an equally good use of pity. Often these tactics are aimed at producing a donation, but there is no reason why they cannot be turned to the purposes of Finneyite evangelist as well.
Any emotion will do, provided that the speaker can stoke that emotion into flames and that he has the skill to turn it in whichever direction he chooses.
He goes on to show how Caner’s sensational comments about his Muslim heritage were an attempt to manipulate crowds for a positive end. Evangelists do similar things all the time in evangelicalism, and especially in Fundamentalism. Tear-jerking stories, sensational yarns, missionary stories that raise the hair on the back of your neck… I’ve seen and heard them all.
Evangelical Entertainment
As Finneyism first spread, a dramatic shift in worship services began. Finney looked to bring about decisions by whatever means were available. As a result, services began to become more dramatic. The mentality of doing whatever it took to draw in crowds began to take hold around the country. Music was used in a new way in churches – to entertain rather than to worship.
We know the circus atmosphere which this mentality has bred in the modern church. No spectacle is too outrageous if it can have the outcome of making sinners more open to “making a decision for Jesus.” This is perhaps Finney’s enduring legacy in the church. Thanks to his methods, the exemplary pastor is no longer so much a shepherd or a teacher as he is an entertainer.
Again, we can see how Finney paved the way for an Ergun Caner to rise to prominence within the church. Many have observed that he is essentially a stand-up comic. His sermons are long on humorous anecdotes and short on doctrinal truth. One listens to his sermons and can easily imagine a “preacher” who has to go home and “come up with some new material” before he goes out on tour again. In Caner’s case that has meant a steady diet of racial stereotypes and soft ethnic slurs. He can refer to his wedding as “The Godfather meets the Beverly Hillbillies” and everyone has someone to laugh at.
It ought to be hard to figure out what this sort of talk has to do with gospel preaching, but in modern Evangelicalism we can all too easily imagine. Preachers are not thought effective unless they keep their congregation laughing. Those who listen to Caner’s more outrageous pulpit moments may wonder why the churches have put up with him. The answer is that he is truly funny. Most people couldn’t say the things he says and get a laugh, but he is a gifted comedian. In the post-Finney evangelical culture, gifted comedians always have a place in the pulpit.
Again, pulpit antics and over-the-top humor are things I’ve repeatedly observed in many sectors of fundamentalism too. It makes sense that this emphasis on style (anyone remember Billy Sunday?) flows out of a Finneyesque evangelicalism.
Evangelical Growth
If the entertainment-driven services of the modern church are not Finney’s great legacy, then it certainly must be the numbers-mania which now dominates our evaluation of evangelists. Finney thrived on the number of decisions made at his meetings. He counted his converts and published the numbers. There were no other criteria on which Finney could have become popular – let alone a sensation – within the Christian world. Ever since, Christians have been rating evangelists based upon the numbers they produce.
This part ties in to Caner in that his dramatic work at increasing student enrollment has in part justified keeping him at Liberty. Anyone familiar with fundamentalism, especially the Jack Hyles wing of the movement, knows numbers are everything.
Evangelical Relativism
But there is more. Finney, the prophet of moralism, fostered an insidious relativism in the church.
Finney’s theology was man-centered in more ways than one. While it is true that his theology began with God as the moral governor of the universe, his concern with morality was entirely what it said about the future condition of man. He did not concern himself overmuch with the glory of God…. It is not surprising that within his moral system any action may be justified so long as it results in a sinner deciding to follow God. Finney’s approach to evangelism crystallized this relativism; the end of conversion justified the means of manipulative and often blasphemous evangelism….
Today’s evangelists are unlikely to be given a pass if they seek to accomplish the expansion of the kingdom through adultery. There is, however, one sin which is always forgiven. Evangelists may always lie. Any lie is justifiable when it is told for the sake of winning the lost to Christ.
I grew up in a Reformed enclave isolated from the shenanigans of modern evangelists, so I can never forget the first altar call I ever saw from a Finneyite practitioner. Right after he told everyone to bow his head and close his eyes (I didn’t) he told a lie: “I’m not going to ask you to come up front.” It wasn’t just a lie; it was a dumb lie. Even I could tell that the only reason he said it was because he was about to start asking folks to come up front.
Having told one lie, the evangelist got on a roll. He said he just wanted people to raise their hands so that he could pray for them. I sat in the back of that crowded church and watched a sea of heads bowed while the preacher began to call out, “You over there on the right, I’m praying for you! And you, sister, down here in front, I’m praying for you!” Except no one – and I do mean no one – was raising his hand. The man just couldn’t stop lying! Of course as soon as everyone was convinced that they wouldn’t be the first to raise a hand, hands started flying up all over the room. Then he made those poor, deluded people come up front.
The man lied, didn’t he? Broke a commandment? Did what even our smallest children know to be a major sin? It seemed so to me, and it ought to seem so to every Christian. Yet it does not. Within the evangelical culture what he did was perfectly understandable. He got people to the front of the church, and numbers are what matters.
I’m sure many of you, like me, can identify with Chantry and his observations about this altar call experience. Evangelists stretch the truth to get decisions, and ultimately numbers.
This post went a little long, but I wanted to highlight these various aspects of Finney’s impact on evangelicalism. Ultimately he impacted fundamentalism too. I believe fundamentalists of today are waking up to the errors of Finney. I hope future generations will see a more careful evangelicalism too.
Most of you have probably heard of the Ergun Caner scandal. Caner, a dynamic speaker, was dean of Liberty University until recently. He came under fire for making self-contradictory statements about his past. He was raised Muslim and it seems that after 9/11/2001 his memories about his past changed in a dramatic fashion. I haven’t been following the scandal all that closely, but there must be truth to it as