I was reading through a detailed article in Chicago Magazine (starts on pt. 78) on Jack Schaap’s fall and the history and legacy of First Baptist Church of Hammond, IN (HT: Sharper Iron Filings; more on Schaap here), and I came across an excellent description of what makes a church a cult. I added the numbers to the quote below to list out the four marks of a cult that were mentioned.
What makes a church a cult? I asked Rick Ross, whose nonprofit institute maintains an online archive of data on cults and controversial movements. (He says he is not familiar with the details of First Baptist.) Ross points to a landmark 1981 Harvard study on cult formation, which suggests that all cults, destructive or not, share three elements: [1] an absolute authoritarian leader who defines the group; [2] a “thought program” that includes “control of the environment, control of information, and people subordinating themselves and their feelings to the demands of the leader”; and [3] a lack of accountability for the head of the group. Another common characteristic of cults, Ross says, is that [4] they use shame and some sort of exploitation–financial, spiritual, or sexual–to exercise control. Members of a Bible-based group for example are made to believe that “it’s a sin of pride for you to think for yourself,” he says. “It’s your ego or a demon or Satan’s influence that causes you to doubt the edicts of the leadership.” [bold emphasis added]
Most people I know who have come out of a strict fundamentalist background refere to their former church as cultic. The points above seem to validate this concern. The group I was connected with would qualify as cultic according to this definition.
I shared this quote at Sharper Iron, where they are discussing this article as a whole. I wanted to share it here too, for my audience. What do you think? Are we off base to point to a fundamentalist church and say it is cultic?
Missionary Jim Elliot is remembered as one of the five missionaries who lost their lives in 1956 in an attempt to reach the Waodoni (or Auca) tribe in the jungles of Ecuador.
Perhaps the most famous quote that Elliot is remembered for, is this:
He is no fool, who gives what he cannot keep, to gain what he cannot lose.
I have heard that quote recounted numerous times in sermons about missions, and justifiably so. But when I was reading through a new biography of Matthew Henry (see my review here), I was intrigued when I came across this saying attributed to Henry’s father Philip (also a minister):
He is no fool who parts with that which he cannot keep, when he is sure to be recompensed with that which he cannot lose.
–from Matthew Henry: His Life and Influence, by Allan Harman, (Chritian Focus, 2012), Kindle location 345-47.
I thought that the resemblance between these two quotes was almost uncanny — and I am not the first to notice the similarities. The Billy Graham Center has a page with a photo of Elliot’s diary entry from October 28, 1949 where he first penned the above words. It also points out the same quote from Philip Henry, that I shared above.
Was Jim Elliot dependent on Philip Henry? We may never know. But both quotes express a powerful message in an elegant way. May we ponder the eternal value of our heavenly inheritance today.
Justin Taylor recently posted a video clip from the 2012 Ligonier Conference. The clip was a portion of a panel discussion on how Christians should understand the age of the earth.
The full discussion on this question, available on video here, starts at 42:09 on the video and lasts through 75:40 (the end). It is mostly R.C. Sproul Sr., Stephen Meyer (a Christian scientist and author who subscribes to Intelligent Design), and Del Tackett (known for Focus on the Family’s The Truth Project), although Michael Horton and R.C. Sproul Jr. also make some brief comments.
I appreciated both R.C. Sproul Sr. and Stephen Meyer’s emphasis that this debate should be intramural and congenial. Good people can disagree on this issue and still mutually affirm the inerrancy of Scripture and stand against the materialistic drive of this age.
Taylor went on to quote from and point us to a report from the 2000 PCA report on the question of differing interpretations of the days of Creation. That report carefully defines terms, explains most of the various positions which aim to remain true to the text, and evaluates each view helpfully. A historical review of the position of the Church on the days of creation is also provided. The PCA concludes that this issue shouldn’t divide their church and aims to show that people holding to the various views can have unity in standing for Biblical supernaturalism when it comes to creation, and against a naturalistic worldview. I recommend you check out that paper.
In recent years, this debate has become more and more caustic. And some of the participants have moved farther and farther afield from the Bible’s account of creation. Peter Enns has gone so far as to deny the existence of Adam, and the historicity of the Exodus and much, much more! That being said, although a slippery slope does exist, the Church has always had varying positions on this issue. Holding to supernatural creation is more important than holding to a young earth or literal 24 hour days. There are many exegetical reasons offered against the young earth view, and some of them, in my mind, are convincing. But as Stephen Meyer points out in the panel’s discussion, the Church has to be careful not to get sidetracked into an intramural debate over the days of Creation instead of confronting head-on the new atheists denials of the existence of God and the Bible’s supernatural claims.
I expect my readers hold a variety of positions on this issue as well, so drop a comment and we can discuss this further. Just how important is the age of the earth when it comes to defending the Bible’s claims that God created the world?
I came across an interesting post that raises a good question. Is it really okay to modify your actions based on the weaker consciences of some?
Here’s the post:
In 1857 a few white members of the Dutch Reformed Church in South Africa asked permission to celebrate the Lord’s Supper separately from their black brothers and sisters. The General Assembly believed their request was wrong, but it acquiesced “due to the weakness of some.” This concession soon became the norm, as white Christians increasingly chose to observe the Lord’s Supper without their black siblings. Their racism prompted the unwanted black Christians to leave and start their own churches. And so the South African church, divided by race, eventually became a vocal supporter of apartheid. In 1924 the DRC argued that the races must remain separate, for “competition between black and white on economic levels…leads to poverty, friction, misunderstanding, suspicion, and bitterness.”
How might the history of South Africa be different if the church had not conceded to the sinful request of a few “weaker brothers”? We are thankful for leaders such as Nelson Mandela who gave their lives to end apartheid. But it’s a shame on the church that their sacrifice was even needed.
Peter gave in to the “weaker brothers” in Antioch. He knew they were wrong to insist that Gentiles live like Jews, but afraid of what they might say, he refused to eat with Gentiles when these Judaizers came to town. Paul recognized this was a big deal, for the reason these Jews split from the Gentiles put the gospel at risk. How would the history of Christianity be different if Paul had not stood up to Peter’s shameful concession?
It’s never right to do wrong because others think it’s right. We must not violate our conscience on the flimsy ground that “They wouldn’t understand,” “It’s what they expect,” or “Just this once, what will it hurt?” It may seem easier to give in, but our concession will make life harder down the road.
I think you can definitely get in trouble if you’re always giving in to “weaker brothers”. It’s one thing to aim not to offend, it’s quite another to live your life with the weaker brother always potentially popping up at every turn.
What do you think? Is Mike Witmer way off base here? Am I?
From time to time I get asked various questions through my blog contact form. I don’t always have time to respond. Sometimes, the question and my response seem appropriate to share with my wider blog audience. So I’ll begin a feature on my blog addressing reader’s questions. If you have any questions you would like me to consider for this feature, just contact me.
Reader’s Question:
I have read through your posts and the comments on music. I have found it very helpful as I have grown up with the fundamentalist view on music and it is extremely hard to shake. I have broadened my musical tastes, though, and have grown to be blessed by much of “ccm” and find it very God-honoring.
I know you are not an expert on the music debate but you have written much about it on this blog and have changed your own view point from the conservative to less so. Because of that I was wondering if you could answer a question I have. I feel like I can biblically counter much of the arguments thrown at me that condemn CCM. The one thing I have not yet been able to find an answer for is the argument that the beginnings of rock and roll as stated by those artists who wrote it was rebellion and illicit sex. I can say from my own experience that I am not driven to those things when listening. But I would be told that is personal experience and that that is a poor judge of truth. Their argument would be that the music itself is inherently rebellious and sensual as stated by even those who wrote it. I am curious as to if you have faced that and what you answer would be to that. It is hard to find people who I can discuss this with where I am currently so I appreciate your taking the time to read this and answer.
My Answer:
Great question. For starters, it should be said that fundamentalists don’t have a universal approach to music. I’ve experienced fundamentalist churches that utilize CCM music, or close to it, in their services but still preach from the KJB. Many fundamentalist and conservative evangelical churches shy away from using CCM music in public worship, but don’t have as big of a problem with people listening to that music for entertainment or personal edification. But I came from a wing of fundamentalism that was very anti-CCM and that marshaled the very arguments you shared in your question, so I’ll try to share how I would respond.
I should also state that I prefer CCM music for my personal music listening. I don’t like everything I hear equally, but I would rather focus on God in my music than listen to just secular music. Not all Christian music is created equal in its emphasis on a clear, Christ-focused lyrics and a melody and rhythm that complement that. But a lot does. Our church too, uses a blended form of worship where we sing older hymns as well as contemporary songs and choruses. Last week I led the worship at our church and we sang “Nothing but the Blood” and “Holy, Holy, Holy” right alongside “Revelation Song”, and “Worthy is the Lamb“. We also sang
“Before the Throne of God Above“. We had an acoustic guitar, a keyboardist and an electric drum-set. Some songs the drums bowed out completely. (I help serve in a church plant, so we don’t have a permanent home – hence no piano).
Regarding the origins of rock and roll, I think you could say at one time the aura of rock and roll was all about sex. But that has changed over time. Tchaikovsky, along with other composers of classical music, had a horrendous personal story filled with homosexuality and aberrant behavior. Tchaikovsky’s music was described as “vulgar” and “supersensous”. But that stigma hasn’t survived to this day. So the association that rock and roll had with sex is something that can change over time. There was an association with free love and rebellion, too. But today it is just an art form. It’s something that plays at the dentist’s office and grocery store, not just at large, sexually-charged concerts.
Music without lyrical content, lacks the ability to communicate with specificity apart from cultural factors. A minor key means something sad to our culture, but something happy to others. When music is coupled with lyrics, then it has the ability, as a whole, to communicate with a degree of specificity that lets us judge it morally and accept or reject it.
There’s also the testimony you share about how you respond to CCM. It isn’t just an emotional response. There is a biblical principle that if you look at the fruits of something, you can know its character. The fruit in my life and my church of the best of CCM music with it’s God-ward focus, has been positive spiritual growth, not a tendency to carnality and sensuality.
I will also say that a person’s previous associations or personal prejudices will make it hard to adopt the style of CCM music for their own use. It can anyway. But for me, the music of 100+ years ago was just as sentimental and emotionally driven as today’s CCM. But the difference is I don’t respond to that, because it isn’t music of my generation. CCM does communicate and resonate with me powerfully, and has the ability to engage my whole being — emotions and heart and mind — in the power of the song. And that ability is something that CCM is using for good. I still think more emphasis on other emotions beyond praise and joy are needed in CCM music and music in the Church today. We need to bring back lament and Psalm-singing somehow. But I’m thankful for the blessing that CCM has brought to the church, particularly with the modern hymns and content-rich songs.
I’m sure my readers might be able to pipe in here and add their own thoughts. So, please take the time to share your thoughts here for the benefit of the one who asked the question, as well as to contribute to the conversation here for everyone’s benefit.
I was reading through a detailed article in Chicago Magazine (starts on pt. 78) on Jack Schaap’s fall and the history and legacy of First Baptist Church of Hammond, IN (HT: Sharper Iron Filings; more on Schaap here), and I came across an excellent description of what makes a church a cult. I added the numbers to the quote below to list out the four marks of a cult that were mentioned.
Justin Taylor 