Rob Bell's New God

July 7, 2011 (David Cloud, Fundamental Baptist Information Service, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061, 866-295-4143, fbns@wayoflife.org; for instructions about subscribing and unsubscribing or changing addresses, see the information paragraph at the end of the article) -
Rob Bell’s new book Love Wins has stirred up something of a hornet’s nest of controversy, which we find puzzling. The man has been denying eternal hell and teaching a universalistic faith for a long time.
In a 2005 interview with Beliefnet, Bell said “the church must stop thinking about everybody primarily in categories of in or out, saved or not, believer or nonbeliever.”
In his influential book Velvet Elvis, which is popular with a great many Southern Baptists, he described a marriage that he conducted for two pagan unbelievers who told him that “they didn’t want any Jesus or God or Bible or religion to be talked about” but they did want him to “make it really spiritual (p. 76). Bell agreed with this ridiculous request and said that his pagan friends “are resonating with Jesus, whether they acknowledge it or not” (p. 92).
Love Wins is just more of the same. Not only does he preach near-universalism, he preaches a false god, a false christ, a false gospel, a false heaven, a false hell, you name it. He is a master of taking Scripture out of context and shoehorning his heresies into a text.
BEWARE OF “THE RAGAMUFFIN GOSPEL”
Updated and enlarged September 6, 2007 (first published August 30, 2004) (David Cloud, Fundamental Baptist Information Service, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061, 866-295-4143, fbns@wayoflife.org; for instructions about subscribing and unsubscribing or changing addresses, see the information paragraph at the end of the article) -
A book called “The Ragamuffin Gospel,” first published in 1990, continues to have a polluting effect upon individuals and churches.
This book first came to my attention as I was researching contemporary Christian music in 1998 in preparation for the publication of Contemporary Christian Music Under the Spotlight. Some of the most influential CCM musicians are mightily impressed with The Ragamuffin Gospel. Notable among these are Michael W. Smith (who wrote the foreword to The Ragamuffin Gospel), Michael Card (who named his oldest son after the author of The Ragamuffin Gospel), and the late Rich Mullins (who formed the Ragamuffin Band).
The author of The Ragamuffin Gospel is Brennan Manning. Although he is a Roman Catholic, the book is published by Multnomah Press, the printing arm of Multnomah College of the Bible, an alleged evangelical institution.
In spite of his gross heresies, Manning has been well-received into evangelical circles.
His books have been recommended by Philip Yancey, Eugene Peterson, Larry Crabb, Michael Card, Michael W. Smith, the members of U2, and many others.
He is scheduled to speak at the Life Impact 2006 Christian & Missionary Alliance conference in July 2007. He spoke at the Northwest Regional Pastors Event at the Vineyard Church in Vancouver, B.C., in 2004.
Christianity Today has promoted Manning and in an October 6, 2005 interview called “The Ragamuffin Gospel” a “spiritual classic.” After they published the article “A Coward Who Stayed to Help,” which was Manning’s story of his alleged heroics helping victims during the Hurricane Katrina disaster, five days later they had to publish a correction stating that Manning had admitted that he had made up the story. In a voice message to Christianity Today he blithely said, “The essential truth: I lied” (“Brennan Manning, Featured Speaker” James Sundquist, June 24, 2007).
In the last two decades Manning has published a dozen or more popular books in addition to The Ragamuffin Gospel, including Abba’s Child: The Cry of the Heart for Intimate Belonging (Navpress, 1994), The Signature of Jesus (Multnomah, 1996), The Boy Who Cried Abba: A Parable of Trust and Acceptance (1998, 2001), Reflections for Ragamuffins (1998), A Ruthless Trust: The Ragamuffin’s Path to God (2000), The Wisdom of Tenderness (2002), The Journey of the Prodigal (2002), The Wisdom of Tenderness: What Happens When God’s Fierce Mercy Transforms Our Lives (2002), The Rabbi’s Heartbeat (Navpress, 2003), Posers, Fakers, and Wannabes: Unmasking the Real You (Navpress, 2003), A Glimpse of Jesus: The Stranger to Self-Hatred (2003), Above All: He Took the Fall and Thought of Me (2003), Lion and Lamb: The Relentless Tenderness of Jesus (Revell, 2004).
MANNING’S FALSE GOSPEL
Manning’s web site features his biography. What is glaringly absent is any scriptural testimony of salvation. Instead, we find the following statement:
“In February 1956, while Brennan was meditating on the Stations of the Cross, a powerful experience of the personal love of Jesus Christ sealed the call of God on his life.”
There is no repentance, no rejection of false gospels, no Scriptural new birth, merely a “sealing” of that which began at his infant baptism. Manning went on to become a Franciscan priest and though he is no longer active he continues to attend and promote the blasphemous Catholic mass. When he is in his home in New Orleans he attends the morning daily mass at the Holy Spirit Catholic Church.
Manning preaches a false antinomian, psychology-influenced gospel, meaning he believes a person can be saved and continue to live in the grossest sin without repentance. Following Rome’s pattern, Manning’s gospel glosses over the basis for salvation, which is the blood and death of Jesus Christ (even while giving it lip service), and ignores the necessity of the new birth. Manning uses biblical terms but he redefines them, giving them unbiblical meanings. His writings are filled with half truths and statements of truth followed by contradictions to those statements.
Manning continually quotes from and unquestioningly affirms the writings of false teachers such as Paul Tillich (an adulterous neo-orthodox theologian), Carl Jung (who wrote under the guidance of a demon and who considered Christianity a myth), Beatrice Bruteau (a proponent of the new age “I am god” heresy), Henri Nouwen, Thomas Merton, Teresa of Avila, and Francis MacNutt (Roman Catholics), Pierre Teilhard de chardin (mystic), Morton Kelsey (a disciple of Agnes Sanford), Thomas Aquinas and “St.” Augustine (fathers of the Catholic Church), Dietrich Bonhoeffer (a father of Neo Orthodoxy).
Manning says, “To evangelize a person is to say to him or her: you, too, are loved by God in the Lord Jesus”(The Ragamuffin Gospel, 2nd edition, 2000, p. 120). This is not the gospel and it is not scriptural evangelism. While it is certainly true that God loves sinners that is only a part of the matter; God is also holy and will judge every infraction of His law. The biblical gospel begins with the bad news of man’s fallen condition and his guilt and only when the sinner acknowledges this and repents and puts his trust exclusively in Jesus Christ can he experience God’s love in a saving manner (Romans 3:21 - 4:25).
Manning says, “God is a kooky God who can scarcely bear to be without us” (The Ragamuffin Gospel, p. 165). It is blasphemous to describe God as “kooky.” And if His love means He can “scarcely bear to be without us,” what is eternal Hell all about? Jesus frequently warned about Hell, and warned, in fact, that most sinners will go there. “Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it” (Matt. 7:13-14).
Writing about the woman in John 8 who was caught in adultery, Manning says that Jesus “didn’t demand a firm purpose of amendment” and “didn’t seem too concerned that she might dash back into the arms of her lover” (The Ragamuffin Gospel, 1990, p. 167). To the contrary, Jesus commanded her, “Go, and sin no more” (Jn. 8:11). Similarly, after Jesus healed the crippled man in John 5 He instructed him, “Behold, thou art made whole: sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee” (Jn. 5:14).
Manning mentions in particular some people that he has met: a female prostitute, a woman who had an abortion, and a male homosexual (Ragamuffin, pp. 32-33). He claims that all of these are saved even though they justify their sin and have no intention of turning from it. The apostle Paul addressed Manning’s error in 1 Corinthians 6:9-13:
9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
11 And such WERE some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.
12 All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.
13 Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats: but God shall destroy both it and them. Now the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord; and the Lord for the body.
The church members at Corinth had lived in all sorts of wicked lives before they were saved, but after they believed on Christ they were changed, and Paul warned them about going back to the old life. He warned them, in particular, about fornication. The gospel of Christ teaches that sinners are saved by God’s grace without works, but it also teaches that those who are saved are saved “unto good works” (Ephesians 2:8-10).
The apostle John taught: “And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. HE THAT SAITH, I KNOW HIM, AND KEEPETH NOT HIS COMMANDMENTS, IS A LIAR, AND THE TRUTH IS NOT IN HIM” (1 John 2:3-4).
Manning says: “Something is radically wrong when the local church rejects a person accepted by Jesus: when a harsh, judgmental and unforgiving sentence is passed on homosexuals; when a divorcee is denied communion; when the child of a prostitute is refused baptism; when an unlaicized priest is forbidden the sacraments” (The Ragamuffin Gospel, p. 30).
There is a world of confusion and doctrinal error in this one statement. First, the Scriptures instruct churches to reject those who claim to be saved but who live in gross sin (1 Corinthians 5). Second, Manning assumes that judging things by God’s Word is “harsh” and “unforgiving” but this certainly does not have to be the case. Believers are instructed by God to “prove all things” (1 Thess. 5:21). The Bible says, “... he that is spiritual judgeth all things” (1 Cor. 2:15). Third, Manning claims that forgiveness should be given whether or not there is repentance on the part of the sinner, but the Bible says there is no forgiveness without repentance (Lk. 13:3, 5; Acts 17:30; 20:21; 26:20; 2 Cor. 7:9-10; 2 Pet. 3:9). Jesus said, “If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and IF HE REPENT, forgive him” (Lk. 17:3). Fourth, Manning claims that God accepts the homosexual whether or not he repents and changes, but the Bible says the sinner must repent and those who are truly saved are changed. “Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new” (2 Cor. 5:17). Fifth, Manning teaches the heresy of infant baptism, whereas the Bible says baptism is for believers only (Mk. 16:15). Sixth, Manning defends the Catholic priesthood, whereas the New Testament says every believer is a priest in Christ (1 Peter 2:5, 9). Seventh, Manning defends the unscriptural Catholic sacraments even though they have no support in the Scripture.
Manning even claims that those who take the mark of the Beast will be saved. “And he [Christ] will say to us: ‘Vile beings, you who are in the image of the beast and bear his mark, but come all the same, you as well’” (The Ragamuffin Gospel, p. 21). To the contrary, the book of Revelation plainly states that all who take the mark of the Beast will suffer in Hell. “And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, the same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb: And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name” (Rev. 14:9-11).
PROMOTING EASTERN MEDITATION
Manning is one of the many writers today in “evangelical” circles promoting eastern-style meditation. In The Ragamuffin Gospel he encourages the use of mantras and emptying the mind. He instructs Christians to repeat an eight-word mantra (“The Lord is my Shepherd, I lack nothing”) for 10 minutes. He says:
“The first step toward rejuvenation begins with accepting where you are and exposing your poverty, frailty, and emptiness to the love that is everything. Don’t try to feel anything, think anything, or do anything ... Don’t force prayer. Simply relax in the presence of the God you half believe in and ask for a touch of folly” (The Ragamuffin Gospel, p. 196).
This is as close as Manning comes to describing how to receive the gospel, and it is unscriptural. The Bible does not invite the sinner to relax in the presence of God and half believe, but to repent and to believe fully from the heart. The model for our faith is Abraham, who was not weak in faith (Rom. 4:19) and who “staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief” (Rom. 4:20). Manning suggests that the sinner does not need to think anything. To the contrary, the Bible says he must believe the gospel, which is the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ for our sins (1 Cor. 15:1-4). If one would be saved, there is a lot to think about!
Manning promotes visualization, instructing people to visualize what Jesus might have looked like (p. 197). This is vain idolatry. No man knows what Jesus looked like, and if I visualize what I THINK He looked like I am creating my own idol.
Manning promotes silent meditation. He once spent six months in isolation in a cave in Spain. He meditates in silence each day. He spends eight days a year at a Jesuit retreat center in Colorado during which he speaks only 45 minutes each day. His primary spiritual director is a Dominican nun.
In his book Abba’s Child, Manning recommends the writings of Beatrice Bruteau. She is the founder of The School for Contemplation and believes that God is within every human being. She says that each person can say, “I AM,” which is a name for Almighty God.
The meditation promoted by Manning is pure Hinduism. I practiced it as a member of the Self-Realization Fellowship Society prior to my salvation, and I know people who have become demon possessed by practicing it.
It is no surprise that Manning is popular in evangelical circles, in light of the popularity of Roman Catholic meditative prayer techniques.
On a research visit in February 2000 to the Golden Gate Theological Seminary in San Francisco, a Southern Baptist school, I found that most of the required reading materials for the course on “Classics of Church Devotion” are books by Roman Catholic authors. These included Spiritual Exercises by Ignatius of Loyola (founder of the Jesuits), The Cloud of Unknowing (by an unknown 14th century Catholic monk), New Seeds of Contemplation by Thomas Merton (a Catholic convert from Anglicanism), Confessions of Saint Augustine (one of the fathers of the Roman Catholic Church), The Imitation of Christ by Thomas Kempis, Selected Works of Bernard of Clairvaux, and The Interior Castle by Teresa of Avila (the latter two are Catholic “saints”).
On a research visit to the Vineyard Church in Anaheim, Calif., on August 31, 2003, the message was on contemplative prayer. The speaker described this as “gazing at length on something” and as “lying back and floating in the river of God’s peace.” He quoted St. John of the Cross, “It is in silence that we hear him.” The Vineyard speaker recommended the writings of the late Thomas Merton, a Catholic priest who converted from the Anglican Church and whose writings are influential in the “centering prayer” movement. Merton spent the last 27 years of his life in a Trappist monastery devoted to Mary (Abbey of Our Lady of Gethsemani in Kentucky) and promoted the integration of pagan practices such as Zen Buddhism and Christianity. The titles of some of his books were “Zen and the Birds of the Appetite,” “The Way of Chuang Tzu,” and “Mystics and the Zen Masters.” For three years, Merton lived as a complete hermit.
Brennan Manning also recommends Merton’s writings. In Signature of Jesus, Manning gives this quote from William Shannon: “During a conference on contemplative prayer, the question was put to Thomas Merton: ‘How can we best help people to attain union with God?’ His answer was very clear: ‘We must tell them that they are already united with God.’ Contemplative prayer is nothing other than coming into consciousness of what is already there.”
MANNING’S ANTI-FUNDAMENTALISM
In light of Manning’s attitude toward a strict fundamentalist approach to Scripture it is no wonder that the Contemporary Christian Music crowd and the New Evangelicals love him so. Surely they recognize the voice of one of their own in the following statements.
Manning warns about “academicians who would imprison Jesus in the ivory tower of exegesis” (The Ragamuffin Gospel, p. 14). Thus after the fashion of the theological modernist Manning puts Jesus over against the Bible, ignoring the fact that we know nothing about Jesus apart from the Bible. And Manning despises doctrinal dogmatism, ignoring the obvious fact that any definition of who Jesus is and what He did is based on biblical exegesis and is doctrinal.
Manning warns about “the Bible thumper” (The Ragamuffin Gospel, p. 36).
Manning says we should “listen to people in other denominations and religions” and we shouldn’t “find demons in those with whom we disagree” (The Ragamuffin Gospel, p. 65).
In typical ecumenical, New Evangelical fashion, Manning warns against being “either-or” and opts rather for the mythical “both-and.” He says: “If we are open, we rarely resort to either-or, either creation or evolution, liberty or law, sacred or secular, Beethoven or Madonna. We focus on both-and, fully aware that God’s truth cannot be imprisoned in a small definition…. But the open mind realizes that reality, truth, and Jesus Christ are incredibly open-ended” (p. 65).
It is obvious that Manning has a different religion from that of the Lord’s apostles, who were incredibly dogmatic. The apostle John, for example, said: “And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness” (1 John 5:19). From the perspective of the mushy, can’t-be-pinned-down-on-anything Christianity of Brennan Manning, 1 John 5:19 is incredibly narrow-minded and wrong headed, but I will gladly take my stand with the Lord’s apostles.
Note, too, Mannings’ openness to the most extreme forms of worldliness, as exemplified by Madonna, “The Material Girl.”
MANNING AND HOMOSEXUALITY
Manning identifies “homophobia” as “among the most serious and vexing moral issues of this generation” (Abba’s Child).
A phobia is an unreasonable fear of something, in this case, homosexuality. Thus, Manning would have us believe that those who reject homosexuals and who do not want them to influence society, who oppose their parades and “marriages,” have some sort of psychological illness. In fact, according to Manning, one of the most serious moral issues of our day is the rejection of homosexuality in the part of Bible believers.
To be consistent, Manning must lump Paul into the “homophobic” camp, because he strongly condemned homosexuality.
Paul on homosexuality: “For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet” (Rom. 1:26-27).
Multnomah Press has been confronted by Bible believers in regard to the doctrinal errors of Brennan Manning and his book, but they continue to publish it to this day. (On the other hand, Multnomah has dropped Dave Hunt’s masterly book “What Love Is This” bowing under the vicious onslaught by Calvinists who have pretended that Hunt is unqualified to write on the subject and that he did not get his facts right. In the third edition of “What Love Is This” Hunt has proven conclusively that he has not taken quotes out of context and has indeed gotten his facts right.)
Beware of The Ragamuffin Gospel. It is “another gospel” (Gal. 1:6). The true gospel is a “glorious gospel” (1 Tim. 1:11); and though it is a gospel of grace for sinners, there is nothing ragamuffin about it.
[Distributed by Way of Life Literature's Fundamental Baptist Information Service, an e-mail listing for Fundamental Baptists and other fundamentalist, Bible-believing Christians. OUR GOAL IN THIS PARTICULAR ASPECT OF OUR MINISTRY IS NOT DEVOTIONAL BUT IS TO PROVIDE INFORMATION TO ASSIST PREACHERS IN THE PROTECTION OF THE CHURCHES IN THIS APOSTATE HOUR. This material is sent only to those who personally subscribe to the list. If somehow you have subscribed unintentionally, following are the instructions for removal. The Fundamental Baptist Information Service mailing list is automated. To SUBSCRIBE or to UNSUBSCRIBE or to CHANGE ADDRESSES or to RE-SUBSCRIBE UNDER A NEW ADDRESS, go to http://www.wayoflife.org/fbis/subscribe.html. If you have any trouble with this, please let us know. And please be patient with us. We do not ignore any unsubscribe request, but we cannot always get to your request immediately as each person involved with maintaining the Way of Life web site does this only on a very part time basis and is busy with many other major activities, such as pastoring and missionary work. We take up a quarterly offering to fund this ministry, and those who use the materials are expected to participate (Galatians 6:6) if they can. Some of the articles are from O Timothy magazine, which is in its 24th year of publication. Way of Life publishes many helpful books. The catalog is located at the web site: http://www.wayoflife.org/catalog/catalog.htm Way of Life Literature, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061. 866-295-4143, fbns@wayoflife.org. We do not solicit funds from those who do not agree with our preaching and who are not helped by these publications, but from those who are. OFFERINGS can be made at http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/offering.html. PAYPAL offerings can be made to https://www.paypal.com/xclick/business=dcloud%40wayoflife.org ]
CHARISMATIC SOUTHERN BAPTISTS
Updated and enlarged September 1, 2008 (first published April 3, 1999) (David Cloud, Fundamental Baptist Information Service, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061, 866-295-4143, fbns@wayoflife.org; for instructions about subscribing and unsubscribing or changing addresses, see the information paragraph at the end of the article) -
The charismatic movement is a part of the Southern Baptist religious melting pot. Though a few churches and individual missionaries have been put out of the Convention for charismatic doctrine and practice, many others remain, and the number appears to be increasing.
In Christianity Today, May 16, 1986, Pastor Don LeMaster of the West Lauderdale Baptist Church in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, estimated that five percent of SBC congregations were openly charismatic at that time. That number has probably increased during the past years. Charisma magazine, March 1999, contained a report entitled “Shaking Southern Baptist Tradition,” which gave many examples of charismatic Southern Baptist congregations.
In 1995, two professors at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky, told Baptist Press that Southern Baptists shouldn’t fear the charismatic movement. “We shouldn’t feel defensive or threatened by an alternative experience, perspective or insights about the Holy Spirit,” said William Hendricks, director of Southern’s doctoral studies program. Churches should not be making a big issue of the movement, he added, because “you could be fighting what is a legitimate experience of the Spirit.” Tim Weber, professor of church history, agreed: “Most charismatics take the Bible as seriously as Southern Baptists, although they read it differently,” he said. The professors also said Southern Baptists shouldn’t divide charismatics into a separate “camp,” since their influence has touched the 15 million-member Southern Baptist Convention. ... The professors believe the time has arrived for a more reasoned approach to charismatics and dialogue with them (Charisma, April 1995, p. 79).
Three of the men that are associated with the charismatic move within the SBC are Jack Taylor, Ron Phillips, and Gary Folds, all of whom have accepted the unscriptural nonsense occurring at the Toronto Airport Church in Ontario and/or at Brownsville Assembly of God in Pensacola, Florida. This “revival” takes the form of uncontrollable laughter, falling on the floor, barking like a dog and roaring like a lion, spiritual drunkenness, electric shocks, weird shaking, and other bizarre experiences.
Jack Taylor is a former vice president of the Southern Baptist Convention. Taylor was converted to the “Toronto Blessing” when he visited there in 1994. Since then he has spoken frequently on the radical Trinity Broadcasting Network and similar Charismatic forums. He founded Dimension Ministries and is busy influencing Southern Baptists and others with his unscriptural doctrines.
Ron Phillips is pastor of Central Baptist Church of Hixson, Tennessee. His annual Fresh Oil & New Wine Conference, which features speakers such as Rodney Howard-Browne, the “Holy Ghost Bartender,” draws hundreds of Southern Baptist pastors and church members. The church uses the charismatic rock-style music and is experiencing charismatic phenomena. Southern Baptist Pastor Dwain Miller of Second Baptist Church in El Dorado, Arkansas, has prophesied to Phillips that God would use him “to bring renewal to the SBC’s 41,000 churches.” He is referring to a charismatic “renewal,” which is always accompanied by unscriptural ecumenical fervor and downplaying of Bible doctrine. In March 2006, Phillips told the Tennessean newspaper that he first experienced speaking in tongues when he was sleeping. He said his wife woke him up and said, “What in the world are you saying?” He concluded that it was a gift from God to encourage him (“Some Baptists Believe Gift of Tongues Remain,” The Tennessean, March 26). He says that he continues to speak in tongues in his “private prayers.” Of course, there is not a hint of something like this in the New Testament Scriptures.
The Fresh Oil & New Wine Conference for 2007 features radical charismatic speakers such as John Kilpatrick, who led the “Brownsville Outpouring” in the 1990s as the pastor of the Brownsville Assembly of God in Pensacola, Florida. When the “outpouring” began in June 1995 Kilpatrick fell to the floor and lay there almost four hours. He said, “When I hit that floor, it felt like I weighed 10,000 pounds. I knew something supernatural was happening” (Charisma, June 1996). Supernatural, yes; Holy Spirit, no!!! Kilpatrick got so “drunk in the spirit” at times that men in the church had to haul him out of the church auditorium in a wheelchair, carry him home, and help inside the house. He told of trying to drive in this drunken condition and running into garbage cans and backing into another automobile. On one occasion Kilpatrick fell onto the platform and a woman from the “worship team” fell into his arms and they lay on the platform in a drunken stupor together. He laughingly tells this story on an audio cassette that I have. It is definitely not the Holy Spirit who causes that kind of moral temptation and confusion. “Spiritual jerking” was also a feature of the “Brownsville Outpouring.”
Gary Folds is pastor of the First Baptist Church in Belle Glade, Florida. He has written a book promoting the Toronto “Blessing” entitled “Bull in a China Shop: A Baptist Pastor Runs into God at Toronto.” He describes being “slain” in the Spirit and other such things. Following is how he described the meetings he attended: “Some people would simply lay on the floor as though they were sleeping … Others would writhe in what appeared to be anguish, pain, or possibly agony. Some would twitch, while others shook, and some would even have convulsive-type jerking. Many would cry, while an even greater number would laugh … Many of them would laugh for an hour or longer. One night I saw people laugh for almost two and a half hours.”
James Robison is another example of SBC charismatics. The once fiery evangelist used to lift his voice against sin and apostasy, but those days are over. In 1979, he had some sort of charismatic experience. That same year he spoke at an Assembly of God church. By 1981, he had completely gone over to the ecumenical charismatic-Roman Catholic line. That was the year he first invited a Roman Catholic to speak at his Bible conference. Robison was so comfortable with the ecumenical program by 1987 that he joined hands with 20,000 Roman Catholics, including hundreds of priests and nuns, at New Orleans ‘87. At this meeting, Robison made the following amazing statement: “I tell you what, one of the finest representatives of morality in this earth right now is the Pope. People who know it really believe he is a born again man.” I was at this meeting with press credentials and personally recorded the message from which this excerpt is taken. Robison remains affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention and has influenced many Southern Baptists in the charismatic direction.
Another example is the Missouri-based evangelist Bill Sharples. He resigned a Southern Baptist pastorate after accepting the tongues-speaking movement, but 25% of his meetings are in SBC churches. He claims that 15 to 20 percent of Southern Baptists that he meets are open to the Charismatic movement.
Billy Graham is another Southern Baptist who has recommended tongues and charismatic signs and wonders. In his 1978 book, The Holy Spirit, he “endorsed laying on of hands, divine healing and tongues.” He said: “As we approach the end of the age I believe we will see a dramatic recurrence of signs and wonders, which will demonstrate the power of God to a skeptical world.” Graham even promoted the false charismatic prophet Oral Roberts. Graham spoke at the dedication ceremony of Oral Roberts University in 1962. Later that year Graham joined Oral Roberts as a speaker at the July 1962 convention of the Full Gospel Business Men’s Fellowship International in Seattle, Washington. Graham invited Roberts to the World Congress on Evangelism in 1966 and recommended him to influential Evangelical leaders.
Pat Robertson is another example. In the late 1950s he became involved in the Pentecostal movement and began “speaking in tongues.” He established the Christian Broadcasting Network in 1960, and that same year was ordained by the Freemason Street Baptist Church in Norfolk, Virginia, a Southern Baptist congregation. A few years later he formed the “700 Club,” which spread ecumenical and charismatic doctrine far and wide. He still claims to be affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention. Speaking at Celebration 2000 in St. Louis, Missouri, Robertson testified that though he is a Baptist, he sees the need for Roman Catholic charismatics to visit Baptist churches in order to teach the Baptists how to dance and worship God.
Another charismatic Southern Baptist is Pastor Wallace Henley, Crossroads Baptist Church, Houston, Texas. His church practices tongues speaking, and he supports the “revival” at the Brownsville Assembly of God in Pensacola, Florida, where the pastor gets so “drunk in the spirit” that he cannot lead the congregation. Henley claims that those who are opposed to the charismatic movement are “pharisaical” and “mean-spirited.”
Another charismatic Southern Baptist church is Riverside Church of Shreveport, Louisiana. Pastor Lee Jenkins received a Pentecostal experience in 1998 and led the church into full blown Pentecostalism, losing a large percentage of the congregation in the process. The church dropped the name “Baptist” but remained a part of the SBC. In 2000 the church supported Rodney Howard-Browne’s Good News Shreveport-Bossier conference (“Southern Baptist Pastor in Louisiana Opens Door for Charismatic Renewal,” Charisma, July 2000).
In November 2005 the Southern Baptist Foreign Mission Board voted to forbid missionaries to speak in tongues, but Jerry Rankin, the head of the board, says that he has spoken in a “private prayer language” for 30 years!
Speaking at a chapel service on August 29, 2006, Dwight McKissic, a trustee of the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, told the students that he speaks in tongues in his “private prayer life” (“Southwestern Trustee’s Sermon on Tongues Prompts Response,” Baptist Press, Aug. 30, 2006). McKissic, who is the pastor of Cornerstone Baptist Church, an SBC congregation in Arlington, Texas, said he has prayed in tongues since 1981. The first time, he says, was when he was a seminary student. He recalls, “Strange sounds begin to come out of my mouth” (“Southern Baptists Debate Tongues,” cbs11tv.com, October 07, 2006).
In support of the doctrine of a “private prayer language” McKissic sited the teaching of New Testament professor Siegfried Schatzmann of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary (“Texas Pastor Calls for BF&M Statement on Tongues,” Baptist Press, Sept. 19, 2006).
Missionary David Rogers, son of the late Adrian Rogers, SAID HE WORKS WITH MANY MISSIONARIES WHO PRACTICE PRIVATE TONGUES (“Baptists Are Caught up in Controversy Again,” Fort Worth Star-Telegram, March 11, 2006).
Charles Carroll, SBC missionary to Singapore who was dismissed by the Southern Baptist International Mission Board in 1995 because of his charismatic activities, testified that many
Southern Baptists living overseas are charismatic, but most remain “in the closet” for fear of being fired (“Baptist Missionaries in the Closet,” Charisma, March 1999, p. 72).
A 2007 study by LifeWay Research indicates that half of Southern Baptist pastors believe that the Holy Spirit gives some people a “special prayer language” today. More than 400 Southern Baptist pastors were contacted by phone and asked, “Do you believe that the Holy Spirit gives some people the gift of a special language to pray to God privately? Some people refer to this as a Private Prayer Language or the ‘private use of tongues.’” The replies were 50% “Yes”; 43% “No”; and 7% “Don’t know” (“LifeWay Released Prayer Language Study,” Baptist Press, June 1, 2007).
Thus, it appears that this is not a small issue or one that will go away any time soon. Rankin and those supporting his position are trying to distinguish between public tongues and private, saying that while they are opposed to public tongues they believe there is a private form of tongues that one can use to edify oneself. In fact, biblical tongues are biblical tongues. The tongues of Acts are the tongues of 1 Corinthians 14. They were real languages that a believer could speak supernaturally. They were a sign to the nation Israel that God was going to send the gospel to every nation and create a new spiritual body composed of both Jews and Gentiles (1 Cor. 14:20-22, quoted Isaiah 28:11-13). Each time tongues were spoken in Acts (Acts 2, 8, 10, 19) Jews were present. As the prophet Isaiah foretold, the Jews rejected the sign and were judged. Its purpose ceased even before the events recorded in the book of Acts were completed. The last mention of tongues is in Acts 19. The sign, having been fulfilled, ceased. When John Chrysostom wrote in the 4th century about the sign gifts of 1 Corinthians 12-14, he said: “This whole place is very obscure: but the obscurity is produced by our ignorance of the facts referred to, and BY THEIR CESSATION, being such as then used to occur but now no longer take place” (“Homilies on 1 Corinthians,” Vol. XII, The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Hom. 29:2). There is no “private prayer language” in the New Testament. It is the recent invention of Pentecostals and Charismatics who, having realized that they cannot speak in real tongues that can be interpreted (one of the absolute biblical requirements), were forced either to renounce their experience or to create some sort of cockeyed defense for it. There is not one example of a prayer in the Bible that is uttered in unintelligible mutterings that “bypass the intellect.” Jesus Christ did not pray that way and neither did the apostles. I have heard Charismatics speak in their “private prayer language” in churches and conferences in many parts of the world. Larry Lea’s “private prayer language” at Indianapolis ’90 went something like this: “Bubblyida bubblyida hallelujah bubblyida hallabubbly shallabubblyida kolabubblyida glooooory hallelujah bubblyida.” I wrote that down as he was saying it and later checked it against the tape. Nancy Kellar, a Roman Catholic nun who was on the executive committee of St. Louis 2000, spoke in “tongues” that went like this: “Shananaa leea, shananaa higha, shananaa nanaa, shananaa leea…” repeated over and over.
Friends, this is not any sort of biblical prayer; it is childish nonsense, but it is neither innocent nor lacking in spiritual danger. The Bible warns repeatedly and forcefully about the danger of spiritual deception, and those who empty their minds through the practice of a “private prayer language” are in danger of the devil filling them.
The Southern Baptist Convention would do well to cleanse itself of all charismatic practices, but this does not appear to be in the cards. How ridiculous is it to forbid missionaries to do something that the head of their agency does!
The 2008 Southern Baptist Hymnal contains many songs written by charismatics and published by charismatic music companies such as Integrity, Maranatha, and Hillsong. For example, songs by David Ruis, Paul Baloche, and Darlene Zschech are included. These popular worship leaders are extreme charismatic ecumenists and contemporary Christian rockers.
Ruis is one of the worship leaders at the Toronto Airport Church where people roll on the floor, bark like dogs, roar like lions, laugh hysterically, and get “drunk in the spirit” during their “revivals.” Ruis’s song “Break Dividing Walls” calls for ecumenical unity between all denominations.
Baloche is worship leader at the charismatic Community Christian Fellowship of Lindale, Texas. Their 2002 Leadership Summit featured Ricky Paris of Vision Ministries International, who calls himself an apostle and is said to give “apostolic covering” to Vision Church of Austin, Texas. Baloche’s Offering of Worship album was recorded at Regent University in Virginia Beach, which was founded by the radical charismatic ecumenist Pat Robertson. As far back as 1985, Robertson said that he “worked for harmony and reconciliation between Protestants and Catholics” (Christian News, July 22, 1985). Some of the Regent professors are Roman Catholic and Regent’s Center for Law and Justice has a Roman Catholic executive director. According to Frontline magazine, May-June 2000, a Catholic mass is held on Regent’s campus every week.
Zschech and her Hillsong worship band recently performed for the Catholic Youth Day in Sydney, with the Pope present. The lyrics to Zschech’s “Holy Spirit Rain Down” (which is included in the new Baptist Hymnal) begin: “Holy Spirit, rain down, rain down/ Oh, Comforter and Friend/ How we need Your touch again/ Holy Spirit, rain down, rain down.” Where in Scripture are we instructed to pray to the Holy Spirit? To the contrary, the Lord Jesus Christ taught us to pray to the Father (Mat. 6:9). The charismatic movement is not in submission to the Word of God and does not care one way or the other that there is no Scriptural support for this type of prayer, but shame on Baptists who follow in these presumptuous and disobedient footsteps.
Zschech’s song “I Believe the Presence” from her Shout to the Lord album preaches false Pentecostal latter rain theology. The lyrics say: “I believe the promise about the visions and the dreams/ That the Holy Spirit will be poured out/ And His power will be seen/ Well the time is now/ The place is here/ And His people have come in faith/ There’s a mighty sound/ And a touch of fire/ When we’ve gathered in one place” (“I Believe the Presence” from Shout to the Lord).
Shame on Lifeway for giving charismatics a powerful forum to influence Baptist churches, and shame on the Southern Baptist Convention for allowing Lifeway to do these things.
Because the SBC refuses to deal with charismatic error consistently, the leaven will doubtless spread.
The Bible warns that “a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.” This is true for sin (1 Cor. 5:6) as well as for false doctrine (Gal. 5:9).
For more about the charismatic movement see The Pentecostal-Charismatic Movements: History and Doctrine, which is available from Way of Life Literature.
[Distributed by Way of Life Literature's Fundamental Baptist Information Service, an e-mail listing for Fundamental Baptists and other fundamentalist, Bible-believing Christians. OUR GOAL IN THIS PARTICULAR ASPECT OF OUR MINISTRY IS NOT DEVOTIONAL BUT IS TO PROVIDE INFORMATION TO ASSIST PREACHERS IN THE PROTECTION OF THE CHURCHES IN THIS APOSTATE HOUR. This material is sent only to those who personally subscribe to the list. If somehow you have subscribed unintentionally, following are the instructions for removal. The Fundamental Baptist Information Service mailing list is automated. To SUBSCRIBE or to UNSUBSCRIBE or to CHANGE ADDRESSES or to RE-SUBSCRIBE UNDER A NEW ADDRESS, go to http://www.wayoflife.org/fbis/subscribe.html. If you have any trouble with this, please let us know. And please be patient with us. We do not ignore any unsubscribe request, but we cannot always get to your request immediately as each person involved with maintaining the Way of Life web site does this only on a very part time basis and is busy with many other major activities, such as pastoring and missionary work. We take up a quarterly offering to fund this ministry, and those who use the materials are expected to participate (Galatians 6:6) if they can. Some of the articles are from O Timothy magazine, which is in its 25th year of publication. Way of Life publishes many helpful books. The catalog is located at the web site: http://wayoflife.org/catalog/catalog.htm Way of Life Literature, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061. 866-295-4143, fbns@wayoflife.org. We do not solicit funds from those who do not agree with our preaching and who are not helped by these publications, but from those who are. OFFERINGS can be made at http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/offering.html. PAYPAL offerings can be made to https://www.paypal.com/xclick/business=dcloud%40wayoflife.org]
BEWARE OF BRIAN MCLAREN
Enlarged August 11, 2008 (first published January 26, 2006) (David Cloud, Fundamental Baptist Information Service, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061, 866-295-4143, fbns@wayoflife.org; for instructions about subscribing and unsubscribing or changing addresses, see the information paragraph at the end of the article) -
As the most prominent voice in the emerging church, Brian McLaren represents the philosophy of the movement. He claims that truth is a shifting thing, exalts doubt as highly as faith, and rejects the infallible inspiration of Scripture, the substitutionary atonement of Christ, and the eternal punishment of hell fire.
A REVIEW OF “A NEW KIND OF CHRISTIAN”
McLaren’s book “A New Kind of Christian: a Tale of Two Friends on a Spiritual Journey” won a Christianity Today Award of Merit in 2002 and has found a wide and approving audience in “evangelical” circles.
“A New Kind of Christian” presents theological liberalism in the guise of a wiser, kinder, gentler type of Christianity called “Postmodern.” The semi-fictional account is about an evangelical pastor who has a crisis of faith and submits himself to the guidance of a liberal Episcopalian who is a graduate of Princeton Divinity School and a former Presbyterian pastor. This Postmodern guide, who is named “Dr. Neil Oliver,” is called “Neo” by his friends. Neo resigned the pastorate because he was too liberal for his denomination and is teaching high school when we meet him in McLaren’s book.
The book recounts the evangelical pastor’s journey from a position of faith in the Bible as the absolute standard for truth, a position in which doctrine is either right or wrong, scriptural or unscriptural, to a pliable position in which “faith is more about a way of life than a system of belief, where being authentically good is more important than being doctrinally right” (from the back cover of “A New Kind of Christian”).
Gary E. Gilly hit the nail on the head in his review of “A New Kind of Christian” by observing: “More specifically, McLaren rejects absolute truth, authority, theology, objectivity, certainty and clarity. He embraces relativism, inclusivism, deconstructionism, stories (to replace truth), creative interpretation of Scripture, neo-orthodoxy, and tolerance.”
As the evangelical pastor in “A New Kind of Christian” begins his sad journey into theological liberalism (which he wants to call “postmodern”) he describes himself in these words:
“I feel like a fundamentalist who’s losing his grip--whose fundamentals are cracking and fraying and falling apart and slipping through my fingers. It’s like I thought I was building my house on rock, but it turned out to be ice, and now global warming his hit, and the ice is melting and everything is crumbling” (p. 22).
When he first begins talking with “Neo,” the evangelical pastor admits that he is afraid that Neo’s ideas are corrupting him and turning him into a heretic (p. 26), but he quenches the fear and proceeds down the path of error.
Instead of opening his Bible and seeking the face of God alone and finding out what God has to say in His Word and re-orienting himself to the eternal Word of God, instead of confiding in a man of God who believes the Bible, this evangelical pastor turns, in his hour of doubt, to a clever unbeliever and is led into the deepest error.
This is exactly what is happening to men and women throughout the evangelical world, because they have been brainwashed to think that separation from false doctrine is mean-spirited and that a “positive, non-judgmental” approach to Christianity is preferable. As a consequence, evangelicalism, over the past 50 years, has been infiltrated with every sort of heresy.
A visit to a typical evangelical bookstore is evidence of this. On the shelves of such a bookstore you will find Chuck Colson’s radical ecumenism, Robert Schuller’s Self-esteemism, C.S. Lewis’s Anglo-Catholicism, and all sorts of Psycho-heresy. You will find Mother Teresa exalted as a model Christian, even though she was committed to a false gospel and thought Jesus was a Catholic wafer and believed that Hindus go to heaven if they believe sincerely in their gods. You will find books by Bruce Metzger, who believes that Jonah is “popular legend” and Job is an “ancient folktale,” and books by Kurt Aland, who rejected the infallibility of Scripture and claimed that even the canon of Scripture is yet unsettled. You will find Greek New Testaments edited by the Roman Catholic Cardinal Carlo Martini. You will find books by men who claim that Matthew and Mark and Luke didn’t write their Gospels directly by divine inspiration but that they used various mythical sources such as a “Q” document. You will find histories that present the Roman Catholic Church as an authentic form of Christianity. You will find heretical “church fathers” such as Augustine and Origen exalted as men of God. You will find books by charismatics who believe that the Holy Spirit knocks believers onto the floor and glues them there and that the supernatural gift of tongues is a talent that can be learned. And we have only begun to describe the dangers that are found in a typical evangelical Christian bookstore today.
It is New Evangelicalism that has created the climate whereby the average Christian does not have a mindset of being on the constant outlook for heresy and of carefully testing everything by Scripture. It has created a gullible generation.
Brian McLaren’s “A New Kind of Christian” is a dangerous book that ridicules a staunchly biblical, fundamentalist position on every hand. It slanderously describes such a position as Phariseeism and likens it to medieval Roman Catholicism. In the very beginning of the book, the Postmodern guide Neo says: “I don’t dislike fundamentalists, taken individually--they tend to be pretty nice folks. Get them together in a group though, and I get nervous. I start to twitch and break out in a rash” (p. 9).
That is the best thing the book has to say about those who hold a strict Biblicist stance, whereas theological liberals and Romanists are depicted in a much more sympathetic light.
Though purporting to represent a more intellectual approach to Christianity, the book is filled with strawman arguments, shallow reasoning, and Scripture taken wildly out of context.
It teaches that the Bible is not the infallible Word of God and that all doctrines and theologies are non-absolute, that we need to approach the Bible “on less defined terms” (p. 56). It teaches that the Bible alone should not be our authority, but that the Bible should be one of many authorities, such as tradition, reason, exemplary people and institutions one has come to trust, and spiritual experience (pp. 54, 55). It teaches that it is wrong and Pharisaical to look upon the Bible as “God’s encyclopedia, God’s rule book, God’s answer book” (p. 52). It teaches that the authority of the Bible is not in the text itself but in a mystical level above and beyond the text (p. 51).
It teaches that Christians should not try to judge right from wrong in an absolute sense because all of our understanding of the Bible is colored and conditioned by extra-biblical things such as one’s time and culture. It teaches that the postmodern Christian is one who “relativizes your own modern viewpoint,” thus understanding that everything he believes about the Bible and Christianity is only relative and uncertain (p. 35). It teaches that there is no such thing as “the Christian worldview,” that every doctrinal position, “no matter how resplendent with biblical quotations--can claim to be the ultimate Christian worldview, because every model is at the least limited by the limitations of the contemporary human mind, not to mention the ‘taste in universes’ of that particular age” (pp. 36, 37).
It teaches that ecumenism is good and that all “denominations,” including Roman Catholicism, can contribute to a proper form of Christianity. We are informed that “there are good Catholics, good Greek Orthodox, good Pentecostals, and good Episcopalians” (p. 73). It teaches that labels such as Catholic, Protestant, liberal, and evangelical “are about to become inconsequential” in a postmodern Christianity (p. 41). It teaches that mystical Catholic practices are authentic and desirable (p. 58).
It teaches that people should not ask pastors questions such as, “Do you believe in inerrancy?” or “What’s your position on homosexuality?” because to make them answer such questions is to “cheapen” them and to make them sell themselves (p. 61).
It teaches that the real issue for Jesus is “goodness, not just rightness” (p. 61), as if goodness and righteousness and truth are in some sort of conflict.
“A New Kind of Christian” teaches that Jesus’ objective was “holistic reconciliation.”
“I think what Jesus was about ... was a global, public movement or revolution to bring holistic reconciliation, a reconnection with God, with others, with ourselves, with our environment” (p. 73).
Here the author is not referring to what Jesus will do when He returns to establish His kingdom but what he is allegedly doing today. He claims the proper objective of churches is not merely the salvation of souls but the renewal of the world and saving the planet from destruction (p. 83).
It teaches that it is right for Christians to use pagan practices such as the Native American sweat lodge, peace pipe, dance, dream catcher, and smoke (pp. 26, 74-78). Apparently McLaren thinks that God’s warning, “Learn not the way of the heathen,” (Jer. 10:2), is no longer in effect.
It teaches that unbelievers and pagans can possibly be saved without personal faith in Christ (p. 92).
QUOTES FROM OTHER BOOKS AND ARTICLES BY MCLAREN
In A Generous Orthodoxy, McLaren says the Bible is “not a look-it-up encyclopedia of timeless moral truths, but the unfolding narrative of God at work...” (p. 190). He compliments the Anglicans because to them the Bible is a factor in their thinking “but it is never sola--never the only factor. Rather Scripture is always in dialogue with tradition, reason, and experience” (p. 235).
McLaren’s doctrine of salvation is as murky as any I have ever read. He says:
“I DON’T THINK WE’VE GOT THE GOSPEL RIGHT YET. What does it mean to be ‘saved’? When I read the Bible, I don’t see it meaning, ‘I’m going to heaven after I die.’ Before modern evangelicalism nobody accepted Jesus Christ as their personal Savior, or walked down an aisle, or said the sinner’s prayer. I don’t think the liberals have it right. But I don’t think we have it right either. None of us has arrived at orthodoxy” (“The Emergent Mystique,” Christianity Today, Nov. 2004, p. 40).
McLaren doesn’t think we have the gospel right yet, but two thousand years ago the Lord Jesus commanded, “Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature” (Mark 16:15). It is a little late to be trying to get the gospel right, isn’t it!
In A New Kind of Christian, McLaren has his postmodern hero say that he rejects the idea that the gospel is about getting individual souls into heaven because this “smacked of selfishness” and was unacceptable to postmodern thinking (pp. 82, 83).
McLaren identifies with Anabaptists because they (allegedly) teach that “one becomes a Christian through an event, process, or both, in which one identifies with Jesus, his mission, and his followers” (A Generous Orthodoxy, p. 229). Though Christ described salvation as a birth (John 3), McLaren thinks it might be more a process than an event.
McLaren has “a strong conviction that THE EXCLUSIVE, HELL-ORIENTED GOSPEL IS NOT THE WAY FORWARD” (A Generous Orthodoxy, p. 120, f. 48).
McLaren says the emerging approach is “less rigid, more generous” (A Generous Orthodoxy, p. 190), and it is “conversational, never attempting to be the last word, and thus silence other voices” (p. 169). He says it “doesn’t claim too much; it admits it walks with a limp” (p. 171). He says, “To be a Christian in a generously orthodox way is not to claim to have the truth captured, stuffed, and mounted on the wall” (p. 293). He likens doctrinal dogmatism to smoking cigarettes, saying that “it is a hard-to-break Protestant habit that is hazardous to spiritual health” (p. 217).
In his books The Secret Message of Jesus and Everything Must Change, McLaren says that “the essential message of Jesus” is the kingdom of God, and this is “not just a message about Jesus that focused on the afterlife, but rather the core message of Jesus that focused on personal, SOCIAL, AND GLOBAL TRANSFORMATION IN THIS LIFE” (Everything Must Change, p. 22). He says that THE KINGDOM OF GOD IS “ABOUT CHANGING THIS WORLD” (p. 23).
McLaren mocks the “fundamentalist expectations” of a literal second coming of Christ with its attendant judgments on the world and assumes that the world will go on like it is for hundreds of thousands of years (A Generous Orthodoxy, p. 305). He calls the literal, imminent return of Christ “pop-Evangelical eschatology” (Generous Orthodoxy, p. 267) and the “eschatology of abandonment” (interview with Planet Preterist, Jan. 30, 2005, http://planetpreterist.com/news-2774.html).
McLaren says that the book of Revelation is not a “book about the distant future” but is “a way of talking about the challenges of the immediate present” (The Secret Message of Jesus, 2007, p. 176). He says that phrases such as “the moon will turn to blood” “are no more to be taken literally than phrases we might read in the paper today” (The Secret Message, p. 178).
McLaren epitomizes the emerging church’s radical ecumenism by calling himself “evangelical, post-protestant, liberal/conservative, mystical/poetic, biblical, charismatic/contemplative, fundamentalist/Calvinist, anabaptist/anglican, Methodist, catholic, green, incarnational, emergent” (A Generous Orthodoxy, subtitle to the book).
The fact that these various doctrinal positions are contradictory and non-reconcilable does not bother the man one iota. He is fully committed to “orthoparadoxy,” being convinced that he can hold contradictions in harmony.
In June 2006 McLaren joined the blasphemous Marcus Borg of the Jesus Seminar, who boldly denies the Jesus of the Bible, at the Center for Spiritual Development in Portland, Oregon. The center promotes New Age and occultic practices such as Yoga, Sufism, Tai Chi, Enneagram, and Reiki. The Episcopalian heretic John Shelby Spong has also spoken at this Center.
McLaren wrote a glowing recommendation of Alan Jones’ book Reimagining Christianity. Jones calls the gospel of the cross a vile doctrine, claims that there is no objective authority, and says that Hindus and Buddhists are God’s people:
“But another ancient strand of Christianity teaches that we are all caught up in the Divine Mystery we call God, that the Spirit is in everyone, and that there are depths of interpretation yet to be plumbed. ... At the cathedral [Grace Episcopal Cathedral in San Francisco] we ‘break the bread’ for those who follow the path of the Buddha and walk the way of the Hindus” (Reimagining Christianity, 2005, p. 89).
Of this book McLaren says:
“It used to be that Christian institutions and systems of dogma sustained the spiritual life of Christians. Increasingly, spirituality itself is what sustains everything else. Alan Jones is a pioneer in reimagining a Christian faith that emerges from authentic spirituality. His work stimulates and encourages me deeply” (endorsement on back cover).
McLaren says, “I DON’T THINK IT’S OUR BUSINESS TO PROGNOSTICATE THE ETERNAL DESTINIES OF ANYONE ELSE” (p. 92) and offers a quote from a C.S. Lewis’s novel as his authority. In this novel Lewis’s character was a soldier who served a false god named Tash all his life, but he was accepted nonetheless by Aslan, who represents Christ.
“Alas, Lord, I am no son of Thine but the servant of Tash. He answered, Child, all the service thou has done to Tash, I account as service done to me. ... Therefore if any man swear by Tash and keep his oath for the oath’s sake, it is by me that he has truly sworn, though he know it not, and it is I who reward him.”
According to C.S. Lewis, who is deeply loved by all branches of the emerging church, an individual might be saved even if he follows a false religion in this life and makes no personal profession of faith in Jesus Christ.
McLaren said that the Indian Hindu leader Gandhi “sought to follow the way of Christ without identifying himself as a Christian” (A Generous Orthodoxy, p. 189).
McLaren teaches that there is much good in pagan religions, that they have been a good thing for the world.
“My knowledge of Buddhism is rudimentary, but I have to tell you that much of what I understand strikes me as wonderful and insightful, and the same can be said of the teachings of Muhammad, though of course I have my disagreements. ... I’d have to say that the world is better off for having these religions than having no religions at all, or just one, even if it were ours. ... They aren’t the enemy of the gospel, in my mind...” (pp. 62, 63).
The man needs to spend a few years living in India or Nepal to see how the Hindu religion has corrupted and debased the people, how it has turned women into chattel, cows and snakes into gods, certain classes of people into untouchables, and human life in general into something of little value, how it has encouraged pride and self-centeredness and corruption at every level of society and has discouraged humility and compassion. Or maybe he should spend a few years in an Islamic country such as Saudi Arabia or Pakistan to see what the Muslim religion has done to people. Are they better off because they can change their religion only on the pain of death and because a woman has no real rights and because she can be killed just because she does something that the male members of the family consider unacceptable?
McLaren says that Buddhism is not the enemy of the gospel, but how can a religion that teaches that Jesus Christ is not God and not the only Saviour of the world NOT be an enemy of the gospel? He says the Muslim religion is not the enemy of the gospel, but how can a religion that teaches that Jesus was not God and did not die for our sins and that forbids its members to convert to the Christ of the Bible NOT be an enemy of the gospel?
In a podcast interview in January 2006 with Leif Hansen, McLaren said that if the doctrine of hell is true then the Christ’s message and cross is “false advertising.” He said that since Christ taught that God’s kingdom doesn’t come through violence and coercion, this would be contrary to the judgment of hell. He also said if hell is true then people can legitimately question God’s goodness.
This interview is truly amazing in a fearful way. Hansen says that he doubts God’s very existence and even casts a profanity at Jesus. And yet the two of them ramble on in a very knowing sort of way, mocking fundamentalists and Calvinists and anyone else who won’t accept the emerging church’s unbelief. It is a great warning that if you reject the truth you are walking in utter darkness.
McLaren says:
“Does it make sense for a good being to create creatures who will experience infinite torture, infinite time, infinite--you know, never be numbed in their consciousness? I mean, how would you even create a universe where that sort of thing could happen? It just sounds--It really raises some questions about the goodness of God. ...
“The traditional understanding says that God asks of us something that God is incapable of Himself. God asks us to forgive people. But God is incapable of forgiving. God can’t forgive unless He punishes somebody in place of the person He was going to forgive. God doesn’t say things to you--Forgive your wife, and then go kick the dog to vent your anger. God asks you to actually forgive. And there’s a certain sense that, A COMMON UNDERSTANDING OF THE ATONEMENT PRESENTS A GOD WHO IS INCAPABLE OF FORGIVING. UNLESS HE KICKS SOMEBODY ELSE. ...
“... one of the huge problems is the traditional understanding of hell. Because if the cross is in line with Jesus’ teaching then--I won’t say, the only, and I certainly won’t say even the primary--but a primary meaning of the cross is that the kingdom of God doesn’t come like the kingdoms of the this world, by inflicting violence and coercing people. But that the kingdom of God comes through suffering and willing, voluntary sacrifice. But in an ironic way, THE DOCTRINE OF HELL BASICALLY SAYS, NO, THAT THAT’S NOT REALLY TRUE. THAT IN THE END, GOD GETS HIS WAY THROUGH COERCION AND VIOLENCE AND INTIMIDATION AND DOMINATION, just like every other kingdom does. The cross isn’t the center then. The cross is almost a distraction and false advertising for God” (McLaren, http://www.understandthetimes.org/mclarentrans.shtml and http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2006/01/brian_mclaren_p.html).
Hansen replies as follows:
“Oh, Brian, that was just so beautifully said. I was tempted to get on my soap box there and you know--Because as you and I know there are so many illustrations and examples that you could give that show why THE TRADITIONAL VIEW OF HELL COMPLETELY FALLS IN THE FACE OF--IT’S JUST ANTITHETICAL TO THE CROSS. But the way you put it there, I love that. It’s false advertising. And here, Jesus is saying, turn the other cheek. Love your enemy. Forgive seven times seventy. Return violence with self-sacrificial love. But if we believe the traditional view of hell, it’s like, well, do that for a short amount of time. Because eventually, God’s going to get them.”
McLaren also said:
“The church has been preoccupied with the question, ‘What happens to your soul after you die?’ AS IF THE REASON FOR JESUS COMING CAN BE SUMMED UP IN, ‘JESUS IS TRYING TO HELP GET MORE SOULS INTO HEAVEN, AS OPPOSED TO HELL, AFTER THEY DIE.’ I JUST THINK A FAIR READING OF THE GOSPELS BLOWS THAT OUT OF THE WATER. I don’t think that the entire message and life of Jesus can be boiled down to that bottom line” (“The Emerging Church,” Part Two, Religion & Ethics, July 15, 2005, http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week846/cover.html).
In the same interview McLaren said that the traditional doctrine of substitutionary atonement makes God into a strange monster that wants to kill his own son and needs to be restrained. He also says the substitutionary atonement detracts from social justice issues. He even blasphemously mocks the atonement by saying that if it is true it would mean that God can’t forgive one person unless he “kicks someone else.” Consider this very foolish statement.
“What’s so bad about sin? Now, I can just imagine some people quoting--See, McLaren doesn’t think sin is a problem. I take sin really, seriously. But here’s the problem, If I were to make this sort of analogy or parable. When I had little children, if one of my little children--Let’s say my son Brett, was beating up on his little brother, Trevor. Now, Trevor is bigger. But back then--What was the problem? Was the problem that I don’t want my younger son to get hurt and I don’t want my older son to be a bully. I want my older son to be a good person. I want my younger son to be a good person. I want them to have a great relationship. Then the problem of sin is what it does to my family and what it does to my boys, you know. That’s the problem with sin.
“But what we’ve created is, the problem of sin is that I am so angry at my son Brett for beating up his younger brother, I’m going to kill him. So now the problem we’ve got to solve is how to keep me from killing my son. Does that make sense?
“And so now it seems to me the entire Christian theology has shifted so now the problem is, how can we keep me from killing Brett? And I don’t think that’s the kind of God that we serve. I think the problem is God wants His children to get along with each other. He wants them to be good people. Because He’s good. And His vision for creation is that they’ll love each other and be good to each other and enjoy each other and have a lot of fun together. ...
“We have a vision that the real problem is God wants to kill us all. And we’ve got to somehow solve that problem. And what that does to me, Leif, that is so significant, is that it then minimizes the concern about injustice between human beings. That becomes a peripheral concern. But what if that’s God’s real concern, from beginning to end, see? ...
“The traditional understanding says that God asks of us something that God is incapable of Himself. God asks us to forgive people. But God is incapable of forgiving. God can’t forgive unless He punishes somebody in place of the person He was going to forgive. God doesn’t say things to you--Forgive your wife, and then go kick the dog to vent your anger. God asks you to actually forgive. And there’s a certain sense that, a common understanding of the atonement presents a God who is incapable of forgiving. Unless He kicks somebody else” (McLaren, http://www.understandthetimes.org/mclarentrans.shtml and http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2006/01/brian_mclaren_p.html).
What McLaren ignores is God’s holiness and justice. God is not just a father like a human father. He is a holy and just God who has given man His righteous Law. That Law, having been broken, must be satisfied. The wages of sin is death. Without the shedding of blood is no remission. And to provide the atonement, God hasn’t “kicked” anyone but Himself!
On the issue of homosexuality, McLaren says:
“Frankly, many of us don’t know what we should think about homosexuality. ... We aren’t sure if or where lines are to be drawn, nor do we know how to enforce with fairness whatever lines are drawn. ... Perhaps we need a five-year moratorium on making pronouncements” (“Brian McLaren on the Homosexual Question,” Jan. 23, 2006, http://blog.christianitytoday.com/outofur/archives/2006/01/brian_mclaren_o.html).
In December 2006, McLaren spoke at the Open Door Community Church in Sherwood, Arkansas. The church’s web site says:
“The leadership at Open Door Community Churches are excited to see gay and non-gay Christians worshiping together as one. We believe that gay and non-gay Christians can and should come to the table of the Lord together, side by side, without labels. We believe that as these two historically separate communities join together at the cross of Jesus Christ a healing and a new understanding of oneness in Christ occurs in both groups. We are part of a growing revival of grace-filled Christians transcending either the terms ‘conservative’ or ‘liberal.’ Above all things, we are a GRACE CHURCH! We are a family embracing the full spectrum of race, age, gender, family status, sexual orientation, economic status and denominational background.”
On his own web site McLaren even recommends the writings of New Ager Ken Wilber.
Roger Oakland remarks:
“Ken Wilber was raised in a conservative Christian church, but at some point he left that faith and is now a major proponent of Buddhist mysticism. His book that Bell recommends, A Brief History of Everything, is published by Shambhala Publications, named after the term, which in Buddhism means the mystical abode of spirit beings. ... Wilber is perhaps best known for what he calls integral theory. On his website, he has a chart called the Integral Life Practice Matrix, which lists several activities one can practice ‘to authentically exercise all aspects or dimensions of your own being-in-the-world’ Here are a few of these spiritual activities that Wilber promotes: yoga, Zen, centering prayer, kabbalah (Jewish mysticism), TM, tantra (Hindu-based sexuality), and kundalini yoga. ... A Brief History of Everything discusses these practices (in a favorable light) as well. For Rob Bell to say that Wilber’s book is ‘mind-blowing’ and readers should spend three months in it leaves no room for doubt regarding Rob Bell’s spiritual sympathies. What is alarming is that so many Christian venues, such as Christian junior high and high schools, are using Velvet Elvis and the Noomas” (Faith Undone, p. 110).
In Up from Eden: A Transpersonal View of Human Evolution (1981, 2004), Ken Wilber calls the Garden of Eden a fable” and the biblical view of history “amusing” (pp. xix, 3). He describes his “perennial philosophy” as follows:
“... it is true that there is some sort of Infinite, some type of Absolute Godhead, but it cannot properly be conceived as a colossal Being, a great Daddy, or a big Creator set apart from its creations, from things and events and human beings themselves. Rather, it is best conceived (metaphorically) as the ground or suchness or condition of all things and events. It is not a Big Thing set apart from finite things, but rather the reality or suchness or ground of all things. ... the perennial philosophy declares that the absolute is One, Whole, and Undivided” (p. 6).
CONCLUSION
Beware of Brian McLaren and the emerging church!
A good test is to ask Christian leaders what they think of this man. Assuming they are familiar with his writings, if they fudge and hedge, refusing to come right out and mark him as a dangerous heretic, they are heretics themselves or at least well down the road of serious compromise!
WHAT CHARLES SPURGEON SAID ABOUT THE EMERGING CHURCH
The emerging church represented by Brian McLaren is not as new as it appears to be. It was already raising its ugly head in the late 19th century, because Charles Spurgeon described it perfectly in his comments on James 5:19-20. He called it “modern thought.” He also described the tolerant attitude of modern evangelicalism that puts up with emerging church type heresies. Spurgeon called this “latitudinarianism.”
“Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him; Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins” (James 5:19-20).
“It was not merely that he fell into a mistake upon some lesser matter which might be compared to the fringe of the gospel, but he erred in some vital doctrine--he departed from the faith in its fundamentals. There are some truths which must be believed, they are essential to salvation, and if not heartily accepted the soul will be ruined. This man had been professedly orthodox, but he turned aside from the truth on an essential point Now, in those days the saints did not say: ‘We must be largely charitable, and leave this brother to his own opinion; he sees truth from a different standpoint, and has a rather different way of putting it, but his opinions are as good as our own, and we must not say that he is in error.’
“That is at present the fashionable way of trifling with divine truth, and making things pleasant all round. Thus the gospel is debased and another gospel propagated. I should like to ask modern broad churchmen whether there is any doctrine of any sort for which it would be worth a man’s while to burn or to lie in prison. I do not believe they could give me an answer, for if their latitudinarianism be correct, the martyrs were fools of the first magnitude.
“From what I see of their writings and their teachings, it appears to me that the modern thinkers treat the whole compass of revealed truth with entire indifference; and, though perhaps they may feel sorry that wilder spirits should go too far in free-thinking, and though they had rather they would be more moderate, yet, upon the whole, so large is their liberality, that they are not sure enough of anything to be able to condemn the reverse of it as a deadly error. To them black and white are terms which may be applied to the same colour, as you view it from different standpoints. Yea and nay are equally true in their esteem. Their theology shifts like the Goodwin Sands, and they regard all firmness as so much bigotry. Errors and truths are equally comprehensible within the circle of their charity.
“It was not in this way that the apostles regarded error. They did not prescribe large-hearted charity towards falsehood, or hold up the errorist as a man of deep thought, whose views were ‘refreshingly original’; far less did they utter some wicked nonsense about the probability of their having more faith in honest doubt than in half the creeds. They did not believe in justification by doubting, as our Neologians do; they set about the conversion of the erring brother; they treated him as a person who needed conversion: and viewed him as a man who, if he were not converted, would suffer the death of his soul, and be covered with a multitude of sins. They were not such easy-going people as our cultured friends of the school of ‘modern thought,’ who have learned at last that the deity of Christ may be denied, the work of the Holy Spirit ignored, the inspiration of scripture rejected, the atonement disbelieved, and regeneration dispensed with, and yet the man who does all this may be as good a Christian as the most devout believer!
“O God, deliver us from this deceitful infidelity, which while it does damage to the erring man, and often prevents his being reclaimed, does yet more mischief to our own hearts by teaching us that truth is unimportant, and falsehood a trifle, and so destroys our allegiance to the God of truth, and makes us traitors instead of loyal subjects to the King of kings” (C.H. Spurgeon, “Restoring Those Who Have Erred,” Words of Counsel for Christian Workers, pp. 139-142).
[Distributed by Way of Life Literature's Fundamental Baptist Information Service, an e-mail listing for Fundamental Baptists and other fundamentalist, Bible-believing Christians. OUR GOAL IN THIS PARTICULAR ASPECT OF OUR MINISTRY IS NOT DEVOTIONAL BUT IS TO PROVIDE INFORMATION TO ASSIST PREACHERS IN THE PROTECTION OF THE CHURCHES IN THIS APOSTATE HOUR. This material is sent only to those who personally subscribe to the list. If somehow you have subscribed unintentionally, following are the instructions for removal. The Fundamental Baptist Information Service mailing list is automated. To SUBSCRIBE or to UNSUBSCRIBE or to CHANGE ADDRESSES or to RE-SUBSCRIBE UNDER A NEW ADDRESS, go to http://www.wayoflife.org/fbis/subscribe.html. If you have any trouble with this, please let us know. And please be patient with us. We do not ignore any unsubscribe request, but we cannot always get to your request immediately as each person involved with maintaining the Way of Life web site does this only on a very part time basis and is busy with many other major activities, such as pastoring and missionary work. We take up a quarterly offering to fund this ministry, and those who use the materials are expected to participate (Galatians 6:6) if they can. Some of the articles are from O Timothy magazine, which is in its 25th year of publication. Way of Life publishes many helpful books. The catalog is located at the web site: http://wayoflife.org/catalog/catalog.htm Way of Life Literature, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061. 866-295-4143, fbns@wayoflife.org. We do not solicit funds from those who do not agree with our preaching and who are not helped by these publications, but from those who are. OFFERINGS can be made at http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/offering.html. PAYPAL offerings can be made to https://www.paypal.com/xclick/business=dcloud%40wayoflife.org]
VATICAN II COUNCIL REAFFIRMS CATHOLIC HERESIES
Republished August 9, 2007 (first published May 25, 2006) (David Cloud, Fundamental Baptist Information Service, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061, 866-295-4143, fbns@wayoflife.org; for instructions about subscribing and unsubscribing or changing addresses, see the information paragraph at the end of the article) -
While the declarations of the Roman Catholic Vatican II Council of the 1960s did bring changes to the Catholic Church, it did not change its foundational dogmas. Not only did Vatican II uphold Rome’s false dogmas, it actually strengthened them.
The more than 2,400 bishops attending Vatican II reaffirmed such Roman heresies as papal supremacy, the Roman priesthood, the mass as a re-sacrifice of Christ, the sacramental gospel, Catholic tradition on equal par with Scripture, Mary as the Queen of Heaven and co-redemptress with Christ, auricular confession, pilgrimages to “holy shrines,” purgatory, and prayers to and for the dead.
All of these Roman dogmas are reaffirmed in Vatican Council II--The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents. This book is published by the Roman Catholic Church and contains the Imprimatur: Walter P. Kellenberg, D,D., Bishop of Rockville Centre, Aug. 12, 1975. “Imprimatur" is the official Catholic stamp of approval and means “let it be printed.”
Consider some quotes from the Vatican II documents:
The Mass a Re-sacrifice of Christ
“Hence the Mass, the Lord’s Supper, is at the same time and inseparably: a sacrifice in which the sacrifice of the cross is perpetuated; a memorial of the death and resurrection of the Lord, who said ‘do this in memory of me’ (Lk. 22:19) … In the Mass, therefore, the sacrifice and sacred meal belong to the same mystery—so much so that they are linked by the closest bond. For in the sacrifice of the Mass Our Lord is immolated when ‘he begins to be present sacramentally as the spiritual food of the faithful under the appearances of bread and wine.’ … For in it Christ perpetuates in an unbloody manner the sacrifice offered on the cross, offering himself to the Father for the world’s salvation through the ministry of priests” (Vatican II, The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Instruction on the Worship of the Eucharistic Mystery, Introduction, C 1,2, p. 108).
Christ Present in the Elements of the Mass
“In this sacrament Christ is present in a unique way, whole and entire, God and man, substantially and permanently. This presence of Christ under the species ‘is called real, not in an exclusive sense, as if the other kinds of presence were not real, but par excellence” (Vatican II, The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Instruction on the Worship of the Eucharistic Mystery, Chap. 1, E, p. 114).
“In the celebration of Mass there is proclaimed the wonderful mystery of the real presence of Christ our Lord under the eucharistic species. The Second Vatican Council and other magisterial pronouncements of the Church have confirmed this truth in the same sense and the same words as those in which the Council of Trent defined it as an article of faith. ... Christ becomes present through an essential change in the elements” (Vatican II, The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, General Instruction on the Roman Missal, foreword, 3, p. 154).
The Mass Is a Part of Salvation
“As often as the sacrifice of the cross by which ‘Christ our Pasch is sacrificed’ (1 Cor. 5:7) is celebrated on the altar, the work of our redemption is carried out” (Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Chapter 1, 3, p. 324).
The Mass the Center of Christian life
“The celebration of the Mass ... is the centre of the whole Christian life for the universal Church, the local Church and for each and every one of the faithful. For therein is the culminating action whereby God sanctifies the world in Christ and men worship the Father as they adore him through Christ the Son of God” (Vatican II, The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, General Instruction on the Roman Missal, chap. 1, 1, p. 159).
Christ Is to Be Worshipped in the Wafer
“The reservation of the sacred species for the sick ... led to the praiseworthy custom of adoring the heavenly food which is preserved in churches. This practice of adoration has a valid and firm foundation, especially since belief in the real presence of the Lord has as its natural consequence the external and public manifestation of that belief” (Vatican II, The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Instruction on the Worship of the Eucharistic Mystery, Chap. 3, I A, p. 131).
“The faithful should therefore strive to worship Christ our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament. ... Pastors [priests] should exhort them to this, and set them a good example. ... The place in a church or oratory where the Blessed Sacrament is reserved in the tabernacle [place where the consecrated wafer is kept and worshiped between Masses] should be truly prominent. It ought to be suitable for private prayer so that the faithful may easily and fruitfully, by private devotion also, continue to honour our Lord in this sacrament” (Vatican II, The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Instruction on the Worship of the Eucharistic Mystery, Chap. 3, I B, p. 132).
“Devotion, both private and public, towards the sacrament of the altar even outside Mass ... is highly recommended by the Church, since the eucharistic sacrifice is the source and summit of the whole Christian life” (Vatican II, The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Instruction on the Worship of the Eucharistic Mystery, Chap. 3, III, p. 134).
“All the faithful ought to show to this most holy sacrament the worship which is due to the true God, as has always been the custom of the Catholic Church. Nor is it to be adored any the less because it was instituted by Christ to be eaten. For even in the reserved sacrament he is to be adored because he is substantially present there through that conversion of bread and wine which, as the Council of Trent tells us, is most aptly named transubstantiation” (Vatican II, The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Instruction on the Worship of the Eucharistic Mystery, Intro., C 6, pp. 109,10).
“It is necessary to instruct the faithful that Jesus Christ is the Lord and Saviour and that the same worship and adoration given to God is owed to him present under the sacramental signs” (Vatican II, The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Instruction on Facilitating Sacramental Eucharistic Communion in Particular Circumstances, Piety and Reverence Towards the Sacrament, p. 221).
The Wafer to Be Carried in Processions
“In processions in which the Blessed Sacrament is solemnly carried through the streets to the singing of hymns, especially on the feast of Corpus Christi, the Christian people give public witness to their faith and devotion towards this sacrament” (Vatican II, The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Instruction on the Worship of the Eucharistic Mystery, Chap. 3, III, p. 134).
Masses for the Dead
“Holy Mother Church is extremely concerned for the faithful departed. She has decided to intercede for them to the fullest extent in every Mass and abrogates every special privilege in this matter” (Vatican II, The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Apostolic Constitution on the Revision of Indulgences, V, Indulgences not Attached to Things and Places, Norms, 20, p. 87).
“The Church offers the Paschal Sacrifice [the Mass] for the Dead so that ... the dead may be helped by the prayers and the living may be consoled by hope” (Vatican II, The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, General Instruction on the Roman Missal, VIII, Masses for the Dead, 335, p. 197).
Mass Must be Performed in Strict Accordance with Catholic Tradition
“To safeguard the success of these celebrations and to obtain a greater spiritual efficaciousness ... attention must be given to the form. ... The texts of the Mass should be taken from the missal or from approved supplements. Every change ... is arbitrary and therefore rejected ... The furnishings of the altar (cross, altar cloth, candles, missal, purificator, corporal, hand towel and communion plate), the sacred vessels (chalice, paten, pyx), the vestments (amice, alb, cincture, stole and chasuble) should be, in number, form and quality, as desired by present legislation. ... The ritual gestures and the ceremonies of the celebrant, as well as the attitude of the participants should be those prescribed for the normal eucharistic celebration” (Vatican II, The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Instruction on Masses for Special Groups, 11a,b, p. 146).
The Wine Can Be Taken Only on Special Occasions
“First, they should be reminded that, according to the Catholic faith, Christ is received whole and entire in a complete sacrament even when people communicate under one kind only [take only the wafer without the juice]. And they are not thereby deprived of any grace necessary for salvation ... With the bishop’s approval and after due instruction the following persons may receive Communion from the chalice ... [there follows 14 groups of persons who are permitted to partake of the juice during special Masses performed at weddings, baptisms, ordinations, and certain retreats]” (Vatican II, The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, General Instruction on the Roman Missal, IV, 241, 242, pp. 181-182)
Catholic Tradition on Equal Par with Scripture
“Sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal ... Thus it comes about that the Church does not draw her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Hence, both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honoured with equal feelings of devotion and reverence” (Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, Chap. 2, 9, p. 682).
Salvation Is through the Sacraments and the Church
“Just as Christ was sent by the Father so also he sent the apostles ... that they might preach the gospel to every creature and proclaim that the Son of God by his death and resurrection had freed us from the power of Satan and from death, and brought us into the Kingdom of his Father. But he also willed that the work of salvation which they preached should be set in train through the sacrifice and sacraments, around which the entire liturgical [ritualistic] life revolves. Thus by Baptism men are grafted into the paschal mystery of Christ. ... They receive the spirit of adoption as sons” (Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Chap. 1, I, 5,6, pp. 23-24).
“In that body the life of Christ is communicated to those who believe and who, through the sacraments, are united in a hidden and real way to Christ in his passion and glorification. Through baptism we are formed in the likeness of Christ: ‘For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body’ (1 Cor. 12:13). In this sacred rite fellowship in Christ’s death and resurrection is symbolized and is brought about” (Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Chap. 1, 7, p. 327).
“For it is the liturgy through which, especially in the divine sacrifice of the Eucharist, ‘the work of our redemption is accomplished,’ and it is through the liturgy, especially, that the faithful are enabled to express in their lives and manifest to others the mystery of Christ and the real nature of the true Church” (Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Introduction, para. 2).
Salvation Distributed by the Pope
“For God’s only-begotten Son ... has won a treasure for the militant Church ... he has entrusted it to blessed Peter, the key-bearer of heaven, and to his successors who are Christ’s vicars on earth, so that they may distribute it to the faithful for their salvation. They may apply it with mercy for reasonable causes to all who have repented for and have confessed their sins. At times they may remit completely, and at other times only partially, the temporal punishment due to sin in a general as well as in special ways (insofar as they judge it to be fitting in the sight of the Lord). The merits of the Blessed Mother of God and of all the elect ... are known to add further to this treasury’” (ellipsis are in the original) (Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Apostolic Constitution on the Revision of Indulgences, Chap. 4, 7, p. 80).
Salvation through the Catholic Church
“For it is through Christ’s Catholic Church alone, which is the universal help towards salvation, that the fulness of the means of salvation can be obtained. It was to the apostolic college alone of which Peter is the head, that we believe that our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant, in order to establish on earth the one Body of Christ into which all those should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the people of God” (Decree on Ecumenism, chap. 1, 3, p. 415).
“This holy Council first of all turns its attention to the Catholic faithful. Basing itself on scripture and tradition, it teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mk. 16:16; Jn. 3:5), and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it, or to remain in it” (Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, II, 14, p. 336).
Salvation by Good Works
“From the most ancient times in the Church good works were also offered to God for the salvation of sinners, particularly the works which human weakness finds hard. Because the sufferings of the martyrs for the faith and for God’s law were thought to be very valuable, penitents used to turn to the martyrs to be helped by their merits to obtain a more speedy reconciliation from the bishops. Indeed, the prayers and good works of holy people were regarded as of such great value that it could be asserted that the penitent was washed, cleansed and redeemed with the help of the entire Christian people” (Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Apostolic Constitution on the Revision of Indulgences, chap. 3, 6, pp. 78,79).
Salvation through Baptism
“By the sacrament of Baptism, whenever it is properly conferred in the way the Lord determined and received with the proper dispositions of soul, man becomes truly incorporated into the crucified and glorified Christ and is reborn to a sharing of the divine life” (Decree on Ecumenism, chap. 3, II, 22, p. 427).
Salvation Is through Indulgences and Ritual
“By means of indulgences those members of the Church who are enduring their purification are united more speedily to the members who are in heaven ... holy Mother Church again recommends the practice of indulgences to the faithful. ... The remission of punishment by distribution from the Church’s treasury is incorporated into it. The Church recommends its faithful not to abandon or neglect the holy traditions of those who have gone before. They should be welcomed in a religious spirit as a precious treasure of the Catholic family and esteemed as such. ... The Church reminds them constantly of the things which should be given preference because they are necessary or at least better and more efficacious helps in the task of winning salvation” (Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Apostolic Constitution on the Revision of Indulgences, chap. 4, 10,11, p. 82).
Salvation Can Be Achieved through Non-Christian Religions
“The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Moslems. These profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day... Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience—those too may achieve eternal salvation” (Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, chap. 2, 16, p. 338).
Salvation Grace Is Not Free but Must Be Earned
“All children of the Church should nevertheless remember that their exalted condition results, not from their own merits, but from the grace of Christ. If they fail to respond in thought, word and deed to that grace, not only shall they not be saved, but they shall be the more severely judged” (Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, chap. 2, 14, p. 337).
The Catholic Church the Only True Church
“This is the sole Church of Christ which in the Creed we profess to be one, holy, catholic and apostolic, which our Saviour, after his resurrection, entrusted to Peter’s pastoral care. ... This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him” (Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, chap. 1, 8, p. 329).
“For it is through Christ’s Catholic Church alone, which is the universal help towards salvation, that the fulness of the means of salvation can be obtained. It was to the apostolic college alone of which Peter is the head, that we believe that our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant, in order to establish on earth the one Body of Christ into which all those should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the people of God” (Decree on Ecumenism, chap. 1, 3, p. 415).
The Pope Is the Supreme Head of the Church
“The college or body of bishops has for all that no authority unless united with the Roman Pontiff, Peter’s successor, as its head, whose primatial authority, let it be added, over all, whether pastors or faithful, remains in its integrity. For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, namely, and as pastor of the entire Church, has full, supreme and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered” (Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, chap. 3, 22, p. 344).
The Pope Is the Infallible Teacher
“The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful—who confirms his brethren in the faith (cf. Lk. 22:32)—he proclaims in an absolute decision a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. For that very reason his definitions are rightly said to be irreformable by their very nature and not by reason of the assent of the Church... as a consequence they are in no way in need of the approval of others, and do not admit of appeal to any other tribunal. For in such a case the Roman Pontiff does not utter a pronouncement as a private person, but rather does he expound and defend the teaching of the Catholic faith as the supreme teacher of the universal Church, in whom the Church’s charism of infallibility is present in a singular way” (Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, chap. 3, 25, p. 349).
“This loyal submission of the will and intellect must be given, in a special way, to the authentic teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, even when he does not speak ex cathedra in such wise, indeed, that his supreme teaching authority be acknowledged with respect, and sincere assent be given to decisions made by him, conformably with his manifest mind and intention” (Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, chap. 3, 25, p. 348).
Mary the Sinless Mother of God, Perpetual Virgin, Bodily Assumed into Heaven as Queen over All
“Joined to Christ the head and in communion with all his saints, the faithful must in the first place reverence the memory of the glorious ever Virgin Mary, Mother of God and of our Lord Jesus Christ... Because of the gift of sublime grace she far surpasses all creatures, both in heaven and on earth... The Immaculate Virgin preserved free from all stain of original sin, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, when her earthly life was over, and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things, that she might be the more fully conformed to her Son, the Lord of lords (cf. Apoc. 19:16) and conqueror of sin and death” (Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, chap. 8, I, 52,53; II, 59, pp. 378,381- 382).
Mary Is Co-redemptress with Christ
“Rightly, therefore, the Fathers see Mary not merely as passively engaged by God, but as freely cooperating in the work of man’s salvation through faith and obedience. For as St. Irenaeus says, she being obedient, became the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race. Hence not a few of the early Fathers gladly assert with him in their preaching ... ‘death through Eve, life through Mary.’ This union of the mother with the Son in the work of salvation is made manifest from the time of Christ’s virginal conception up to his death” (Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, chap. 8, II, 56, pp. 380-381).
Mary Intercedes for Men from Heaven and Aids in Their Salvation
“Taken up to heaven she did not lay aside this saving office but by her manifold intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation. By her maternal charity, she cares for the brethren of her Son, who still journey on earth surrounded by dangers and difficulties, until they are led into their blessed home. Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix” (Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, chap. 8, II, 62, pp. 382-383).
Mary to Be Venerated
“Mary has by grace been exalted above all angels and men to a place second only to her Son, as the most holy mother of God who was involved in the mysteries of Christ: she is rightly honoured by a special cult in the Church. ... The sacred synod teaches this Catholic doctrine advisedly and at the same time admonishes all the sons of the Church that the cult, especially the liturgical cult, of the Blessed Virgin, be generously fostered, and that the practices and exercises of devotion towards her, recommended by the teaching authority of the Church in the course of centuries be highly esteemed, and that those decrees, which were given in the early days regarding the cult images of Christ, the Blessed Virgin and the saints, be religiously observed” (Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, chap. 8, IV, The Cult of the Blessed Virgin in the Church, 66,67, pp. 384-385).
Intercessions of and Prayers to Dead Saints
“The ‘treasury of the Church’ ... is the infinite value, which can never be exhausted, which Christ’s merits have before God. ... This treasury includes as well the prayers and good works of the Blessed Virgin Mary. They are truly immense, unfathomable and even pristine in their value before God. In the treasury, too, are the prayers and good works of all the saints, all those who have followed in the footsteps of Christ the Lord and by his grace have made their lives holy and carried out the mission the Father entrusted to them. In this way they attained their own salvation and at the same time cooperated in saving their brothers in the unity of the Mystical Body. ... The union of the living with their brethren who have fallen asleep in Christ is not broken. ... Now that they are welcomed in their own country and at home with the Lord, through him, with him and in him they intercede unremittingly with the Father on our behalf, offering the merit they acquired on earth through Christ Jesus. ... Their brotherly care is the greatest help to our weakness” (The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Apostolic Constitution on the Revision of Indulgences, chap. 2, 5, pp. 76,77).
“In full consciousness of this communion of the whole Mystical Body of Jesus Christ, the Church in its pilgrim members, from the very earliest days of the Christian religion, has honoured with great respect the memory of the dead ... she has always venerated them, together with the Blessed Virgin Mary and the holy angels, with a special love, and has asked piously for the help of their intercession. ... When, then, we celebrate the eucharistic sacrifice [the Mass] we are most closely united to the worship of the heavenly Church; when in the fellowship of communion we honour and remember the glorious Mary ever virgin, St. Joseph, the holy apostles and martyrs and all the saints” (Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, chap. 8, I, 52,53; II, 59, pp. 375,377).
“Holy Mother Church is extremely concerned for the faithful departed. She has decided to intercede for them to the fullest extent in every Mass and abrogates every special privilege in this matter” (Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, chap. 8, V, Norms, 20, p. 87).
Purgatory Necessary to Purge Sin
“The doctrine of purgatory clearly demonstrates that even when the guilt of sin has been taken away, punishment for it or the consequences of it may remain to be expiated or cleansed. They often are. In fact, in purgatory the souls of those who died in the charity of God and truly repentant, but who had not made satisfaction with adequate penance for their sins and omissions are cleansed after death with punishments designed to purge away their debt” (Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Apostolic Constitution on the Revision of Indulgences, chap. 1, 3, p. 75).
Priests Have Special Powers to Bestow Spiritual Blessing
“However, the Lord also appointed certain men as ministers, in order that they might be united in one body in which ‘all the members have not the same function’ (Rom. 12:4). These men were to hold in the community of the faithful the sacred power of Order, that of offering sacrifice and forgiving sins, and were to exercise the priestly office publicly on behalf of men in the name of Christ” (Decree on the Ministry and Life of Priests, chap. 1, 2, p. 776).
“Priests, while being taken from amongst men and appointed for men in the things that appertain to God that they may offer gifts and sacrifices for sins, live with the rest of men as with brothers” (Decree on the Ministry and Life of Priests, chap. 1, 3, p. 778).
“The purpose then for which priests are consecrated by God through the ministry of the bishop is that they should be made sharers in a special way in Christ’s priesthood and, by carrying out sacred functions, act as his ministers who through his Spirit continually exercises his priestly function for our benefit in the liturgy. By Baptism priests introduce men into the People of God; by the sacrament of Penance they reconcile sinners with God and the Church; by the Anointing of the sick they relieve those who are ill; and especially by the celebration of Mass they offer Christ’s sacrifice sacramentally” (Decree on the Ministry and Life of Priests, chap. 2, I, 5, p. 781).
Catholic Priests Share Christ’s Identical Priesthood
“All priests share with the bishops the one identical priesthood and ministry of Christ” (Decree on the Ministry and Life of Priests, chap. 2, II, 7, p. 786).
Church Has Power to Grant Indulgences; Those Who Say Church Has no Such Power Are Cursed
“Indulgences are ... the taking away of the temporal punishment due to sins when their guilt has already been forgiven. ... in granting an indulgence the Church uses its power as minister of Christ’s Redemption. ... It teaches and commands that the usage of indulgences—a usage most beneficial to Christians and approved by the authority of the Sacred Councils—should be kept in the Church; and it condemns with anathema those who say that indulgences are useless or that the Church does not have the power to grant them. ... By means of indulgences those members of the Church who are enduring their purification are united more speedily to the members who are in heaven in the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood” (Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, chap. 8, IV, 8, 10, pp. 80-82).
Rituals and Superstitious Practices Encouraged
“The faithful who use with devotion an object of piety (crucifix, cross, Rosary, scapular or medal) after it has been duly blessed by any priest, can gain a partial indulgence. But if this object of piety is blessed by the Pope or any bishop, the faithful who use it with devotion can also gain a plenary indulgence on the feast of the apostles Peter and Paul. ... When one of the faithful is in danger of death and no priest in available to administer the sacraments to him with the apostolic blessing ... holy Mother Church still grants a plenary indulgence to be gained at the moment of death, on condition that they are properly disposed and have been in the habit of reciting some prayers during their lifetime. The practice of using a crucifix or cross while gaining this plenary indulgence is praiseworthy” (Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, chap. 8, V, Norms, 17,18, p. 86).
Confession and Penance Aid in Conversion
“The sacrament of Penance restores and strengthens in members of the Church who have sinned the fundamental gift of ... conversion to the kingdom of Christ, which is first received in Baptism. ... Those who approach this sacrament receive from God’s mercy the pardon of their offences and at the same time they are reconciled to the Church which they have wounded by their sins. The Religious should likewise hold in high esteem the frequent use of this sacrament ... desiring closer union with God, should endeavour to receive the sacrament of penance frequently, that is, twice a month ... To ensure legitimate liberty, all women religious and novices may make their confession validly and licitly to any priest approved for hearing confessions in the locality” (Decree on Confession for Religious, pp. 611,612).
Celibacy Imposed
“For these reasons, based on the mystery of Christ and his mission, celibacy, which at first was recommended to priests, was afterwards in the Latin Church imposed by law on all who were to be promoted to holy Orders. This sacred Council approves and confirms this legislation so far as it concerns those destined for the priesthood, and feels confident in the Spirit that the gift of celibacy, so appropriate to the priesthood of the New Testament, is liberally granted by the Father” (Decree on the Ministry and Life of Priests, chap. 3, II, 16, p. 802).
HAS THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, THEN, CHANGED?
You have read for yourself the solemn proclamations of Rome’s official Vatican II Council. These are proclamations made by the Pope and the college of bishops, and according to Catholic teaching, there is no higher authority than “the Church’s dogma and interpretation of Scripture.” Of course, we realize there are Catholics do not believe these teachings, but where shall we go to find the official teachings of Catholicism? To the Vatican itself, of course. To say that the Vatican doesn’t know Catholic doctrine is like saying Hitler didn’t know Nazism.
Though some dramatic changes were made during and since the Vatican II Council, the Roman Catholic Church remains the same blasphemous, unscriptural institution it always has been. It is not possible to believe the previously quoted Vatican II pronouncements and think otherwise. Yet, the lie that Catholicism is becoming more evangelical, more biblical, and more spiritual continues to be propagated with blind perseverance. It is this lie that is being used to encourage the ecumenical fellowship between Catholics and Protestants. The same lie is a clever tool for persuading Catholics to stay in the Roman Church when they are converted or when they begin doubting Catholic doctrines.
Since it is plain that the Roman Catholic Church continues to uphold doctrines that are blasphemous and contrary to the Word of God, it is therefore inexcusable for Billy Graham and Ted Haggard and Jack Van Impe and Chuck Colson and other evangelicals to affiliate with it or to speak of it in a positive fashion. The Word of God commands us to separate from those who teach error.
“Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them” (Romans 16:17).
“Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away” (2 Tim. 3:5).
“Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?” (2 Cor. 6:14).
“Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump? Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us: Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth” (1 Cor. 5:6-8).
“But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him” (2 Cor. 11:3-4).
[Distributed by Way of Life Literature's Fundamental Baptist Information Service, an e-mail listing for Fundamental Baptists and other fundamentalist, Bible-believing Christians. OUR GOAL IN THIS PARTICULAR ASPECT OF OUR MINISTRY IS NOT DEVOTIONAL BUT IS TO PROVIDE INFORMATION TO ASSIST PREACHERS IN THE PROTECTION OF THE CHURCHES IN THIS APOSTATE HOUR. This material is sent only to those who personally subscribe to the list. If somehow you have subscribed unintentionally, following are the instructions for removal. The Fundamental Baptist Information Service mailing list is automated. To SUBSCRIBE or to UNSUBSCRIBE or to CHANGE ADDRESSES or to RE-SUBSCRIBE UNDER A NEW ADDRESS, go to http://www.wayoflife.org/fbis/subscribe.html. If you have any trouble with this, please let us know. And please be patient with us. We do not ignore any unsubscribe request, but we cannot always get to your request immediately as each person involved with maintaining the Way of Life web site does this only on a very part time basis and is busy with many other major activities, such as pastoring and missionary work. We take up a quarterly offering to fund this ministry, and those who use the materials are expected to participate (Galatians 6:6) if they can. Some of the articles are from O Timothy magazine, which is in its 24th year of publication. Way of Life publishes many helpful books. The catalog is located at the web site: http://www.wayoflife.org/catalog/catalog.htm Way of Life Literature, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061. 866-295-4143, fbns@wayoflife.org. We do not solicit funds from those who do not agree with our preaching and who are not helped by these publications, but from those who are. OFFERINGS can be made at http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/offering.html. PAYPAL offerings can be made to https://www.paypal.com/xclick/business=dcloud%40wayoflife.org ]
BEWARE OF TONY CAMPOLO
Updated July 4, 2008 (first published March 5, 2008) (David Cloud, Fundamental Baptist Information Service, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061, 866-295-4143, fbns@wayoflife.org; for instructions about subscribing and unsubscribing or changing addresses, see the information paragraph at the end of the article) -
Tony Campolo is a popular “evangelical” speaker and author. He is professor emeritus of Sociology at Eastern University and an ordained minister in the liberal American Baptist Convention. According to Wikipedia, he currently serves as an associate pastor of the Mount Carmel Baptist Church in West Philadelphia, whereas his wife attends Central Baptist Church in Wayne, Pennsylvania. In an interview with me at the New Baptist Covenant Celebration in Atlanta in January 2008, he confirmed that he and his wife attend different churches.
Campolo is associated with the emerging church. For example, he co-authored Adventures in Missing the Point with Brian McLaren. McLaren also endorsed Campolo’s book Speaking My Mind: The Radical Evangelical Prophet Tackles the Tough Issues Christians Are Afraid to Face (2004).
Campolo is a master entertainer. No doubt about it. Of course, that is the kind of speaker who is popular in this confused, carnal hour. Campolo is dynamic, interesting, and personable. He appeals to the young and to the old. He can make you laugh, and he can make you cry. He is full of zeal. He can move people. But Campolo is a dangerous man because of his aberrant theology.
A “GRADUAL” SALVATION EXPERIENCE
In Letters to a Young Evangelical Campolo described his own salvation experience in the following words:
“When I was a boy growing up in a lower-middle-class neighborhood in West Philadelphia, my mother, a convert to Evangelical Christianity from a Catholic Italian immigrant family, hoped I would have one of those dramatic ‘born-again’ experiences. That was the way she had come into a personal relationship with Christ. She took me to hear one evangelist after another, praying that I would go to the altar and come away ‘converted.’ BUT IT NEVER WORKED FOR ME. I would go down the aisle as the people around me sang ‘the invitation hymn,’ but I just didn’t feel as if anything happened to me. For a while I despaired, wondering if I would ever get ‘saved.’ It took me quite some time to realize that entering into a personal relationship with Christ DOES NOT ALWAYS HAPPEN THAT WAY. ...
“In my case INTIMACY WITH CHRIST WAS DEVELOPED GRADUALLY OVER THE YEARS, primarily through what Catholic mystics call ‘centering prayer.’ Each morning, as soon as I wake up, I take time--sometimes as much as a half hour--to center myself on Jesus. I say his name over and over again to drive back the 101 things that begin to clutter up my mind the minute I open my eyes. Jesus is my mantra, as some would say. ...
“I learned about this way of having a born-again experience from reading the Catholic mystics, especially The Spiritual Exercises of Ignatius of Loyola. ...
“After the Reformation, we Protestants left behind much that was troubling about Roman Catholicism of the fifteenth century. I am convinced that we left too much behind. The methods of praying employed by the likes of Ignatius have become precious to me. With the help of some Catholic saints, my prayer life has deepened” (Letters to a Young Evangelical, 2006, pp. 25, 26, 30, 31).
This is very a very frightful testimony. Campolo does not have a biblical testimony of salvation. He plainly admits that is not “born again” in the way that his mother was, through a dramatic biblical-style conversion. Instead, he describes his “intimacy with Christ” as something that has developed gradually through the practice of Catholic mysticism.
For one thing, this is to confuse salvation with spiritual growth. The conversions that are recorded in the New Testament are of the instantaneous, dramatic variety. We think of the woman at the well (John 4), and Zacchaeus (Luke 19), and the Ethiopian Eunuch (Acts 8), and Paul (Acts 9), and Cornelius (Acts 10), and Lydia (Acts 16), and the Philippian jailer (Acts 16), to name a few. The Lord Jesus Christ said that salvation is a birth (John 3:3). That is not a gradual thing that happens throughout one’s life; it is an event!
Further, Catholic mysticism itself is unscriptural. Jesus forbad repetitious prayers (Mat. 6:7). He taught us to pray in a verbal, conscious manner, talking with God as with a Father, addressing God the Father external to us, not searching for a mystical oneness with God in the center of one’s being through thoughtless meditation (Mat. 6:9-13).
Campolo’s testimony is more akin to the Roman Catholicism that his mother was saved out of. It is repeating mantas and doing good works and progressing in spirituality. Campolo clearly attributes his “spirituality” to Catholic-style mysticism. He even speaks in terms of experiencing “oneness with God” and entering a “thin place” wherein God “is able to break through and envelop the soul.”
“The constant repetition of his name clears my head of everything but the awareness of his presence. By driving back all other concerns, I am able to create what the ancient Celtic Christians called ‘THE THIN PLACE.’ The thin place is that spiritual condition wherein the separation between the self and God becomes so thin that God is able to break through and envelop the soul. ... Like most Catholic mystics, [Loyola] developed an intense desire to experience A ‘ONENESS’ WITH GOD” (Letters to a Young Evangelical, pp. 26, 30).
Roger Oakland observes:
“This term ‘thin place’ originated with Celtic spirituality (i.e., contemplative) and is in line with panentheism. ... Thin places imply that God is in all things, and the gap between God, evil, man, everything thins out and ultimately disappears in mediation” (Faith Undone, pp. 114, 115).
I suspect that Campolo’s many heresies are largely the product of his unscriptural mystical practices which have brought him into intimate communion with something other than the Jesus Christ of the Bible.
A SHAM EVANGELICAL “TRIAL”
After Campolo published the book A Reasonable Faith some evangelical leaders became concerned that he was teaching universalism. Campolo developed the idea that “Christ lives in all human beings, regardless of whether they are Christians.” He asserted that the resurrected Jesus of history is “actually is present” in each person and said, “Jesus is the only Savior, but not everybody who is being saved by Him is aware that He is the one who is doing the saving.”
When Campus Crusade for Christ and Youth for Christ cancelled Campolo’s speaking engagement at Youth Congress ‘85, the Christian Legal Society organized a “reconciliation panel” let by J.I. Packer.
After examining the book and questioning Campolo the panel came to the amazing conclusion that though his statements were “methodologically naïve and verbally incautious.” Christianity Today editor Kenneth Kantzer wrote that Campolo was entirely orthodox.
Campolo told Christianity Today,
“I’m worried that evangelical intellectuals will not say anything except the old phrases and the old worn out terminology ... The way evangelical Christianity is doing theology really bothers me. If everybody has to say only things that they know are safely orthodox, if we lose the capacity to be open and to share ideas that people may consider heretical, I think we will lose our creativity.”
This is a foolish statement, and for Christianity Today to leave it unchallenged is inexcusable. To call for a questioning of the “old worn out terminology,” and for theological openness to new theology is the apostasy described in 2 Timothy 4. “For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; and they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.”
Today’s evangelical leaders do not have the heart nor the spiritual discernment needed to protect the flock of God. They are blind guides and dumb dogs. Christianity Today’s defense of Campolo does not demonstrate his orthodoxy, it demonstrates Christianity Today’s confusion.
Campolo complained that he was being persecuted, even though the theological watchdogs turned out to be pussycats.
On the authority of God’s Word, we say that Campolo was a heretic in 1985 and since then he has proceeded from heresy to heresy, yet he is still accepted as an “evangelical theologian.”
CAMPOLO BELIEVES IN EVOLUTION
When Campolo was examined by the evangelical leaders in 1985, they noted that “while he accepts an evolutionary view of the origin of man and the universe, he holds that this is consistent with Scripture that teaches only the fact (not the method) of Creation” (Christian News, Sept. 23, 1985).
Christianity Today did not see this as a serious problem because they allow room for all sorts of doctrinal error, but it is a very serious matter.
It should be obvious even to a child that the Bible teaches not only the fact of creation, but the method, as well. The Bible plainly teaches that the world was created by God in six days and six nights. There is no room for any sort of evolutionary thinking here, and to allow men such as Campolo to hold such views is folly. The doctrine of special creation is the only view that reveals the nature of man as distinct from the animals and that explains the literal fall of man in a literal Garden of Eden. If there were no literal creation and fall, the atonement of Christ on the cross is without meaning.
CAMPOLO DOESN’T BELIEVE THAT THE BIBLE IS INERRANTLY INSPIRED
In an interview with Shane Claiborne in 2005, Campolo was asked to define “evangelical.” He replied:
“An evangelical is someone who believes the doctrines of the Apostle’s Creed. That outlines exactly what we believe in detail. Secondly, an evangelical has a very high view of scripture THOUGH NOT NECESSARILY INERRANCY. And the third thing--we believe that salvation comes by being personally involved with a living resurrected Jesus. So I’ve defined evangelical in those three terms. There is a doctrinal statement, so that there is some content to what we believe. There is a source of truth, Scripture. And there is a personal relationship with Jesus” (“On Evangelicals and Interfaith Cooperation,” Crosscurrents, Spring 2005, http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2096/is_1_55/ai_n13798048).
Campolo’s doctrinal statement is not only exceedingly weak, shallow, vague, and confusing, but it is heretical as well! Further, defining salvation is “being personally involved with a living resurrected Jesus” allows for a world of heresy. It allows for an Orthodox sacramental gospel, a Roman Catholic mystical gospel, a Church of Christ baptismal regeneration gospel, you name it.
In his book Partly Right, Campolo said:
“Abraham’s knowledge of God fit no theological system. It complied with no dictates of knowledge. ... [Kierkegaard] rejected the bibliolatry of those fundamentalists who would make the Scriptures the ultimate authority for faith. Even though he would agree with those who hold to the doctrine of the inerrancy of Scriptures, he refused to put the Bible in a higher place of authority than the inward encounter with God” (p. 99).
Thus, Campolo holds to the heresy that the Bible is not the ultimate authority for faith and practice and exalts the liberal-mystical idea that an inward encounter with God is a higher authority than the Bible. He does not explain how it is possible to test the genuineness of an “inward encounter with God” apart from the Bible and fails to acknowledge that “faith” is not a leap in the dark but that “faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God” (Romans 10:17).
CAMPOLO IS AN ECUMENIST
I attended Missionsfest ‘92 in Vancouver, British Columbia, to hear Campolo speak. Though the participants represented a wide variety of belief and practice, most came under the evangelical label. There were Pentecostals, Baptists, Presbyterians, Mennonites, Anglicans, Lutherans, to name a few. I did not see any Catholic groups, though some of the people we talked to at the booths were strongly sympathetic toward Catholicism.
Campolo spoke on Friday evening to a standing-room-only crowd, and he literally brought the people to their feet. The man is a very effective speaker, which of course makes him all the more dangerous.
He began his talk by noting how incredible and wonderful it was that so many different kinds of Christians had come together for the meeting. He mentioned Pentecostals, Baptists, Presbyterians, Anglicans, and Mennonites.
As Campolo stood before this mixed multitude, he did not have one word of warning about the false teaching represented by the various groups that were present. He did say, “If your theology is not right you will be messed up and not be able to follow Jesus adequately.” But he did not explain what he meant, and of course he gave no examples of being “messed up theologically.” He appealed to the people to give themselves to world missions, and he made no exceptions for those who hold to false doctrine.
Not only did Campolo approach this conference in a compromising ecumenical spirit, he did not even clarify the Gospel. He mentioned the Gospel; he referred to the Gospel. But he did not explain what the Gospel is. He did not preach the Gospel. He talked about “giving your life to Jesus Christ,” but that is not the Gospel. He spoke of the necessity of winning people to Jesus Christ, and he said that “missions starts with the declaration that Jesus Christ must be the Lord of your life.” But that is not the Gospel. That kind of language is interpreted many different ways by the various denominations. Campolo said, “I believe in heaven, and I believe in hell.” But that is not the Gospel. He mentioned the cross, but the cross must be explained. Especially is this true in this hour of doctrinal confusion. Even Rome mentions the cross, but Rome, of course, does not preach the biblical gospel.
All of this is not surprising in light of the ecumenism of the conference. If Campolo had preached a clear Gospel, he would have caused problems for some of the participants. He would have caused divisions. He could not preach against baptismal regeneration, because this was held by many of the Lutherans and Anglicans who were present. He could not preach against the heresy of losing your salvation, because this was held by many of the Pentecostals present. Ecumenists speak in generalities and inferences, not in plain doctrinal Bible language. They do not reprove and rebuke (2 Timothy 4:2).
Ecumenism has long been Campolo’s methodology. His American Baptist Convention is the most liberal group of Baptists in the United States and is a member body of the World Council of Churches. Bible-believing Baptist churches long ago separated from this modernistic group.
You can find Campolo practically anywhere--preaching the same ecumenically-popular message: You can find him in a National Council of Churches meeting (he spoke at the NCC-sponsored “A Gathering of Christians,” May 1988, in Arlington, Texas), and you can find him at a National Association of Evangelicals meeting (Campolo spoke at NAE’s annual convention, March 1987, in Wheaton, Illinois). Any lip service Campolo gives to the importance of doctrinal correctness is negated by his constant fellowship with heretics. In practice, the man has no concern for doctrinal purity.
Campolo signed an article in the liberal Sojourners magazine in May 1981, which lambasted the United States and stated that Roman Catholicism was the one bright light in the dark situation in El Salvador.
Campolo was on the editorial board for the production of the film Mother Teresa, which exalted the Roman Catholic nun and contained no warning about her false gospel. Campolo often uses Mother Teresa as an example of biblical Christianity, though she preached a false gospel, believed that all men are children of God, worshiped the wafer of the mass, and prayed to Mary.
Campolo has spoken at self-esteem guru Robert Schuller’s Institute for Church Growth. In 2001 he joined hands with Catholic priest Michael Moynihan at this Institute.
Campolo referred positively to Seventh-day Adventism in his book 20 Hot Potatoes Christians Are Afraid to Touch (chapter 3).
Campolo is exceedingly dangerous because he is an ecumenist who is willing to work with and fellowship with error. He refuses to obey Bible separation. He refuses to lift his voice against heresy. In fact, he often pokes fun at the fundamentalist position. This is wickedness. It is impossible to please God while preaching the kind of positive ecumenical message that Campolo preaches.
CAMPOLO DESCRIBES MAN AS DIVINE
In his 1985 book Partly Right, Campolo used the word “divinity” seven times in one chapter to refer to man. He made the following statements:
“[Robert Schuller] never lets us forget that WE HAVE A DIVINITY ABOUT US and that as sons and daughters of God we are capable of great things. ... [Schuller] affirms OUR DIVINITY, yet does not deny our humanity ... Isn’t God’s message to sinful humanity that HE SEES IN EACH OF US A DIVINE NATURE of such worth that He sacrificed His own Son? ... [Christ] was aware of the filthy side of Mary and her sisters in the world’s oldest profession, but He also saw THEIR DIVINITY” (Partly Right, pp, 118, 119).
Man is made in God’s image, but he is never described as divine in Scripture. Christ did not teach that man is divine. He told the unsaved Pharisees that they were of their father the devil (John 8:44). It is confusion to describe man in such unbiblical terms.
CAMPOLO BELIEVES NON-CHRISTIANS MIGHT GO TO HEAVEN
In a letter to Jerry Falwell that was printed in the National Liberty Journal, August 9, 1999, Campolo said that Romans 2:14-16 “suggests that the work of Christ on the cross may be broader than some of us think.” He quoted Billy Graham as saying that “on Judgment Day, there may be people who enter the Kingdom who have not called themselves Christians.” Campolo stood by his statement on The Charlie Rose Show: “I am not convinced that Jesus only lives in Christians” (Calvary Contender, October 1, 1999).
In January 2007, Campolo told the Edmonton Journal (Alberta, Canada) that he is not sure who will go to heaven. Asked by the paper, “Do you believe non-Christians can go to heaven?” Campolo replied: “That’s a good question to ask because the way we stand is we contend that trusting in Jesus is the way to heaven. However, we do not know who Jesus will bring into the kingdom and who He will not. We are very, very careful about pronouncing judgment on anybody. We leave judgment in the hands of God and we are saying Jesus is the way. We preach Jesus, but we have no way of knowing to whom the grace of God is extended” (“Canada’s Different Evangelicals,” Edmonton Journal, Jan. 27, 2007).
This is contradictory gobbly-gook! If we believe that “trusting Jesus is the way to heaven,” then we most definitely DO know who Jesus will bring into the kingdom. He will bring those that trust Him and He will not bring those that do not trust Him. As for pronouncing judgment on people, it is not our judgment. It is God in His infallible Word who has stated such things as, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned” (Mark 16:16), and, “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), and, “He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life” (1 John 5:12).
To say that we have no way of knowing who Jesus will bring into the kingdom is to play the religious politician and to deny the plain teaching of Scripture. God has already told us, Mr. Campolo! “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). Words could not be plainer! The unbeliever does not have to wait until he dies to find out whether or not he will go to heaven. The Bible says he is condemned already (John 3:18), dead in trespasses and sins (Eph. 2:1), controlled by the Devil (Eph. 2:2), a child of wrath (Eph. 2:3), “having no hope, and without God in the world” (Eph. 2:12). Revelation 21:8 says the unbeliever will be outside of the eternal city of God.
In about 1996, in an interview with Bill Moyers broadcast on MSNBC, Campolo was asked about whether evangelicals should try to convert Jews. He replied:
“I am not about to pronounce who goes to heaven and who goes to hell. That is not within the realm of any of us. We are not here to declare who is out and who is in. All we are here to say is what is meaningful in our own lives, what has been significant in our own personal experience with God. I have come to know God through Jesus Christ. He is the only way that I know God. And so I preach Jesus, and I not about to make judgments about my Jewish brothers and my Muslim brothers and sisters. I’m just not about to make those kinds of statements. I think we ought to leave judgments up to God and we ought to call people to obedient faith in their own traditions, even as we faithfully preach out own faith to others. I learn about Jesus from other religions. They speak to me about Christ, as well” (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4117713232348817752).
In an interview with Shane Claiborne in 2005, Campolo said: “Evangelicalism is heading for a split… There is going to be one segment of evangelicalism, just like there is one segment in Islam that is not going to be interested in dialogue. But there are other evangelicals who will want to talk and establish a common commitment to a goodness with Islamic people and Jewish people particularly” (“On Evangelicals and Interfaith Cooperation,” Crosscurrents, Spring 2005, http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2096/is_1_55/ai_n13798048).
Claiborne then asked Campolo, “When we talk about inter-religious cooperation, does that mean that we need to stop trying to convert each other?” To which Campolo replied:
“We don’t have to give up trying to convert each other. What we have to do is show respect to one another. And to speak to each other with a sense that even if people don’t convert, they are God’s people, God loves them, and we do not make the judgment of who is going to heaven and who is going to hell. I think that what we all have to do is leave judgment up to God.”
If Muslims are already God’s people, then why in the world should we try to “convert” them?
Campolo said further:
“I’ve got to believe that Jesus is the only Savior but being a Christian is not the only way to be saved. ... Now Muslims do not believe that Jesus died on the cross. So we have a difference there. We kid ourselves if we pretend that we all believe the same thing. What we have to do is say that we believe different things. But there is so much goodness in the Islamic community, it cannot be ignored. Those who write off Islamic people are making a serious mistake. ... I don't think you have to compromise as a Christian the belief that Jesus is the only Savior but what I do think we have to say is that the grace of God extends way beyond the limitations of my religious group. Our Muslim brothers and sisters can say Islam is the only true faith but we are not convinced that only Muslims enjoy salvation. I contend that there is no salvation apart from Jesus Christ, but I am not convinced that the grace of God does not go further than the Christian community.”
This is exceedingly unscriptural thinking. If Jesus Christ is the only Saviour, then the grace of God extends precisely to those who are in Christ. Jesus IS the grace of God, and salvation is in Him and nowhere outside of Him. It is the sinner that believes on Christ that has eternal life; he that that does not believe is condemned already (John 3:16-18). Ephesians 2 describes the condition of those who have not been regenerated. They are “dead in trespasses and sins” (v. 1). They walk according to their head, the devil (v. 2). They are “by nature the children of wrath” (v. 3). They are “without Christ ... having no hope, and without God in the world” (v. 12). They are “far off” (v. 13).
Later in the interview Claiborne said:
“Rarely are people converted by force or words, but through intimate encounters. Perhaps one of the best things we can do is stop talking with our mouths and cross the chasm between us with our lives. Maybe we will even find a mystical union of the Spirit as Francis did.”
To this Campolo replied:
“Speaking of Francis [of Assisi], here’s a wonderful story. I got to meet the head of the Franciscan order. I met him in Washington. He said let me tell you an interesting story. He told me about one of their gatherings, where they bring the brothers of the Franciscan order together for a time of fellowship. About eight years ago they held it in Thailand and out of courtesy, they really felt they needed to show some graciousness to the Buddhists, because they were in a Buddhist country. So they got Buddhist theologians together and Franciscan theologians together and sent them off for three days to talk and see if they could find common ground. They also took Buddhist and Franciscan monastics and sent them off together to pray with each other. On the fourth day they all reassembled. The theologians were fighting with each other, arguing with each other, contending there was no common ground between them. The monastics that had gone off praying together, came back hugging each other. IN A MYSTICAL RELATIONSHIP WITH GOD, THERE IS A COMING TOGETHER OF PEOPLE WHERE THEOLOGY IS LEFT BEHIND AND IN THIS SPIRITUALITY THEY FOUND A COMMONALITY.
“It seems to me that when we listen to the Muslim mystics as they talk about Jesus and their love for Jesus, I must say, it’s a lot closer to New Testament Christianity than a lot of the Christians that I hear. In other words IF WE ARE LOOKING FOR COMMON GROUND, CAN WE FIND IT IN MYSTICAL SPIRITUALITY, EVEN IF WE CANNOT THEOLOGICALLY AGREE, Can we pray together in such a way that we connect with a God that transcends our theological differences?
“So we make sure we don’t compromise what we believe. But we also make sure that in mystical spirituality we find a kind of oneness that we leave judgment of who goes to heaven and who goes to hell in the hands of God and just preach the truth as we understand it” (“On Evangelicals and Interfaith Cooperation,” Cross Currents, Spring 2005).
Campolo exalts experience over doctrine. The reason that he can say that he doesn’t compromise what he believes even while claiming that Buddhist and Muslim mystics are in fellowship with God is that he doesn’t believe anything!
“He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. ... 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 3:18, 36).
CAMPOLO BELIEVES WE ARE BUILDING THE KINGDOM OF GOD TODAY
One of Campolo’s most serious errors is his confusion regarding the kingdom of God. He holds the popular “kingdom now” theology, which is sweeping through much of the evangelical/charismatic world. According to this thinking, the kingdom of God is something that is presently in this world. Campolo places the Bible promises for a future earthly kingdom into the context of this sin-cursed, apostate hour. Thus, Campolo challenges Christians to go into the world and to transform society.
In his message at Urbana ‘87, Inter-Varsity Christian Fellowship’s annual youth meeting, Campolo said, “This night is a historical moment. This night God wants to raise up a generation of men and women who will enter into every sector of society as agents of change, transforming the world into the kind of world he wills it to be” (Decision magazine, Mar. 1988).
Campolo claims that believers are saved to change the world:
“Conversion is not basically so that you can go to heaven when you die. The purpose of conversion is so that you can go through the kind of personal transformation that will enable you to be a different kind of a person here on Earth and to become an instrument of God for changing the world” (“Evangelist seeks social justice, preaches conversion,” Toledo Blade, Aug. 2, 2003).
“[Jesus] saved us in order that He might begin to transform His world into the kind of world that He willed for it to be when He created it” (Campolo, It’s Friday but Sunday’s Coming, p. 106).
“Our call is to be God’s agents, to rescue not only the human race but the whole of creation” (Campolo, “Why Care for Creation,” Tear Times, Summer 1992).
Campolo claims that believers are commissioned to build the kingdom of God in this world, and he borrows his theology from all sorts of heretics to prove his point. In How to Rescue the Earth without Worshiping Nature (Thomas Nelson, 1992), he said: “If the Shalom of God and the peaceable kingdom of Isaiah 11 are to become real, then new ways of thinking must be established. With some help from St. Francis and Teilhard de Chardin, we just might make it” (p. 89). Thus he even borrows from Teilhard who worshipped a new age cosmic “christ.”
This is why Campolo says “the kingdom of God is a party.” That is the title of one of his books and is a theme that he brings into many of his messages. To prove this idea, Campolo quotes from the Bible’s references to such things as the Old Testament Jewish festivals and wrongly applies this to our time.
There is no hint in the New Testament that the apostles considered themselves agents of change in society. We don’t see them having a party. They gave their attention to preaching the Gospel and to building churches. They did not protest the problems of the Roman Empire. They did not start new businesses for the poor. They looked upon this present world as one under the imminent judgment of God and they did all they could to snatch brands from the fire, to get men saved before it is too late. Yet, as we shall see, Campolo actually makes fun of this type of thinking.
Campolo claims to believe in a future earthly kingdom of God that will be established when Christ returns, but his kingdom focus is definitely upon this present time. Chapter two of The Kingdom of God Is a Party is called “Signs of the Kingdom.” Campolo relates how he came up with the term “party” in relation to the kingdom of God. He first describes some popular ecumenical definitions of the kingdom of God. He mentions the Shalom concept of the World Council of Churches and the Jubilee concept of liberal social activists such as Ron Sider and John Yoder.
“During the 1950s, another biblical symbol or image came to the fore, as Christian leaders tried to find some new way to express God’s mission in the world and to explain that people like us are to have a part in it. Many main-denominational theologians, particularly those associated with the World Council of Churches, took hold of the concept of Shalom. ... Shalom was that time when the lion and the lamb would lie down together, swords would be reshaped into plowshares, and war would be no more. ... The imagery provided by the word Shalom became a motif around which church leaders organized their activities. Building houses for poor people was done to contribute to Shalom. Fighting racism, supporting the peace movement, participating in efforts to save the environment--all were done to foster Shalom.
“Over the last few years, several neo-evangelical writers have made use of still another word to give expression to what they believe to be the purpose of the Christian mission. They have used the term ‘Jubilee.’ This symbol is especially useful for those who believe that the church should have a primary commitment to meet the needs of the poor and the oppressed. Writers such as Ron Sider and John Howard Yoder have made good use of the concept of Jubilee in their writings...”
Campolo’s only criticism of Shalom and Jubilee involves the difficulty of explaining these things.
“The main problem with this image, or symbol of the Christian mission, is that Jubilee, like the concept of Shalom, requires too much explanation to hammer home its meaning to most people. ... Something that will give a more immediate picture of what God wants to do in this world is needed. I have been groping for a word or image that can do that for us. ... The word is ‘party.’ The Kingdom of God is a party.”
It should be obvious that Campolo is focused on this world when he says the kingdom of God is a party.
Further, an entire chapter in this book is dedicated to an attempt to prove that it is God’s will for Christians to give ten percent of their income for worldly celebrations. This is based on a faulty application of Deuteronomy 14:22-29. Israel was to bring a tithe of the harvest to Jerusalem each year for a great festival. Campolo applies this directly to the hour in which we live.
In another chapter of the book Campolo applies kingdom work to efforts to solve the social problems of the world. Consider this quote:
“If ghetto kids in Philadelphia have little to celebrate because they have hovels for homes and live in the midst of gang violence, then we must do something to change all of that. If blacks in South Africa have to endure humiliation because of apartheid, then apartheid must be destroyed. If the Palestinians are denied human rights and are made into aliens in the very land in which they were born, then we must protest. If Catholics in Northern Ireland are made into second-class citizens by the Protestant majority, then we must work and pray for the restructuring of the Irish social system.” (pgs. 43,44)
It is obvious that Campolo’s focus is upon something that is foreign to the Bible for this present time.
For a refutation of this error, see the article “The Kingdom of God” at the Way of Life web site.
CAMPOLO HATES DISPENSATIONALISM AND REJECTS THE IMMINENT RETURN OF CHRIST
Campolo often pokes fun at fundamentalists who preach doom and gloom from a literal prophetic standpoint:
“Doomsayers at one time in America seemed limited to those who preached the fundamentalist gospel. Leaning on their Scofield Bibles, these preachers of the Word predicted an increasing tendency toward sin and decadence until that day when the world would be so bad that Jesus would have to return to put a stop to it all. There seemed to be a degree of satisfaction in any news that things in this world were falling apart. As they understood it, the faster this world went down the tubes, the more the Lord’s return would be hastened” (The Kingdom of God Is a Party, pp. 132,133).
Speaking at the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship’s annual meeting in June 2003, Campolo said:
“Instead of preaching against Harry Potter I suggest that you people who are preachers start preaching against those really hot sellers in the Christian community, those ‘Left Behind’ books. Nobody wants to say it. You are scared to attack the ‘Left Behind’ books which are false theology and unbiblical to the core. And it is about time you stand up and say so.
In the same sermon he called dispensationalism “a weird little form of fundamentalism that started like a hundred fifty years ago.” He also said, “That whole sense of the rapture, which may occur at any moment, is used as a device to oppose engagement with the principalities, the powers, the political and economic structures of our age” (“Opposition to women preachers evidence of demonic influence,” Baptist Press, June 27, 2003).
CAMPOLO AND THE HOMOSEXUAL ISSUE
Though Campolo believes homosexuality is unnatural, he also believes that homosexuals are usually born that way, that it is not a “volitional” issue, and they should be allowed to join churches and be ordained without renouncing homosexuality as such as long as they remain “celibate.”
Campolo’s wife, Peggy, “argues that the church’s traditional teaching on homosexuality is mistaken--just as the church’s traditional teaching on the role of women, slavery, and divorce is also mistaken” (Wikipedia, source: “Straight But Not Narrow,” keynote address, Evangelicals Concerned, Western Region 1994, audio cassette). Central Baptist Church in Wayne, Pennsylvania, where Peggy Campolo attends, is “an open and affirming congregation,” meaning that it accepts unrepentant practicing homosexuals as members.
In 2003 Campolo’s wife spoke out in support of a homosexual American Baptist congregation that was starting in the Philadelphia area. The church, called Fusion Baptist Church, held its inaugural service on February 2. It was sponsored by Drexel Hill Baptist Church, another American Baptist congregation. Drexel Hill’s female co-pastor, Jeri Williams, said that God told her, “Start a church downtown where they [homosexuals] could experience the love of Christ and be able to serve Him within the church context.” Williams said she wants the new church to be a place where homosexuals can be safe and not judged. Peggy Campolo is a national leader of the Association of Welcoming and Affirming Baptists, which urges Baptist congregations to be supportive of homosexuals. Both women are very confused. God invites all sinners to be saved through faith in the blood of Christ, but He also commands them to repent of their sin. Churches should welcome homosexuals to hear the gospel, but they should also preach against the moral perversion of homosexuality and demand that church members give evidence of the new birth. “Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such WERE some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God” (1 Cor. 6:9-11).
When the Pacific Southwest region of the American Baptist Convention (ABC) voted on May 11, 2006, to withdraw from the parent denomination over the issue of homosexuality, Tony Campolo criticized them. The 300 churches in California, Hawaii, Nevada, and Arizona withdraw because of the denomination’s acceptance of churches with lax policies on homosexuality (“Split among American Baptists,” Baptist Press, May 18). Many American Baptist churches accept unrepentant homosexuals as members. Fifty-four ABC congregations are members of the Association of Welcoming and Affirming Baptists, which encourages the acceptance of homosexuality in Baptist churches. This Association “advocates for the full inclusion of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons within Baptist communities of faith.”
Campolo criticized the withdrawal decision, saying that it “runs counter to the prayer of Christ that we might all be one people.” Campolo was referring to Christ’s high priestly prayer in John 17, but there is nothing in this prayer that would encourage unity between those who obey the Bible with those who do not. This prayer is for those who keep God’s Word (Jn. 17:6, 8) and are sanctified through the truth (Jn. 17:19). The Lord Jesus prayed that God the Father would keep them from evil (Jn. 17:15). It is obvious that this is not a prayer for nominal Christians that so disregard the Scriptures that they accept homosexuality as a legitimate lifestyle.
CAMPOLO PROMOTES ROMAN CATHOLIC CONTEMPLATIVE PRACTICES
Tony Campolo co-authored a book with Mary Darling that promotes contemplative spirituality.
“We finally decided to use the term ‘mystical Christianity’ to distinguish the kind of spirituality we are advocating from other forms known in the Christian community. For instance, using the word mystical makes it clear that the Christian spirituality that we are discussing here is not to be confused with the kind used as a synonym for personal piety, which too often comes with destructive legalism, or scholastic Christianity, which can reduce faith to theological propositions. ... This book is about tapping into the love and reality that goes beyond what rules and reason alone can apprehend. We want to show how daily moments marked by mystical revelations of God’s love reveal the limits of propositional truth” (The God of Intimacy and Action, pp. 3, 4).
Campolo describes “supersaints” as “people who have been caught up into some mystical unity with God,” and he claims that Roman Catholic mystics such as Francis of Assisi, Ignatius of Loyola, Teresa of Avila, and Catherine of Siena, were supersaints that we should emulate (pp. 9, 10).
In true emerging church contradictory fashion Campolo says, “We must pay serious attention to mystical happenings, and discern, in the context of biblical understanding in Christian community, whether or not we believe they are of God. Discernment is crucial to mystical spirituality. Without it, anything goes. On the other hand, we must learn to doubt our doubts if we are going to be open to the work of the Spirit in our lives” (p. 11).
To “doubt our doubts” cancels out effective biblical discernment!
Campolo practices what he preaches. He says: “I get up in the morning a half hour before I have to and spend time in absolute stillness. I don’t ask God for anything. I just simply surrender to His presence and yield to the Spirit flowing into my life. ... An interviewer once asked Mother Teresa, ‘When you pray, what do you say to God?’ She said, ‘I don’t say anything. I just listen.’ So the interviewer asked, ‘What does God say to you?’ She replied, ‘God doesn’t say anything. He listens.’ That’s the kind of prayer I do in the morning. I empty myself and allow the Spirit to speak to me as Romans 8 says, ‘with groanings that cannot be uttered” (Outreach Magazine, July/ August 2004, pp. 88, 89).
As we have seen in his 2005 interview with Shane Claiborne, Campolo sees contemplative mysticism as a means of interfaith unity.
In his book Speaking My Mind Campolo wrote:
“Beyond these models of reconciliation, a theology of mysticism provides some hope for common ground between Christianity and Islam. Both religions have within their histories examples of ecstatic union with God. ... I do not know what to make of the Muslim mystics, especially those who have come to be known as the Sufis. What do they experience in their mystical experiences? Could they have encountered the same God we do in our Christian mysticism?” (pp. 149, 150).
CAMPOLO BELIEVES IN FEMALE CHURCH LEADERS
Campolo holds that women can preach. Toward the end of his message in Vancouver in 1992, Campolo said, “Are you suggesting women can preach? A lot better than most men! If they can preach in Africa, they can preach in Vancouver. That’s what I say.”
Campolo is one of the signers of a statement by Christians for Biblical Equality which affirms that “in the New Testament economy, women as well as men exercise the prophetic, priestly and royal functions,” and “in the church, public recognition is given to both women and men who exercise ministries of service and leadership” (Christian News, Apr. 16, 1990).
In an interview with Laura Sheahen entitled “Evangelical Christianity Has Been Hijacked,” published on Beliefnet in July 2004, Campolo said:
“I take issue, for instance, with the increasing tendency in the evangelical community to bar women from key leadership roles in the church. Over the last few years, the Southern Baptist Convention has taken away the right of women to be ordained to ministry. There were women that were ordained to ministry--their ordinations have been negated and women are told that this is not a place for them. They are not to be pastors. They point to certain passages in the Book of Timothy to make their case, but tend to ignore that there are other passages in the Bible that would raise very serious questions about that position and which, in fact, would legitimate women being in leadership positions in the church. ... We don't want to communicate the idea that to believe the Bible is to necessarily be opposed to women in key roles of leadership in the life of early Christendom.”
In fact, Campolo says that those who say women are forbidden to be pastors are “of the devil.” Speaking at the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship annual meeting on June 26, 2003, he mentioned groups such as the Southern Baptist Convention which prohibit women preachers and said:
"It’s one thing to be wrong, but that isn’t wrong, that’s sinful. The Bible says, ‘neglect not the gift that is in you,’ and when women are gifted with the gift of preaching, anybody who frustrates that gift is an instrument of the devil” (“Campolo: Opposition to women preachers evidence of demonic influence,” Baptist Press, June 27, 2003).
CAMPOLO SUGGESTS PRAYING TO PEOPLE
In the 2007 book The God of Intimacy and Action: Reconnecting Ancient Spiritual Practices, Evangelism, and Justice, which is co-written by Tony Campolo and Mary Albert Darling, we find the following heretical statement:
“Wjile pointing out how important it is for Christians to pray for others, [Frank] Laubach makes a bold and intriguing proposal for another way of praying. He suggests that in addition to praying for someone in need of God, that we should consider praying to that person as well. He tells us that God may want to work through the praying Christian as a channel to reach into the heart and soul of the person who is in need of saving grace. Laubach proposes that a person who is resisting God might be open to the spiritual impact of a Christian concentrating God’s power on him or her. It is as though, according to Laubach, a praying Christian might be a lens through whom God focuses saving power into another person’s life. Call it a kind of mental telepathy, but what Laubach is suggesting is that the Holy Spirit flowing into a Christian, as a result of prayer, can stir up spiritual energy in that Christian that can then be directed toward a person who needs Christ’s salvation” (pp 34-35).
CAMPOLO IS VICIOUS IN HIS JUDGMENT OF FUNDAMENTALISTS
At the National Council of Churches “Gathering” in May 1988 Campolo said those who stand firm on absolutes and strongly resist error are doing the devil’s work (Foundation magazine, June 1988).
When Campolo spoke at the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship’s general assembly June 26, 2003, he lambasted fundamentalists, conservative Southern Baptists, and dispensationalists. He said that anyone who resists women pastors is an “instrument of the devil” and is committing sin. He said every Christian should support homosexuals as they “struggle for dignity.” He said that the perpetual cycle of violence in the Middle East is not the result of the Palestinians. He spoke of the “terrorism of the Israeli army” and criticized American military aid to Israel. He said Harry Potter, which is filled with witchcraft, as “good for kids to hear.” He said preachers should warn about dispensational theology and the doctrine of an imminent rapture. He spoke against Christians who do not support the United Nations.
CAMPOLO MAKES LIGHT OF SERIOUS THINGS
Throughout his speeches, Campolo makes light of frightfully serious things. In his speech in Vancouver in 1992, he made light of threatening people with death and hell in order to frighten them into being saved. He told of when he was a kid and was in church and the preacher tried to scare him like this. In his speech to the National Council of Churches meeting in 1988, Campolo said we should hold on to the King James Bible, because it uses “words like ‘imputed’--that’s sexy!” He keeps his crowds laughing at such things.
This was the spirit that permeated Campolo’s message. , Campolo said, “We’ve got enough boring people in the ministry, we need people who can dance.” He called for Christians to “create a joyful celebration for a world that doesn’t know how to celebrate anymore.” According to Campolo, “The kingdom of God is a glorious and gigantic party!”
This is all foolishness. The hour in which we live cries for seriousness, for repentance, for mourning over sin. James 4 speaks of the kind of worldliness that has permeated evangelical Christendom. Missionsfest ‘92 evidenced this worldliness on every hand. There was rock music and the jungle beat everywhere. The evening youth meetings were nothing more than rock concerts. A great many of the women were dressed indecently. Only a handful of women wore dresses. Most had on tight pants. Some of the ushers were young women who were dressed revealingly in leotards and high boots with a jacket-like affair that came only to their buttocks. In the exhibit area, there were all sorts of worldly things for sale, such as T- shirts with weird artwork and mottos.
Listen to the James:
“Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God” (James 4:4).
What does James say about the worldly crowd? Does he say, “Hey, folks, laugh and clap and shout and dance; the Kingdom of God is a party, man! Be happy” That is Campolo’s message, but James says something quite the contrary to a worldly people:
“Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you. Cleanse your hands, ye sinners; and purify your hearts, ye double minded. Be afflicted, and mourn, and weep: let your laughter be turned to mourning, and your joy to heaviness. Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and he shall lift you up” (James 4:8-10).
This is not the time to be laughing it up, folks, in the sense that Campolo is calling for. I praise the Lord for laughter, and I’m not calling for a ban on humor or fun; but the hour is one of deep apostasy, wickedness, and shallowness, and if Christ had spoken at Missionsfest ‘92 I am convinced He would have preached a message along the lines of James as quoted above.
Beware of Tony Campolo. He is a dangerous false teacher, all the more dangerous because he claims to believe that the Bible was given by divine inspiration and moves in “evangelical” circles. He is an enemy of Bible Christianity. The kingdom of God is not a Campolo-type of party.
[Distributed by Way of Life Literature's Fundamental Baptist Information Service, an e-mail listing for Fundamental Baptists and other fundamentalist, Bible-believing Christians. OUR GOAL IN THIS PARTICULAR ASPECT OF OUR MINISTRY IS NOT DEVOTIONAL BUT IS TO PROVIDE INFORMATION TO ASSIST PREACHERS IN THE PROTECTION OF THE CHURCHES IN THIS APOSTATE HOUR. This material is sent only to those who personally subscribe to the list. If somehow you have subscribed unintentionally, following are the instructions for removal. The Fundamental Baptist Information Service mailing list is automated. To SUBSCRIBE or to UNSUBSCRIBE or to CHANGE ADDRESSES or to RE-SUBSCRIBE UNDER A NEW ADDRESS, go to http://www.wayoflife.org/fbis/subscribe.html. If you have any trouble with this, please let us know. And please be patient with us. We do not ignore any unsubscribe request, but we cannot always get to your request immediately as each person involved with maintaining the Way of Life web site does this only on a very part time basis and is busy with many other major activities, such as pastoring and missionary work. We take up a quarterly offering to fund this ministry, and those who use the materials are expected to participate (Galatians 6:6) if they can. Some of the articles are from O Timothy magazine, which is in its 25th year of publication. Way of Life publishes many helpful books. The catalog is located at the web site: http://www.wayoflife.org/catalog/catalog.htm Way of Life Literature, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061. 866-295-4143, fbns@wayoflife.org. We do not solicit funds from those who do not agree with our preaching and who are not helped by these publications, but from those who are. OFFERINGS can be made at http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/offering.html. PAYPAL offerings can be made to https://www.paypal.com/xclick/business=dcloud%40wayoflife.org]
BEWARE OF BRENNAN MANNING
BEWARE OF BRENNAN MANNING
Updated June 26, 2008 (first published April 1, 2008) (David Cloud, Fundamental Baptist Information Service, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061, 866-295-4143, fbns@wayoflife.org; for instructions about subscribing and unsubscribing or changing addresses, see the information paragraph at the end of the article) -
Brennan Manning has a large and growing influence among evangelicals.
His book “The Ragamuffin Gospel,” first came to my attention as I was researching contemporary Christian music in 1998 in preparation for the publication of Contemporary Christian Music under the Spotlight. Some of the most influential CCM musicians are mightily impressed with The Ragamuffin Gospel. Notable among these are Michael W. Smith (who wrote the foreword to The Ragamuffin Gospel), Michael Card (who named his oldest son after the author of The Ragamuffin Gospel), and the late Rich Mullins (who formed the Ragamuffin Band).
The book is published by Multnomah Press, the printing arm of Multnomah College of the Bible, an alleged evangelical institution.
His books have been recommended by Philip Yancey, Eugene Peterson, Larry Crabb, Michael Card, Michael W. Smith, the members of U2, and many others.
He has spoken at Christian & Missionary Alliance conferences, Vineyard conferences, and many similar forums.
In 2005 Christianity Today called “The Ragamuffin Gospel” a “spiritual classic.” Yet after they published the article “A Coward Who Stayed to Help,” which was Manning’s story of his alleged heroics assisting victims during the Hurricane Katrina disaster, they had to publish a retraction five days later stating that Manning had lied. In a voice message to Christianity Today he blithely said, “The essential truth: I lied” (“Brennan Manning, Featured Speaker” James Sundquist, June 24, 2007).
Manning has published a dozen or more popular books in addition to The Ragamuffin Gospel, including Abba’s Child: The Cry of the Heart for Intimate Belonging (Navpress, 1994), The Signature of Jesus (Multnomah, 1996), The Boy Who Cried Abba: A Parable of Trust and Acceptance (1998, 2001), Reflections for Ragamuffins (1998), A Ruthless Trust: The Ragamuffin’s Path to God (2000), The Wisdom of Tenderness (2002), The Journey of the Prodigal (2002), The Wisdom of Tenderness: What Happens When God’s Fierce Mercy Transforms Our Lives (2002), The Rabbi’s Heartbeat (Navpress, 2003), Posers, Fakers, and Wannabes: Unmasking the Real You (Navpress, 2003), A Glimpse of Jesus: The Stranger to Self-Hatred (2003), Above All: He Took the Fall and Thought of Me (2003), Lion and Lamb: The Relentless Tenderness of Jesus (Revell, 2004).
WHO IS MANNING?
Manning’s (b. 1934) birth name was Richard Francis Xavier Manning. In 1963 he was ordained to the Franciscan priesthood. In the late 1960s he joined the Little Brothers of Jesus of Charles de Foucauld in Spain. This Order spends its days in manual labor serving poor communities and its nights “wrapped in silence and prayer.” He spent six months in solitary contemplation in a remote cave in a desert. In the 1970s he returned to the States and eventually entered a six month treatment program for alcoholism. In 1982 he got married and left the priesthood.
MANNING’S FOUNDATIONAL ERROR IS HIS FALSE GOSPEL
His web site features his biography, and what is glaringly absent is any scriptural testimony of salvation. Instead, we find the following statement:
“In February 1956, while Brennan was meditating on the Stations of the Cross, a powerful experience of the personal love of Jesus Christ sealed the call of God on his life.”
There is no repentance, no scriptural new birth, merely a “sealing” of that which began at his infant baptism. Further, the Jesus of the Stations of the Cross is Rome’s false christ, a christ who was assisted in his suffering by his mother and other women.
Though Manning is no longer a priest, he continues to participate in and promote the blasphemous Catholic mass. When he is in his home in New Orleans he attends the morning daily mass at the Holy Spirit Catholic Church.
Manning preaches a false antinomian, Roman-tinged, psychology-influenced gospel. He believes a person can be saved and continue to live in the grossest sin without repentance. Following Rome’s pattern, Manning’s gospel glosses over the basis for salvation, which is the blood and death of Jesus Christ (even while giving it lip service), and ignores the necessity of the new birth. Manning uses biblical terms but he redefines them, giving them unbiblical meanings. His writings are filled with half truths and statements of truth followed by contradictions to those statements.
Manning continually quotes from and unquestioningly affirms the writings of false teachers such as Paul Tillich (an adulterous neo-orthodox theologian), Carl Jung (who wrote under the guidance of a demon and who considered Christianity a myth), Beatrice Bruteau (a proponent of the New Age “I am god” heresy), Henri Nouwen (who believed men can be saved apart from faith in Christ), Thomas Merton (a Buddhist-Catholic), Teresa of Avila, Pierre Teilhard (pantheistic Jesuit mystic), Thomas Aquinas and “St.” Augustine (doctors of the Catholic Church), and Dietrich Bonhoeffer (a father of neo-orthodoxy).
Manning says, “To evangelize a person is to say to him or her: you, too, are loved by God in the Lord Jesus” (The Ragamuffin Gospel, 2nd edition, 2000, p. 120).
This is not the gospel and it is not scriptural evangelism. While it is certainly true that God loves sinners, that is only a part of the story; God is also holy and will judge every infraction of His law. The biblical gospel begins with the bad news of man’s fallen condition and his guilt and only when the sinner acknowledges this and repents and puts his trust exclusively in Jesus Christ can he experience God’s love in a saving manner. In the book of Romans, Paul dwelt on God’s holiness and wrath and man’s lost condition for nearly three chapters before he got to the good news of the offer of salvation in Christ (Romans 1:18- 3:25).
Manning says, “God is a kooky God who can scarcely bear to be without us” (The Ragamuffin Gospel, p. 165).
It is blasphemous to describe God as “kooky.” And if His love means He can “scarcely bear to be without us,” what is eternal Hell all about? Jesus frequently warned about Hell, and stated, in fact, that most sinners will go there. “Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it” (Mat. 7:13-14).
Writing about the woman in John 8 who was caught in adultery, Manning says that Jesus “didn’t demand a firm purpose of amendment” and “didn’t seem too concerned that she might dash back into the arms of her lover” (The Ragamuffin Gospel, 1990, p. 167).
To the contrary, Jesus commanded her, “Go, and sin no more” (Jn. 8:11). Similarly, after Jesus healed the crippled man in John 5 He instructed him, “Behold, thou art made whole: sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee” (Jn. 5:14).
Manning mentions in particular some people that he has met: a female prostitute, a woman who had an abortion, and a male homosexual (Ragamuffin, pp. 32-33). He claims that all of these are saved even though they justify their sin and have no intention of turning from it. The apostle Paul addressed Manning’s error in 1 Corinthians 6:9-13:
“Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such WERE some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God. All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any. Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats: but God shall destroy both it and them. Now the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord; and the Lord for the body.”
The church members at Corinth had lived in all sorts of wicked lives before they were saved, but after they believed on Christ they were changed, and Paul warned them about going back to the old life. He warned them, in particular, about fornication. The gospel of Christ teaches that sinners are saved by God’s grace without works, but it also teaches that those who are saved are saved “unto good works” (Ephesians 2:8-10).
The apostle John taught: “HE THAT SAITH, I KNOW HIM, AND KEEPETH NOT HIS COMMANDMENTS, IS A LIAR, AND THE TRUTH IS NOT IN HIM” (1 John 2:4).
Manning says:
“Something is radically wrong when the local church rejects a person accepted by Jesus: when a harsh, judgmental and unforgiving sentence is passed on homosexuals; when a divorcee is denied communion; when the child of a prostitute is refused baptism; when an unlaicized priest is forbidden the sacraments” (The Ragamuffin Gospel, p. 30).
There is a world of confusion and doctrinal error in this one statement. First, the Scriptures instruct churches to reject those who claim to be saved but who live in gross sin (1 Corinthians 5). Second, Manning assumes that judging things by God’s Word is “harsh” and “unforgiving” but this certainly does not have to be the case. The Bible instructs believers to “prove all things” (1 Thess. 5:21), commends the Bereans for searching the Scripture daily to see “whether those things were so” (Acts 17:11), and says, “... he that is spiritual judgeth all things” (1 Cor. 2:15). Third, Manning claims that forgiveness should be given whether or not there is repentance on the part of the sinner, but the Bible says there is no forgiveness without repentance (Lk. 13:3, 5; Acts 17:30; 20:21; 26:20; 2 Cor. 7:9-10; 2 Pet. 3:9). Jesus said, “... except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish” (Lk. 13:3). Fourth, the Bible says the saved person is changed. “Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new” (2 Cor. 5:17). Fifth, Manning teaches the heresy of infant baptism, whereas the Bible says baptism is for believers only (Mk. 16:15). Sixth, Manning defends the Catholic priesthood, whereas the New Testament says every believer is a priest in Christ (1 Peter 2:5, 9). Seventh, Manning defends the unscriptural Catholic sacraments even though they have no support in the Scripture and they teach a works salvation.
Manning even claims that those who take the mark of the Beast will be saved.
“And he [Christ] will say to us: ‘Vile beings, you who are in the image of the beast and bear his mark, but come all the same, you as well’” (The Ragamuffin Gospel, p. 21).
To the contrary, the book of Revelation plainly states that all who take the mark of the Beast will suffer in Hell.
“And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, the same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb: And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name” (Rev. 14:9-11).
MANNING PROMOTES EASTERN MYSTICISM
In The Signature of Jesus Manning promotes the dangerous practice of centering prayer, which involves chanting “a sacred word” to empty the mind and allegedly enter into silent experiential communion with God within:
“[T]he first step in faith is to stop thinking about God at the time of prayer. ... enter into the great silence of God. Alone in that silence, the noise within will subside and the Voice of Love will be heard. ... Choose a single, sacred word ... repeat the sacred word inwardly, slowly, and often” (pp. 212, 215, 218).
Manning also encourages the use of mantras and emptying the mind in The Ragamuffin Gospel. He instructs Christians to repeat an eight-word mantra (“The Lord is my Shepherd, I lack nothing”) for 10 minutes. He says:
“The first step toward rejuvenation begins with accepting where you are and exposing your poverty, frailty, and emptiness to the love that is everything. Don’t try to feel anything, think anything, or do anything ... Don’t force prayer. Simply relax in the presence of the God you half believe in and ask for a touch of folly” (The Ragamuffin Gospel, p. 196).
This is as close as Manning comes to describing how to receive the gospel, and it is unscriptural in every aspect. The Bible does not invite the sinner to relax in the presence of God and half believe; it commands him to repent and to believe fully from the heart. The model for our faith is Abraham, who was not weak in faith (Rom. 4:19) and who “staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief” (Rom. 4:20).
Manning suggests that the sinner does not need to think anything. To the contrary, the Bible says he must believe the gospel, which is the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ for our sins (1 Cor. 15:1-4). Paul said, “By which also ye are saved, IF YE KEEP IN MEMORY what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain” (1 Cor. 15:2). If one would be saved, there is a lot to think about!
In Romans 6:17 Paul described salvation as obeying from the heart a form of doctrine:
“But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.”
To obey a form of doctrine in one’s heart involves thinking about it and consciously accepting it and believing it.
Manning promotes the dangerous practice of visualization, instructing people to visualize what Jesus might have looked like (p. 197). This is vain idolatry. No man knows what Jesus looked like, and if I visualize what I THINK He looked like I am creating my own idol. Further, to use one’s imagination in this way is to invite demonic influence.
Manning promotes silent meditation. As noted earlier, he once spent six months in isolation in a cave in Spain. He meditates in silence each day. He spends eight days a year at a Jesuit retreat center in Colorado during which he speaks only 45 minutes each day. His spiritual director is a Dominican nun.
Manning claims to receive visions and special messages from God through his meditative practices.
IT APPEARS THAT MANNING BELIEVES IN UNIVERSALISM AND THE DIVINITY OF MAN
In Abba’s Child, Manning wrote:
“[I]f I find Christ, I will find my true self and if I find my true self, I will find Christ” (Manning, Abba’s Child, p. 125).
This is not the biblical Christ; it is the New Age “christ” who is in (or can be in) every man.
In Abba’s Child, Manning recommends the writings of Beatrice Bruteau. She is the founder of The School for Contemplation and believes that God is within every human being. She says that each person can say, “I AM,” which is a name for Almighty God. She said:
“We have realized ourselves as the Self that says only I AM, with no predicate following, not ‘I am a this’ or ‘I have that quality.’ Only unlimited, absolute I AM’” (Interview with Bruteau, A Song That Goes on Singing, quoted from http://www.lighthousetrailsresearch.com/manning.htm).
I AM, of course, is one of the biblical names of God. Why would Manning recommend Bruteau with no warning if he does not agree with this blasphemy?
In The Signature of Jesus, Manning gives this quote from the mystic Catholic priest William Shannon and the Catholic Buddhist Thomas Merton:
“During a conference on contemplative prayer, the question was put to Thomas Merton: ‘How can we best help people to attain union with God?’ His answer was very clear: WE MUST TELL THEM THAT THEY ARE ALREADY UNITED WITH GOD. CONTEMPLATIVE PRAYER IS NOTHING OTHER THAN COMING INTO CONSCIOUSNESS OF WHAT IS ALREADY THERE” (p. 218).
Merton was a Trappist monk who promoted the integration of Zen Buddhism and Christianity. The titles of some of his books are “Zen and the Birds of the Appetite” and “Mystics and the Zen Masters.”
Shannon was very bold in his rejection of the God of the Bible:
“This is a typical patriarchal notion of God. He is the God of Noah who sees people deep in sin, repents that He made them and resolves to destroy them. He is the God of the desert who sends snakes to bite His people because they murmured against Him. He is the God of David who practically decimates a people. ... He is the God who exacts the last drop of blood from His Son, so that His just anger, evoked by sin, may be appeased. This God whose moods alternate between graciousness and fierce anger. THIS GOD DOES NOT EXIST” (William Shannon, Silence on Fire, pp. 109, 110).
In The Ragamuffin Gospel Manning says:
“Nevertheless, the central affirmation of the Reformation stands: through no merit of ours, but by his mercy, we have been restored to a right relationship with God through the life, death, and resurrection of his beloved Son. This is the Good News, the gospel of Grace” (p. 18).
That is not the gospel of grace; that is the gospel of unconditional universalism. The true gospel is that whosever believes in Christ will be saved (John 3:16), but Manning claims that men are already redeemed. He says, “We HAVE BEEN restored.”
Manning quotes David Steindl-Rast approvingly in The Signature of Jesus (pp. 210, 213-214). Steindl-Rast, a contemplative Roman Catholic priest, said: “Envision the great religious traditions arranged on the circumference of a circle. At their mystical core they all say the same thing, but with different emphasis” (“Heroic Virtue,” Gnosis, Summer 1992).
Manning quotes Matthew Fox approvingly in two of his books, Lion and Lamb (p. 135) and A Stranger to Self Hatred (pp. 113, 124). Fox says:
“God is a great underground river, and there are many wells into that river. There’s a Taoist well, a Buddhist well, a Jewish well, a Muslim well, a Christian well, a Goddess well, the Native wells-many wells that humans have dug to get into that river, but friends, there’s only one river; the living waters of wisdom” (quoted from John Caddock, “What Is Contemplative Spirituality,” Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society, Autumn 1997).
Since Manning gives glowing recommendations for these people and offers no warning to his readers about their universalism it appears that he holds the same heresy.
In His books The Signature of God and Gentle Revolutionaries Manning describes a dream he has had about judgment day. He sees Adolf Hitler and Hugh Hefner (founder of Playboy magazine) and himself and others going before God to be judged, but God just takes them by the hand and walks them home. The implication is that everyone is accepted by God through grace, regardless of whether they repent and believe the gospel and have a born again experience.
MANNING MOCKS A STRONG BIBLICAL POSITION
He warns about “the Bible thumper” (The Ragamuffin Gospel, p. 36).
He says:
“I am deeply distressed by what I only can call in our Christian culture the idolatry of the Scriptures. For many Christians, the Bible is not a pointer to God but God himself. In a word--bibliolatry ... I develop a nasty rash around people who speak as if mere scrutiny of its pages will reveal precisely how God thinks and precisely what God wants” (The Signature of Jesus).
Bible believers don’t worship the Bible, but they do accept it for what it claims to be, the very Word of God, and they know therefore that they will find on its pages precisely how God thinks!
Manning warns about “academicians who would imprison Jesus in the ivory tower of exegesis” (The Ragamuffin Gospel, p. 14). Thus, after the fashion of the theological modernist Manning sets up the authority of Jesus over against that of the Bible, ignoring the fact that we know nothing for certain about Jesus and His doctrine apart from the Bible.
MANNING PROMOTES AN ECUMENICAL, TOLERANT DOCTRINAL POSITION
He says we should “listen to people in other denominations and religions” and we shouldn’t “find demons in those with whom we disagree” (The Ragamuffin Gospel, p. 65).
In emerging church fashion, Manning warns against being “either-or” and opts rather for the mythical “both-and.” He says:
“If we are open, we rarely resort to either-or, either creation or evolution, liberty or law, sacred or secular, Beethoven or Madonna. We focus on both-and, fully aware that God’s truth cannot be imprisoned in a small definition…. But the open mind realizes that reality, truth, and Jesus Christ are incredibly open-ended” (p. 65).
It is obvious that Manning has a different religion from that of the Lord’s apostles, who were incredibly dogmatic. The apostle John, for example, said: “And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness” (1 John 5:19). From the perspective of the mushy, can’t-be-pinned-down-on-anything Christianity of Brennan Manning, 1 John 5:19 is incredibly narrow-minded and wrongheaded, but I will gladly take my stand with the Lord’s apostles.
Note, too, Manning’s openness to the most extreme forms of worldliness, as exemplified by his recommendation of Madonna, “The Material Girl.”
MANNING IS SUPPORTIVE OF THE HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA
As we have seen, Manning believes that homosexuals should be accepted and not required to repent of their sin. He identifies “homophobia” as “among the most serious and vexing moral issues of this generation” (Abba’s Child).
A phobia is an unreasonable fear of something, in this case, homosexuality. Thus, Manning would have us believe that those who reject homosexuality as immoral and who do not want homosexuals to influence society, who oppose their filthy parades and “marriages,” have some sort of psychological illness. In fact, according to Manning, one of the most serious moral issues of our day is the rejection of homosexuality on the part of Bible believers.
To be consistent, Manning must lump Paul into the “homophobic” camp, because he strongly condemned homosexuality. Consider what Paul said about it:
“For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet” (Rom. 1:26-27).
MANNING DENIES THE SUBSTITUTIONARY ATONEMENT OF JESUS CHRIST
He writes:
“[T]he god whose moods alternate between graciousness and fierce anger ... the god who exacts the last drop of blood from his Son so that his just anger, evoked by sin, may be appeased, is not the God revealed by and in Jesus Christ. And if he is not the God of Jesus, he does not exist” (Brennan Manning, Above All, p. 58-59; the foreword to this book is written by CCM artist Michael W. Smith).
Manning boldly states that the God that required a blood sacrifice is an idol, but throughout the Old Testament we are taught that “it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul” (Lev. 17:11) and “without shedding of blood is no remission” (Heb. 9:22). Jesus Christ fulfilled all of the Old Testament blood sacrifices when He came and died on Calvary. John the Baptist said, “Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world” (John 1:29). Hebrews says: “Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us” (Heb. 9:12).
In reality, it is Manning’s god of unconditional love that is the nonexistent idol.
The following is an important observation about Manning by John Caddock:
“There is a seductive quality to his writings. He reports grappling with and overcoming fear, guilt, and psychological hang-ups and difficulties, including alcoholism. He gives the impression that he has a very intimate relationship with God and that he has insight to a superspirituality. He regularly meditates and reports having many visions and encounters with God. He is an extremely gifted writer who is able to tug at the emotions of the reader while at the same time introducing ideas that the reader would immediately reject if they were not cloaked under this emotional blanket.
“He promises readers that if they apply his teaching they too will gain this same intimacy with God as well as freedom from fear, guilt, and psychological hang-ups and difficulties. This is very attractive. Manning’s prescription to achieve this is not by traditional prayer and by the reading and application of the Bible. Rather, the means to this end is a mixture of Eastern mysticism, psychology, the New Age Movement, liberation theology, Catholicism, and Protestantism. This mixture will not deliver intimacy with God. It no doubt will lead to special feelings and experiences. Those practicing Manning’s methods will likely feel closer to God. However, in the process they will actually move away from Him as a result of a counterfeit spirituality” (“What Is Contemplative Spirituality and Why Is It Dangerous?” http://www.faithalone.org/journal/1997ii/Caddock.html).
[Distributed by Way of Life Literature's Fundamental Baptist Information Service, an e-mail listing for Fundamental Baptists and other fundamentalist, Bible-believing Christians. OUR GOAL IN THIS PARTICULAR ASPECT OF OUR MINISTRY IS NOT DEVOTIONAL BUT IS TO PROVIDE INFORMATION TO ASSIST PREACHERS IN THE PROTECTION OF THE CHURCHES IN THIS APOSTATE HOUR. This material is sent only to those who personally subscribe to the list. If somehow you have subscribed unintentionally, following are the instructions for removal. The Fundamental Baptist Information Service mailing list is automated. To SUBSCRIBE or to UNSUBSCRIBE or to CHANGE ADDRESSES or to RE-SUBSCRIBE UNDER A NEW ADDRESS, go to http://www.wayoflife.org/fbis/subscribe.html. If you have any trouble with this, please let us know. And please be patient with us. We do not ignore any unsubscribe request, but we cannot always get to your request immediately as each person involved with maintaining the Way of Life web site does this only on a very part time basis and is busy with many other major activities, such as pastoring and missionary work. We take up a quarterly offering to fund this ministry, and those who use the materials are expected to participate (Galatians 6:6) if they can. Some of the articles are from O Timothy magazine, which is in its 25th year of publication. Way of Life publishes many helpful books. The catalog is located at the web site: http://wayoflife.org/catalog/catalog.htm Way of Life Literature, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061. 866-295-4143, fbns@wayoflife.org. We do not solicit funds from those who do not agree with our preaching and who are not helped by these publications, but from those who are. OFFERINGS can be made at http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/offering.html. PAYPAL offerings can be made to https://www.paypal.com/xclick/business=dcloud%40wayoflife.org]
EVANGELICALS AND MODERNIST ROBERT SCHULLER
Updated June 19, 2008 (first published February 7, 1998) (David Cloud, Fundamental Baptist Information Service, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061, 866-295-4143, fbns@wayoflife.org; for instructions about subscribing and unsubscribing or changing addresses, see the information paragraph at the end of the article) –
Robert Schuller, pastor of the Crystal Cathedral in southern California, has been called “the Norman Vincent Peale of the West.”
Schuller’s doctrine is New Age and his affiliations are New Age.
His book titles have included:
The Be-Happy Attitudes: Eight Positive Attitudes that Can Transform Your Life.
Believe in the God Who Believes in You.
The Greatest Possibility Thinker That Ever Lived.
Peace of Mind through Possibility Thinking.
Power Thoughts.
Self-Love: The Dynamic Force of Success.
You Can Become the Person You Want to Be.
Schuller reinterprets the doctrines of the Word of God to conform to his heretical self-esteem philosophy. To Schuller, sin is the lack of self-esteem. His christ is a psycho-savior who is “self-esteem incarnate.” His gospel is to replace negative self-concepts with positive ones. To Schuller, man is not a sinner. He is universalist, believing that all men are the children of God.
Robert Schuller wants to create a new kind of Christianity: one that believes in the Fatherhood of God and the divinity of man, one that is positive and non-judgmental, one that worships a New Age self-esteem Christ, one that denies the necessity of Christ’s blood atonement, one in which salvation involves being reconciled with one’s one essential goodness, one that believes in the essential truth in all religions.
Schuller’ false teaching is an extremely serious matter in light of his wide influence. He has been one of the most popular religion television personalities in America for decades. His books sell by the millions. His self-esteem Christianity has been adopted by multitudes. These believe they are Christians; they attend churches; but in reality they worship a false christ and follow a false gospel.
Consider some excerpts from his book Self-Esteem: The New Reformation, published by Word Books in 1982:
“The core of original sin, then is LOT--Lack of Trust. Or, it could be considered an innate inability to adequately value ourselves. Label it a 'negative self-image,' but DO NOT SAY THAT THE CENTRAL CORE OF THE HUMAN SOUL IS WICKEDNESS. ... POSITIVE CHRISTIANITY DOES NOT HOLD TO HUMAN DEPRAVITY, BUT TO HUMAN INABILITY. I am humanly unable to correct my negative self-image until I encounter a life-changing experience with non-judgmental love bestowed upon me by a Person whom I admire so much that to be unconditionally accepted by him is to be born again” (Schuller, Self-Esteem, p. 67).
“Classical theology DEFINES SIN AS 'REBELLION AGAINST GOD.' The answer is not incorrect as much as IT IS SHALLOW AND INSULTING TO THE HUMAN BEING. Every person deserves to be treated with dignity even if he or she is a 'rebellious sinner” (Schuller, Self-Esteem, p. 65).
“Any analysis of 'sin' or 'evil' or 'demonic influence' or 'negative thinking' or 'systemic evil' or 'antisocial behavior' that fails to see the lack of self-dignity as the core of the problem will prove to be too shallow. … TO BE BORN AGAIN MEANS THAT WE MUST BE CHANGED FROM A NEGATIVE TO A POSITIVE SELF-IMAGE--from inferiority to self-esteem, from fear to love, from doubt to trust” (Schuller, Self-Esteem, p. 68).
“The classical error of historical Christianity is that we have never started with the value of the person. Rather, WE HAVE STARTED FROM THE 'UNWORTHINESS OF THE SINNER,' AND THAT STARTING POINT HAS SET THE STAGE FOR THE GLORIFICATION OF HUMAN SHAME in Christian theology” (Schuller, Self-Esteem, p. 162).
“We are born to soar. We are children of God. ... THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD OFFERS A DEEP SPIRITUAL CURE FOR THE INFERIORITY COMPLEX AND LAYS THE FIRM FOUNDATION FOR A SOLID SPIRITUAL SELF-ESTEEM” (Schuller, Self-Esteem, p. 60).
“Historical theology has too often failed to interpret repentance as a positive creative force. ... ESSENTIALLY, IF CHRISTIANITY IS TO SUCCEED IN THE NEXT MILLENNIUM, IT MUST CEASE TO BE A NEGATIVE RELIGION AND MUST BECOME POSITIVE” (Schuller, Self-Esteem, p. 104).
“What do I mean by sin? Answer: Any human condition or act that robs God of glory by stripping one of his children of their right to divine dignity. ... I can offer still another answer: 'SIN IS ANY ACT OR THOUGHT THAT ROBS MYSELF OR ANOTHER HUMAN BEING OF HIS OR HER SELF-ESTEEM’” (Schuller, Self-Esteem, p. 14).
“AND WHAT IS 'HELL'? IT IS THE LOSS OF PRIDE THAT NATURALLY FOLLOWS SEPARATION FROM GOD--the ultimate and unfailing source of our soul's sense of self-respect. 'My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?' was Christ's encounter with hell. In that 'hellish' death our Lord experienced the ultimate horror--humiliation, shame, and loss of pride as a human being. A person is in hell when he has lost his self-esteem. Can you imagine any condition more tragic than to live life and eternity in shame?” (Schuller, Self-Esteem, pp. 14-15, 93).
“THE CROSS SANCTIFIES THE EGO TRIP. FOR THE CROSS PROTECTED OUR LORD'S PERFECT SELF-ESTEEM FROM TURNING INTO SINFUL PRIDE” (Schuller, Self-Esteem, p. 75).
“Christ is the Ideal One, for HE WAS SELF-ESTEEM INCARNATE” (Schuller, Self-Esteem, p. 135).
“JESUS NEVER CALLED A PERSON A SINNER. ... Rather he reserved his righteous rebuke for those who used their religious authority to generate guilt and caused people to lose their ability to taste and enjoy their right to dignity...” (Schuller, Self-Esteem, pp. 100,126).
“I found myself immediately attracted to Pope John Paul II when, upon his election to the Papacy, his published speeches invariably called attention to THE NEED FOR RECOGNIZING THE DIGNITY OF THE HUMAN BEING AS A CHILD OF GOD” (Schuller, Self-Esteem, p. 17).
“In a theology that starts with an uncompromising respect for each person's pride and dignity, I HAVE NO RIGHT TO EVER PREACH A SERMON OR WRITE AN ARTICLE THAT WOULD OFFEND THE SELF-RESPECT AND VIOLATE THE SELF-DIGNITY OF A LISTENER OR READER. Any minister, religious leader, writer, or reporter who stoops to a style, a strategy, a substance, or a spirit that fails to show respect for his or her audience is committing an insulting sin. Every human being must be treated with respect; self-esteem is his sacred right.”
“The tragedy of Christendom today is the existence of entire congregations of church members who are dominated by emotionally deprived or emotionally under-developed persons. These congregations have been accurately labeled 'God's Frozen People.' ... And they do this by EXERCISING NARROW AUTHORITARIANISM IN DOCTRINES AND PRACTICES AND BY SOWING SEEDS OF SUSPICION AND DISSENSION IN THE RELIGIOUS COMMUNITY. ... By contrast, strong persons--self-assured personalities, whose egos find their nourishment in a self-esteem-generating personal relationship with Jesus Christ--dare to face contrary opinions, diverse interpretations, and deviations of theology without becoming disrespectful, judgmental, or accusatory” (Schuller, Self-Esteem, pp. 153-154).
MAKING PEOPLE AWARE OF THEIR LOST CONDITION IS UNCHRISTIAN
Schuller contends that the most destructive thing that can be done to a person is to call him a sinner. In an article in Christianity Today, October 5, 1984, Schuller said, “I don't think anything has been done in the name of Christ and under the banner of Christianity that has proven more destructive to human personality and, hence, counterproductive to the evangelism enterprise than the often crude, uncouth, and unchristian strategy of attempting to make people aware of their lost and sinful condition.”
SCHULLER’S RADICAL ECUMENISM AND RELIGIOUS SYNCRETISM
In 1992 Schuller founded Churches Uniting in Global Missions, which seeks “a spirit of unity that is truly Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, Evangelical, and Charismatic.”
In October 1987 Schuller spoke at Jesus Day VII, in Chicago. This was a New Age Roman Catholic gathering. One of the speakers was Matthew Fox, whose new age theology is so strange that he has been disciplined by the Vatican! Fox accepts homosexuality, premarital sex, feminism, and advocates a sort of pantheism. He rejects the doctrine of hell and calls for churches to have wiccan circle dances. A witch named Starhawk is on the faculty of Fox's Holy Names College. In his speech at Jesus Day VII, Fox advocated throwing out traditional images of the historical Jesus and concentrating on “the cosmic Christ within.” Fox urged Christians to adopt traditions from ancient African and Greek religions and from nature. “You represent divinity,” Fox said. “God looks at you in the morning and sees herself. She laughs and sees her beauty.” The National & International Religion Report noted that Schuller said he did not know much about the theology of the other speakers and he warned of the dangers of subjective mysticism, but he also said that he attended the Catholic gathering because he believes the Catholic Church has the best chance at evangelizing the world in upcoming years.
In his autobiography Schuller describes a meeting with Islamic leaders and says:
“Standing before a crowd of devout Muslims with the Grand Mufti [of Jerusalem], I know that WE’RE ALL DOING GOD’S WORK TOGETHER. Standing on the edge of a new millennium, we’re laboring hand in hand to repair the breach. ... I’m dreaming a bold impossible dream: that positive-thinking believers in God will rise above the illusions that our sectarian religions have imposed on the world, and that leaders of the major faiths will rise above doctrinal idiosyncrasies, choosing not to focus on disagreements, but rather TO TRANSCEND DIVISIVE DOGMAS TO WORK TOGETHER TO BRING PEACE AND PROSPERITY AND HOPE TO THE WORLD” (My Journey, pp. 501, 502).
Schuller has featured prominent New Agers on his television program. Consider the following discerning report by former New Ager Warren Smith, author of The Light That Was Dark: A Spiritual Journey:
“On Oct. 17, 2004, more than 20 years after his first appearance on the Hour of Power, New Age leader Gerald Jampolsky was once again Robert Schuller’s featured guest. ... I was very familiar with Gerald Jampolsky. When I was exploring New Age teachings, he was the first one to introduce me to the New Age Christ and to the New Age/New Gospel teachings of A Course in Miracles. Widely reputed in New Age circles to be the closest thing to a New Age bible, A Course in Miracles taught me that ‘there is no sin,’ ‘a slain Christ has no meaning’ and ‘the recognition of God is the recognition of yourself.’ On this Hour of Power program, Schuller praised Jampolsky and recommended all of his ‘fabulous’ books--in spite of the fact that every one of them was based on the New Age teachings of ‘A Course in Miracles.’ He also stated that Jampolsky’s latest book, Forgiveness, was available in the Crystal Cathedral bookstore.
“Amazingly, Schuller had begun the year as a featured speaker at the annual convention of the National Association of Evangelicals. He was now closing the year by featuring a prominent New Age leader as his special guest. As usual, no one in Christian leadership was holding him accountable, or even seemed to care. Over the years, Schuller had obviously done a good job of softening up the church” (Warren Smith, “Rethinking Robert Schuller” WorldNetDaily, October 30, 2007).
SCHULLER EMPLOYS HEGELIAN DIALECTICS TO CREATE A NEW DOCTRINE
Schuller employs Hegelian dialectics to move from the old traditional Bible doctrinal position to a new one. It is one of the methodologies employed to bring about his “New Reformation.”
As we see in the chapter “Hegelian Dialectics,” its objective is to replace something old with something new (e.g., capitalism with communism, traditional theology with modernism, a traditional educational system with a new one, an old age with a new). It does this by challenging an existing idea (thesis) with a contradictory idea (antithesis) to combine them into something new (synthesis), and then repeating the process until the desired end is reached.
Speaking religiously and spiritually, it is an ever-evolving system that never arrives at absolute truth. All is relative and negotiable and the end justifies the means. It employs a wide range of tactics: dialogue, compromise, consensus forming, conflict resolution, divide and conquer, deceit, redefinition of words, giving new names to objectionable things, crisis creation, obfuscation (concealment of meaning by making something confusing and hard to interpret or by otherwise hiding its true meaning). It requires non-judgmentalism, tolerance, acceptance, relativism, group mentality.
It is not an innocent process. It is used by “change agents” and “facilitators of transformation.” Hegelian dialectics is “the framework for guiding our thoughts and actions into conflicts that lead us to a predetermined solution” (Niki Raapana and Nordica Friedrich, “What Is the Hegelian Dialectic?” October 2005, http://www.crossroad.to/articles2/05/dialectic.htm).
Consider how that Schuller’s January 2008 Rethink Conference employed Hegelian dialectics to further his New Age objectives of syncretizing religion and creating a new type of Christianity and ultimately a new world through the power of human potential.
The conference was “A CONVERGENCE of some of the most influential Christian and global thinkers” (Rethink Conference announcement, Oct. 15, 2007). These great thinkers were also described as “respected icons in media, politics, faith, science, business and technology.” The important fact is that they represented contradictory ideas, and their contradictory ideas were to be the stepping stones to something new. They included evangelicals such as Rick Warren’s wife, Kay, and Lee Strobel, Emerging Church leaders Erwin McManus and Dan Kimball, Evangelicals and Catholics Together proponent Charles Colson, media mogul and pornography purveyor Rupert Murdoch, and agnostic Larry King.
The Rethink Conference was clearly described in terms of the Hegelian methodology, though of course the term itself was not used. The idea of the conference was “bring all the different thoughts and ideas and create something cohesive and meaningful” (“Interview with Erwin McManus, Christian Post, Jan. 22, 2008). The process involved hearing what each speaker said in a 20-minute lecture, then to “wrestle with it, dialogue about it, agree or disagree with it--then take it a step further and make it your own” (Rethink Conference announcement, Oct. 15, 2007).
Schuller also described his Hegelian methodology in the book Don’t Throw Away Tomorrow: Living God’s Dream for Your Life:
“We need to learn the healing quality of wise compromise. ... Perhaps the only way to deal with contradictions is to combine them creatively and produce something new. That’s ingenious compromise.” (New Age leader Gerald Jampolsky’s endorsement is on the back cover of this book.)
To seek to combine contradictions into something new is Hegelian dialectics. It is a key principle of the emerging church.
If some believe that Jesus is God and others believe he was merely a great teacher, and if some believe that man is a fallen sinner separated from God and others believe he is essentially good and one with God, and if some believe that God is the Almighty who created all things but is not a part of the creation and others believe that God is the sum total of all things -- those are the old contradictions and we must move beyond such things. This is what they are saying and this is where they are heading.
From a biblical perspective this is gross disobedience to God. From a biblical perspective, compromise of doctrinal truth is only evil. The Bible claims to be the sole divine revelation that God has given mankind and we are to believe it and judge everything by it. We are to allow “no other doctrine” (1 Timothy 1:3) and we are to “earnestly content for the faith which was once delivered to the saints” (Jude 3), which means we are forbidden to give contradictory doctrines any credence.
For the Bible believer, the Bible is THE infallible thesis, and every antithesis is to be rejected and no synthesis allowed!
The Bible asks rhetorically, “Can two walk together, except they be agreed?” (Amos 3:3). The Ecumenical, New Age, Emerging Church crowd brazenly replies, “Sure, we can make that work.”
Well does the Bible describe the great departure of the faith as those who are “ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth” (2 Timothy 3:7).
THE EVANGELICAL CONNECTION
In light of Schuller’s blatant denial of the Word of God, his false gospel, and his radical ecumenism and blatant syncretism, it is amazing to see evangelical leaders fellowshipping with him, but the record is clear.
Schuller's book Self-Esteem was endorsed by men such as Clark Pinnock of McMaster Divinity College, David Hubbard, president of Fuller Theological Seminary, and Kenneth Chafin of the Southern Baptist Convention.
Schuller was scheduled to speak at the 62nd annual meeting of the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) in March 2004.
CHRISTIANITY TODAY SAYS SCHULLER NOT A HERETIC
Two years after Schuller published Self-Esteem: The New Reformation, Christianity Today editors examined Schuller's theology, and, amazingly, concluded that he is not a heretic. Consider an excerpt from an August 10, 1984, Christianity Today article by Kenneth Kantzer and Paul Fromer:
“He believes all the 'fundamental' doctrines of traditional fundamentalism. He adheres to every line of the Apostles' Creed with a tenacity born of deep conviction. ... he avowed belief in a literal hell. He was not sure about its location, and the fire is to be understood figuratively...”
This is remarkable. Sure, when Robert Schuller is questioned about his theology, he says he believes the fundamental doctrines of the Faith. Most Modernists do. What he will not admit is that he redefines the terminology of the Faith so as to produce an entirely different, and false, theology. We have seen this from his own pen. We do not need a personal interview to clarify the man's blatant apostasy!
Schuller says he believes in salvation by grace, but what he actually believes is that salvation is being rescued from poor self-esteem. He says he believes in Hell; but his hell is the loss of self-esteem, not a place of fiery eternal torment. He says he believes in sin; but sin is not willful rebellion against God and His law, but the loss of self-esteem. He says he believes in Jesus Christ; but his positive-only, “Self-Esteem Incarnate” Jesus is not the Jesus of the Bible.
Schuller says he believes everything in the Bible. That is not true. What he believes about the Bible is actually a redefined, twisted view of it. His repentance is not Bible repentance; his new birth is not Bible regeneration; his Hell, his Heaven, his Jesus, cross, his salvation is not that of the Bible. The man is an arch-heretic, a blasphemer. He has never retracted or repented of the views promoted in his book Self-Esteem.
The watchdogs at Christianity Today are blind and dumb.
EVANGELICAL LEADERS ASSOCIATE WITH MODERNIST SCHULLER
Consider a brief survey of other evangelical leaders who accept Schuller as a genuine brother in Christ:
Billy Graham has frequently appeared with and praised Schuller. In 1983, Schuller sat in the front row of distinguished guests invited to honor Graham's 65th birthday. In 1986 Schuller was invited by Graham to speak at the International Conference for Itinerant Evangelists in Amsterdam. Other featured speakers included many of today's most prominent evangelical leaders, including Bill Bright, Leighton Ford, and Luis Palau. Schuller was featured on the platform of Graham's Atlanta Crusade in 1994.
Southern Baptist leader W.A. Criswell endorsed Schuller's ministry in 1981 in an ad in Christianity Today’s Leadership magazine. He said, “I know Dr. Schuller personally. He's my good friend. I've spoken on his platform. I'm well acquainted with his ministry. If you want to develop fruitful evangelism in your church; if you want your laity to experience positive motivation and ministry fulfilling training, then I know, without a doubt, that you will greatly benefit from the Robert Schuller Film Workshop.” A year prior to that, Criswell also endorsed a book by Schuller's mentor, self-esteem theologian Norman Vincent Peale.
On April 29, 1980, Robert Schuller appeared with popular evangelical and charismatic leaders Bill Bright, D. James Kennedy, James Robison, Jim Bakker, Rex Humbard, Pat Robertson, Pat Boone, Nicky Cruz, David du Plessis, Demos Shakarian, and Thomas Zimmerman (Assemblies of God) at the Washington for Jesus Rally. Joining them was independent Baptist pastor Jerry Falwell.
Popular author and teacher R.C. Sproul, president of Ligonier Ministries, has spoken at Robert Schuller's Crystal Cathedral on numerous occasions. He spoke at Schuller's church in September 21, 1984, then at John MacArthur's church three days later. Again Sproul spoke at Schuller's church in October 26, 1986, and then at MacArthur's church on October 29. This reveals the importance of practicing biblical separation. To our knowledge, John MacArthur has not personally promoted Schuller, but he has men in to speak at his church who are so spiritually blind that they work hand-in-hand with a heretic like Robert Schuller. This is a great confusion. Some would label this “second degree separation,” but that is nonsense. To separate from a man such as Sproul who is disobeying the clear commands of the Word of God to mark and avoid false teaching is not some kind of secondary separation. It is wisdom and it is obedience. At the end of Paul's second epistle to the Thessalonians he warns: “And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed” (2 Thess. 3:14). The immediate context deals with those who refuse to work, but the general application is to everything which was taught in the epistle, and in other epistles as well. If we are to separate ourselves from a Christian brother who refuses to work, how much more must we separate from one who muddies the Gospel by fellowshipping with modernistic heretics and Romanists, etc.?
In October 1986 Schuller was on the council to host the Fourth Triennial Convention of the Asia Missions Association. Other men involved in this were evangelical leaders Donald McGavran, Ralph Winter, David Howard, Dale Kietzman of the World Literature Crusade, Edward Dayton of World Vision, Peter Deyneka of the Slavic Gospel Mission, Jack Frizen of the IFMA, and Wade Coggins of the EFMA.
In 1987 a survey was conducted by the National Association of Christian Psychotherapists and Counselors as to which television ministry is “the most effective in applying biblical principles to people's problems.” Robert Schuller's Hour of Power came out on top. James Dobson, president of the organization, commented: “He's not dogmatic. His message is clear and deals mainly with cognitive reconditioning. Yet he uses the Bible as his source. He comes across more as a therapist then a minister, yet his message is still very Christian in nature.” Dobson has used Schuller's endorsements in his ads (Calvary Contender, August 15, 1987).
A wide range of evangelical leaders joined hands with Robert Schuller and other heretics at the Congress '88, August 4-7, 1988, in Chicago. Allegedly a congress on evangelism, it was actually a congress on ecumenical compromise and end-times apostasy. Catholic priest Alvin Illig was one of the leaders and the opening address was brought by the Catholic Archbishop of Chicago, Joseph Bernardin. At the piano for the opening night services was Larry Shakley, minister of music at Willow Creek Community Church and band director for Moody Bible Institute's Friday Night Sing. Speakers included Charles Colson, Bill Bright, Jack Wyrtzen, Jay Kessler, and Southern Baptist Robert Hamblin. Representatives from the Navigators, Jews for Jesus, Pioneer Clubs, Moody Monthly magazine, and General Baptists delivered workshops.
In August 1991, World Vision co-sponsored an Interfaith Rally in St. Louis, Missouri, which was addressed by Robert Schuller.
Tony Campolo has frequently recommended Robert Schuller and has spoken with him on various platforms. In his book Partly Right, Campolo said: “Schuller affirms our divinity, yet does not deny our humanity ... isn't that what the gospel is? Isn't God's message to sinful humanity that He sees in each of us a divine nature of such worth that He sacrificed His own Son.”
Christianity Today, which should be titled New Evangelicalism Today, has frequently carried advertisements promoting Robert Schuller. Each year CT publishes ads for Schuller's Institute for Successful Church Leadership. This is one more evidence that popular evangelicalism today is not concerned about the truth. Doctrine is merely a game with these men. They will debate doctrine, but they will not separate on the basis of doctrine and they will not mark the heretics who promote false doctrine.
InterVarsity Christian Fellowship president Stephen Hayner joined Schuller in January 1994, to participate in the Schuller Institute for Successful Church Leadership.
In December 1994, Schuller joined hands with a wide range of popular evangelical leaders at Campus Crusade for Christ head Bill Bright's Fast for Revival conference. Among those attending were Charles Colson, E.V. Hill, Jack Hayford, James Dobson, W.A. Criswell, Charles Stanley, Paul Crouch, Luis Palau, Bill Gothard, Pat Robertson, Jay Arthur, and Larry Burkett.
In February 1996, Robert Schuller was featured at Jerusalem Celebration 2000. Joining him for this meeting was Paul Yonggi Cho, Jack Hayford, C. Peter Wagner, among others.
In September 1996, Beverly LaHaye and Ralph Reed joined Robert Schuller for a Christian Coalition conference in Washington D.C., sponsored by cult-leader “Rev.” Sun Myung Moon.
Many of the Promise Keepers speakers and leaders are connected with Schuller. For example, John Maxwell, Jack Hayford, and Randy Phillips were among the keynote speakers at the Men's Conference '95 (March 2-4, 1995) held at Schuller's Crystal Cathedral. Schuller also spoke at the conference.
Bill Hybels of the Willow Creek Community Church near Chicago credits Schuller as an inspiration for his work, has promoted Schuller in various ads in Christianity Today, and is a frequent speaker at meetings organized by Schuller. For example, in 1996 Hybels was on the staff of Schuller's annual Institute for Successful Church Leadership. Hybels is one of the chief promoters of churches which cater to the desires of the people. He started his church by taking a survey of the community and building a “church” which would satisfy what the people wanted in a church. A Chicago sociologist said Hybels preaches a very upbeat message--”a salvationist message, but the idea is not so much being saved from the fires of hell. Rather, it's being saved from meaninglessness and aimlessness in this life. It's more of a soft-sell.” Hybels' church does not have conventional worship. It has no altar, no choir, organ, hymnals, or song books. Its music ranges from rock to jazz to country to classical. It is no wonder that Hybels would love Robert Schuller and his self-esteem message. The stranger fact is that Hybels is frequently recommended by and speaks with those who claim to be Bible based. He spoke at Dallas Seminary's 1989 Pastors Conference, for example. Hybels has also spoken at Moody Bible Institute's Founder's Week and has taught his philosophy of church growth as a faculty member of MBI's graduate school.
Schuller’s 1996 autobiography, My Soul's Adventure with God, was endorsed by Paul Crouch, Jack Hayford, John Wimber, and popular Southern Baptist leader W.A. Criswell.
Schuller received a standing ovation at the March 2004 annual convention of the National Association of Evangelicals.
Rick Warren of Purpose Driven fame has been deeply influenced by Schuller. In his last year at seminary, Warren attended Schuller’s Institute for Church Growth, and was “won over.” His wife, Kay, said, “He had a profound influence on Rick. We were captivated by his positive appeal to nonbelievers. I never looked back” (http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2002/012/1.42.html). Warren has also spoken at Schuller’s conferences. He spoke at the Schuller Institute for Successful Church Leadership in 1997. And Schuller endorsed Warren’s Purpose Drive Church, saying, “I'm praying that every pastor will read this book, believe it, be prepared to stand corrected by it, and change to match its sound, scriptural wisdom. Rick Warren is the one all of us should listen to and learn from.”
On April 18, 2004, Ravi Zacharias appeared on Robert Schuller’s Hour of Power program and did not give his listeners one word of warning about his heresies.
In January 2008, Rick Warren’s wife, Kay, and other evangelicals joined Robert Schuller and a host of heretics and unbelievers at the Rethink Conference. Other evangelicals included Jay Sekulow, Henry Cloud, John Townsend, and Lee Strobel, and Charles Colson.
The fact that so many “evangelical” leaders treat Schuller as a brother in Christ is evidence of their blindness. Christ warns us not to follow blind leaders. “And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch” (Matthew 15:14).
[Distributed by Way of Life Literature's Fundamental Baptist Information Service, an e-mail listing for Fundamental Baptists and other fundamentalist, Bible-believing Christians. OUR GOAL IN THIS PARTICULAR ASPECT OF OUR MINISTRY IS NOT DEVOTIONAL BUT IS TO PROVIDE INFORMATION TO ASSIST PREACHERS IN THE PROTECTION OF THE CHURCHES IN THIS APOSTATE HOUR. This material is sent only to those who personally subscribe to the list. If somehow you have subscribed unintentionally, following are the instructions for removal. The Fundamental Baptist Information Service mailing list is automated. To SUBSCRIBE or to UNSUBSCRIBE or to CHANGE ADDRESSES or to RE-SUBSCRIBE UNDER A NEW ADDRESS, go to http://www.wayoflife.org/fbis/subscribe.html. If you have any trouble with this, please let us know. And please be patient with us. We do not ignore any unsubscribe request, but we cannot always get to your request immediately as each person involved with maintaining the Way of Life web site does this only on a very part time basis and is busy with many other major activities, such as pastoring and missionary work. We take up a quarterly offering to fund this ministry, and those who use the materials are expected to participate (Galatians 6:6) if they can. Some of the articles are from O Timothy magazine, which is in its 25th year of publication. Way of Life publishes many helpful books. The catalog is located at the web site: http://wayoflife.org/catalog/catalog.htm Way of Life Literature, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061. 866-295-4143, fbns@wayoflife.org. We do not solicit funds from those who do not agree with our preaching and who are not helped by these publications, but from those who are. OFFERINGS can be made at http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/offering.html. PAYPAL offerings can be made to https://www.paypal.com/xclick/business=dcloud%40wayoflife.org]
TONY CAMPOLO: A DANGEROUS MAN
The following report is from O Timothy magazine, Volume 9, Issue 4, 1992. David W. Cloud. All rights reserved. O Timothy is a monthly magazine. Annual subscription is US$20 FOR THE UNITED STATES. Send to Way of Life Literature, Bible Baptist Church, 1219 N. Harns Road, Oak Harbor, Washington 98277. FOR CANADA the subscription is $20 Canadian. Send to Bethel Baptist Church, P.O. Box 9075, London, Ontario N6E 1V0.
by David W. Cloud
In January, Pastor Jeff Hallmark and I attended Missionsfest ‘92 in Vancouver, British Columbia, as observers to give this report. This is the largest missions gathering in Canada and has been held annually for five years. Hundreds of missions and evangelistic organizations were represented and had displays at the conference. There were also separate meetings for youth. The crowds were large. Conference leaders expected 25,000 to visit the exhibits and to attend meetings during the three days.
Though the participants represented a wide variety of belief and practice, most came under the evangelical label. There were Pentecostals, Baptists, Presbyterians, Mennonites, Anglicans, Lutherans, to name a few. I did not see any Catholic groups, though some of the people we talked to at the booths were strongly sympathetic toward Catholicism. John Wimber’s radical charismatic Vineyard movement was represented by a booth at Missionsfest ‘92.
To give an idea of the variety of participants, we will list some of the groups which had booths at Missionsfest: The Evangelical Alliance Mission, The Presbyterian Church in Canada, Bernice Gerard Ministries, Every Home for Christ, Mennonite Central Committee, General Conference Mennonite Church, Gospel Recordings, Wycliffe Bible Translators, Fellowship of Evangelical Baptist Churches, Salvation Army, Operation Mobilization, Youth With a Mission, Frontiers, Focus on the Family, Teen Missions Canada, Blessings for Obedience Radio, Banner of Truth, Christian Research Institute, Persecuted Church Fellowship, MacGregor Ministries, Lutheran Bible Translators, Regent College (home of J.I. Packer), Women’s Aglow, OMS International, Send International, Center for World Mission, Christian Business Men’s Committee, Youth for Christ, WEC International, Scripture Gift Mission, and World Vision.
The main reason I attended this meeting was to hear Tony Campolo. He has become tremendously popular in ecumenical circles, and I wanted to hear him firsthand. He spoke on Friday evening to a standing-room-only crowd, and he literally brought the people to their feet. The man is a very effective speaker, which of course makes him all the more dangerous.
Entertainment
Campolo is a master entertainer. No doubt about it. Of course, that is the kind of speaker who is popular in this confused, carnal hour. Campolo is dynamic, interesting, and personable. He appeals to the young and to the old. He can make you laugh, and he can make you cry. He is full of zeal. He can move people. But Campolo is a dangerous man.
Campolo is dangerous because of his ecumenism
He began his talk by noting how incredible and wonderful it was that so many different kinds of Christians had come together for the meeting. He mentioned Pentecostals, Baptists, Presbyterians, Anglicans, and Mennonites. Then he cracked the first of what was to be a flood of jokes. He mentioned that he is a Baptist, and he said, “Of course, you don’t have to be a Baptist to go to heaven, but why take a chance.”
As Campolo stood before this mixed multitude he did not have one word of warning about the false teaching represented by the various groups that were present. He did say, “If your theology is not right you will be messed up and not be able to follow Jesus adequately.” But he did not explain what he meant, and of course he gave no examples of being “messed up theologically.” Thus, while he mentioned in passing the importance of sound doctrine, he made no application of this truth. His appeal was for those present to give themselves to world missions, and he made no exceptions for those who hold to false doctrine.
Not only did Campolo approach this conference in a compromising ecumenical spirit, he did not even clarify the Gospel. He mentioned the Gospel; he referred to the Gospel. But he did not explain what the Gospel is. He did not preach the Gospel. He talked about “giving your life to Jesus Christ,” but that is not the Gospel. He spoke of the necessity of winning people to Jesus Christ, and he said that “missions starts with the declaration that Jesus Christ must be the Lord of your life.” But that is not the Gospel. That kind of language is interpreted many different ways by the various denominations. Campolo said, “I believe in heaven, and I believe in hell.” But that is not the Gospel. He mentioned the cross, but the cross must be explained. Especially is this true in this hour of doctrinal confusion. Even Rome mentions the cross, but Rome, of course, does not preach the biblical gospel.
All of this is not surprising in light of the ecumenism of the conference. If Campolo had preached a clear Gospel, he would have caused problems for some of the participants. He would have caused divisions. He could not preach against baptismal regeneration, because this is held by many of the Lutherans and Anglicans who were present. He could not preach against the heresy of losing salvation, because this was held by many of the Pentecostals present. Thus ecumenists do not make things like this clear. They speak in generalities and inferences, not in plain doctrinal Bible language.
Ecumenism has long been Campolo’s methodology. He is an American Baptist preacher who teaches sociology at the American Baptist Eastern College. The American Baptist Convention is the most liberal group of Baptists in the United States and is a member body of the World Council of Churches. Bible-believing Baptist churches long ago separated from this modernistic group.
You can find Campolo practically anywhere--preaching the same ecumenically-popular message: You can find him in a National Council of Churches meeting (he spoke at the NCC-sponsored “A Gathering of Christians,” May 1988, in Arlington, Texas), and you can find him at a National Association of Evangelicals meeting (Campolo spoke at NAE’s annual convention, March 1987, in Wheaton, Illinois). Any lip service Campolo gives to the importance of doctrinal correctness is negated by his constant relationship with heretics. In practice, the man has no concern for doctrinal purity.
Campolo signed an article in the liberal Sojourners magazine in May 1981, which lambasted the United States and stated that Roman Catholicism was the one bright light in the dark situation in El Salvador. “The Roman Catholic church is being converted to the poor in El Salvador.” This is a reference to the wicked liberation theology movement within Romanism, a movement which substitutes the salvation of society for the salvation of the soul. Liberation theology is Christianized Marxism, but here we find Campolo signing a statement that called it a bright light.
Campolo was on the editorial board for the production of the film Mother Teresa, which exalts the Roman Catholic nun and which contains no warning about her false gospel. Campolo often uses Mother Teresa as an example of proper Bible Christianity, though she preaches a false gospel and worships Mary.
Campolo is exceedingly dangerous because he is an ecumenist who is willing to ignore false doctrine. He is willing to work with and fellowship with error. He refuses to obey Bible separation. He refuses to lift his voice against heresy. In fact, he often pokes fun at the fundamentalist position. This is wickedness. It is impossible to please God while preaching the kind of positive ecumenical message that Campolo preaches.
Campolo is dangerous because he teaches false doctrine
In Vancouver, Campolo claimed that he was sound theologically. “I am sound, man, sound!” he exclaimed. He isn’t sound, though. The man is doctrinally confused in all sorts of areas.
Campolo was brought to a sort of theological trial in 1985 by some evangelical leaders who challenged his doctrinal position. That year he was scheduled to speak at Youth Congress ‘85, sponsored by Youth for Christ and Campus Crusade for Christ, but because of the protest by Evangelical Free Church pastors in Illinois, he was dropped from the program.
The main area of concern arose from Campolo’s book A Reasonable Faith, published in 1983 by Word Publishers. In this book Campolo developed the idea that “Christ lives in all human beings, regardless of whether they are Christians.” Campolo asserted that the resurrected Jesus of history ‘actually is present’ in each person. Campolo also said, ‘Jesus is the only Savior, but not everybody who is being saved by Him is aware that He is the one who is doing the saving,’ and ‘Jesus is God because he is fully human’“ (EP News Service, Oct. 4, 1985).
The conflict was resolved by the mediation of the Christian Legal Society, and a statement was released that exonerated Campolo. Christianity Today editor Kenneth Kantzer wrote that Campolo was entirely orthodox. Campolo told Christianity Today,
“I’m worried that evangelical intellectuals will not say anything except the old phrases and the old worn out terminology ... The way evangelical Christianity is doing theology really bothers me. If everybody has to say only things that they know are safely orthodox, if we lose the capacity to be open and to share ideas that people may consider heretical, I think we will lose our creativity.”
This is a foolish statement, and for Christianity Today to leave it unchallenged is inexcusable. To call for a questioning of the “old worn out terminology,” and for theological openness to new theology is apostasy. The “old phrases” of evangelicalism are nothing more or less than the sound Bible doctrine which has been given to us by the Apostles and Prophets in Holy Scripture, and which has been held and defended by orthodox Christians through the centuries. The problem with modern evangelicalism is just this: It is departing from the old paths.
It is not surprising that new evangelical leaders such as Campus Crusade’s Bill Bright and Christianity Today’s Kenneth Kantzer exonerated Campolo. These men have so compromised the truth that they have little spiritual discernment. These are the same men who have opened their arms to charismatic error, who fellowship with the World Council of Churches and with Rome, and who recommend polluted versions such as the Living Bible. Kantzer and Christianity Today even examined heretic Robert Schuller and called him an orthodox evangelical Christian, in spite of the fact that Schuller teaches that the greatest wrong that can be done for a man is to call him a sinner!
Today’s evangelical leaders do not have the heart nor the discernment needed to protect the flock of God. They are blind guides and dumb dogs. Christianity Today’s defense of Campolo does not demonstrate his orthodoxy, it demonstrates Christianity Today’s confusion.
Campolo is confused about creation
When Campolo was examined by the evangelical leaders in 1985, they noted that “while he accepts an evolutionary view of the origin of man and the universe, he holds that this is consistent with Scripture that teaches only the fact (not the method) of Creation” (Christian News, Sept. 23, 1985). Christianity Today did not see this as a serious problem because they allow room for all sorts of doctrinal error. Actually it is a very serious matter.
It should be obvious even to a child that the Bible teaches not only the fact of creation, but the method as well. The Bible plainly teaches that the world was created by God in six days and six nights. There is absolutely no room for any sort of evolutionary thinking here, and to allow men such as Campolo to hold such views is folly. The doctrine of special creation is the only view which reveals the nature of man as distinct from the animals and which explains the fall of man in a literal Garden of Eden.
There is such a thing as Christian liberty, but that liberty is only for those things about which the Bible does not speak. There is no liberty to hold doctrinal positions contrary to clear Scripture.
Campolo is confused about the kingdom of God
One of Campolo’s most serious errors is his confusion regarding the kingdom of God. He holds the popular “kingdom now” theology, which is sweeping through much of the evangelical/charismatic world. According to this thinking, the kingdom of God is something that is presently in this world. Campolo places the Bible promises for a future earthly kingdom into the context of this sin-cursed, apostate hour. Thus, Campolo challenges Christians to go into the world and to transform society.
In his message at Urbana ‘87, Inter-Varsity Christian Fellowship’s annual youth meeting, Campolo said, “This night is a historical moment. This night God wants to raise up a generation of men and women who will enter into every sector of society as agents of change, transforming the world into the kind of world he wills it to be” (Decision magazine, Mar. 1988).
This is why Campolo says “the kingdom of God is party.” That is the title of one of his books and is a theme that he brings into many of his messages. To prove this idea, Campolo quotes from the Bible’s references to such things as the Old Testament Jewish festivals and wrongly applies this to our time.
There is no hint in the New Testament that the apostles considered themselves agents of change in society. We don’t see them having a party. They gave their attention to preaching the Gospel and to building churches. They did not protest the problems of the Roman Empire. They did not get involved in starting new businesses for the poor. They looked upon this present world as one under the imminent judgment of God and they did all they could to snatch brands from the fire, to get men saved before it is too late. Yet, as we shall see, Campolo actually makes fun of this type of thinking.
Campolo claims to believe in a future earthly kingdom of God which will be established when Christ returns, but his kingdom focus is definitely upon this present time. Chapter two of his book is called “Signs of the Kingdom.” In this Campolo relates how he came up with the term “party” in relation to the kingdom of God. He first describes some popular ecumenical definitions of the kingdom of God. He mentions the Shalom concept of the World Council of Churches and the Jubilee concept of liberal social activists such as Ron Sider and John Yoder.
“During the 1950s, another biblical symbol or image came to the fore, as Christian leaders tried to find some new way to express God’s mission in the world and to explain that people like us are to have a part in it. Many main-denominational theologians, particularly those associated with the World Council of Churches, took hold of the concept of Shalom. ... Shalom was that time when the lion and the lamb would lie down together, swords would be reshaped into plowshares, and war would be no more. ... The imagery provided by the word Shalom became a motif around which church leaders organized their activities. Building houses for poor people was done to contribute to Shalom. Fighting racism, supporting the peace movement, participating in efforts to save the environment--all were done to foster Shalom.
“Over the last few years, several neo- evangelical writers have made use of still another word to give expression to what they believe to be the purpose of the Christian mission. They have used the term ‘Jubilee.’ This symbol is especially useful for those who believe that the church should have a primary commitment to meet the needs of the poor and the oppressed. Writers such as Ron Sider and John Howard Yoder have made good use of the concept of Jubilee in their writings...”
Campolo fails to inform his readers that the World Council of Churches is a hotbed of modernism, universalism, immorality, communism, and every sort of strange heretical doctrine. He also does not correct the false teachings involved in the Shalom and Jubilee concepts he mentions.
In fact, Campolo’s only criticism of Shalom and Jubilee involves the difficulty of explaining these things.
“The main problem with this image, or symbol of the Christian mission, is that Jubilee, like the concept of Shalom, requires too much explanation to hammer home its meaning to most people. ... Something that will give a more immediate picture of what God wants to do in this world is needed. I have been groping for a word or image that can do that for us. ... The word is “party.” The Kingdom of God is a party.”
It should be obvious that Campolo is focused on this world when he says the kingdom of God is a party.
Further, an entire chapter in Campolo’s book is dedicated to an attempt to prove that it is God’s will for Christians to give ten percent of their income for worldly celebrations. This is based on a faulty application of Deuteronomy 14:22-29. Israel was to bring a tithe of the harvest to Jerusalem each year for a great festival. Campolo applies this directly to the hour in which we live.
In another chapter of the book Campolo applies kingdom work to efforts to solve the social problems of the world. Consider this quote:
“If ghetto kids in Philadelphia have little to celebrate because they have hovels for homes and live in the midst of gang violence, then we must do something to change all of that. If blacks in South Africa have to endure humiliation because of apartheid, then apartheid must be destroyed. If the Palestinians are denied human rights and are made into aliens in the very land in which they were born, then we must protest. If Catholics in Northern Ireland are made into second-class citizens by the Protestant majority, then we must work and pray for the restructuring of the Irish social system.” (pgs. 43,44)
It is obvious that Campolo’s focus is upon something that is foreign to the Bible for this present hour. In his book Campolo also pokes fun at fundamentalists who preach doom and gloom:
“Doomsayers at one time in America seemed limited to those who preached the fundamentalist gospel. Leaning on their Scofield Bibles, these preachers of the Word predicted an increasing tendency toward sin and decadence until that day when the world would be so bad that Jesus would have to return to put a stop to it all. There seemed to be a degree of satisfaction in any news that things in this world were falling apart. As they understood it, the faster this world went down the tubes, the more the Lord’s return would be hastened.” (pgs. 132,133)
Campolo’s true attitude toward fundamental Bible-believing Christianity comes out in this statement.
Campolo is confused about a woman’s spiritual ministry
Campolo holds that women can preach. Toward the end of his message in Vancouver, Campolo said, “Are you suggesting women can preach? A lot better than most men! If they can preach in Africa, they can preach in Vancouver. That’s what I say.”
Campolo is one of the signers of a statement by Christians for Biblical Equality which affirms that “in the New Testament economy, women as well as men exercise the prophetic, priestly and royal functions,” and “in the church, public recognition is given to both women and men who exercise ministries of service and leadership” (Christian News, Apr. 16, 1990).
Campolo is dangerous because he does not preach repentance
The greatest need of the hour is genuine Bible repentance--on the part of sinners and Christians alike. God calls upon all sinners everywhere to repent. But most Gospel preaching today leaves out repentance, and Campolo commits this error. The Bible also calls upon Christians to repent when they are involved in sin and error. But Campolo, in fact, makes light of repentance and the sorrow over sin and error which true repentance brings. He said he did not want the ecumenical crowd to whom he was speaking to be sorrowful. He wanted no tears, no sadness, no sorrowing. He wanted them to dance and to have a party!
My friends, you will not find this kind of thing in the preaching of Christ and the Apostles. Sure, there is coming a day in which the people of God will have a banquet. But that is a future day, not this present hour. Christ was looking forward to that day when He said at the Last Supper, “But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom” (Matt. 26:29).
Campolo knows that the term “party” is something which refers to fleshly excitement. It is the common term for the wicked festivities of the world. “It’s party time, man!” That’s an expression we used frequently when we were lost.
But it’s not party time right now for the child of God. It’s serious time; it’s work time; it’s holiness time.
“And that, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep: for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed. The night is far spent, the day is at hand: let us therefore cast off the works of darkness and let us put on the armour of light. Let us walk honestly, as in the day; not in rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering and wantonness, not in strife and envying. But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof” (Rom. 13:11-14).
Campolo is dangerous because he makes light of serious things
Throughout his speech, Campolo made light of frightfully serious things. He made light of threatening people with death and hell in order to frighten them into being saved. He told of when he was a kid and was in church and the preacher tried to scare him like this. In his speech to the National Council of Churches meeting in 1988, Campolo said we should hold on to the King James Bible, because it uses “words like ‘imputed’--that’s sexy!” He keeps his crowds laughing at such things.
This was the spirit that permeated Campolo’s message. In Vancouver, Campolo said, “We’ve got enough boring people in the ministry, we need people who can dance.” He called for Christians to “create a joyful celebration for a world that doesn’t know how to celebrate anymore.” According to Campolo, “The kingdom of God is a glorious and gigantic party!”
This is all foolishness. The hour in which we live cries for seriousness, for repentance, for mourning over sin. James 4 speaks of the kind of worldliness which has permeated evangelical Christendom. Missionsfest ‘92 evidenced this worldliness on every hand. There was rock music and the Africa jungle beat everywhere. The evening youth meetings were nothing more than rock concerts. A great many of the women were dressed indecently. Only a handful of ladies wore dresses. Most had on tight pants. Some of the ushers were young women who were dressed revealingly in leotards and high boots with a jacket-like affair which came only to their buttocks. In the exhibit area there were all sorts of worldly things for sale, such as T- shirts with weird artwork and mottos.
Listen to the Apostle James:
“Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.” (James 4:4)
What does James say about the worldly crowd? Does he say, “Hey, folks, laugh and clap and shout and dance; the Kingdom of God is a party, man! Be happy” That is Campolo’s message, but James says something quite the contrary to a worldly people:
“Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you. Cleanse your hands, ye sinners; and purify your hearts, ye double minded. Be afflicted, and mourn, and weep: let your laughter be turned to mourning, and your joy to heaviness. Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and he shall lift you up.” (James 4:8-10)
The 1990s is not the time to be laughing it up, folks, in the sense that Campolo is calling for. I praise the Lord for laughter, and I’m not calling for a ban on humor or fun. But the hour is one of deep apostasy, wickedness, and shallowness, and if God had spoken at Missionsfest ‘92 I am convinced He would have preached a message along the lines of James as quoted above.
Beware of Tony Campolo. He is an enemy of Bible Christianity. The kingdom of God is not a Campolo-type of party.