I saw this via Twitter last night and got permission from my friends at GTY.org to republish it here. It’s by Dr. John MacArthur.
John MacArthur is the pastor-teacher of Grace Community Church in Sun Valley, California, president of The Master’s College and Seminary, and featured teacher with the Grace to You media ministry. Grace to You radio, video, audio, print, and website resources reach millions worldwide each day. Over four decades of ministry, John has written dozens of bestselling books, including The MacArthur Study Bible, The Gospel According to Jesus, The New Testament Commentary series, The Truth War, and The Jesus You Can’t Ignore. He and his wife, Patricia, have four married children and fourteen grandchildren.
The original post is here.
You don’t have to be an astute observer of the evangelical scene to notice the unrelenting barrage of outlandish ideas, philosophies, and programs. Never in the history of the church has so much innovation met with so little critical thinking.
Giving a thoughtful biblical response becomes harder and harder all the time. Merely sorting through all the evangelical trends and recognizing which of these novelties really represent dangerous threats to the health and harmony of the church is challenging enough. Effectively answering the huge smorgasbord of accompanying errors poses an even greater dilemma. New errors sometimes seem to multiply faster than the previous ones can be answered.
To sort it all out in a godly way, cutting a straight path through the wreckage of evangelicalism, several old-fashioned, Christlike virtues are absolutely essential: biblical discernment, wisdom, fortitude, determination, endurance, skill in handling Scripture, strong convictions, the ability to speak candidly without waffling, and a willingness to enter into conflict.
Let’s be honest: those are not qualities the contemporary evangelical movement has cultivated. In fact, the exact opposite is true. Consider the values and motives that prompt postmodern evangelicals to do the things they do. The larger evangelical movement today is obsessed with opinion polls, brand identity, market research, merchandizing schemes, innovative strategies, and numerical growth. Evangelicals are also preoccupied with matters such as their image before the general public and before the academic world, their clout in the political arena, their portrayal by the media, and similar shallow, self-centered matters.
Maintaining a positive image has become a priority over guarding the truth.
The PR-driven church. Somewhere along the line, evangelicals bought the lie that the Great Commission is a marketing mandate. The leading strategists for church growth today are therefore all pollsters and public relations managers. In the words of Rick Warren, “If you want to advertise your church to the unchurched, you must learn to think and speak like they do.” [Rick Warren, The Purpose-Driven Church (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995) 189] An endless parade of self-styled church-growth specialists has been repeating that same mantra for several decades, and multitudes of Christians and church leaders now accept the idea uncritically. Both their message to the world and the means by which they communicate that message have been carefully tailored by consumer relations experts to appeal to worldly minds.
Many church leaders have radically changed the way they look at the gospel. Rather than seeing it as a message from God that Christians are called to proclaim as Christ’s ambassadors (without tampering with it or changing it in any way), they now treat it like a commodity to be sold at market. Rather than plainly preaching God’s Word in a way that unleashes the power and truth of it, they try desperately to package the message to make it subtler and more appealing to the world.
Runaway pragmatism and trivial pursuit. The most compelling question in the minds and on the lips of many pastors today is not “What’s true?” but rather “What works?” Evangelicals these days care less about theology than they do about methodology. Truth has taken a backseat to more pragmatic concerns. When a person is trying hard to customize one’s message to meet the “felt needs” of one’s audience, earnestly contending for the faith is out of the question.
That is precisely why, for many years now, evangelical leaders have systematically embraced and fostered almost every worldly, shallow, and frivolous idea that comes into the church. A pathological devotion to superficiality has practically become the chief hallmark of the movement. Evangelicals are obsessed with pop culture, and they ape it fanatically. Contemporary church leaders are so busy trying to stay current with the latest fads that they rarely give much sober thought to weightier scriptural matters.
In the typical evangelical church, even Sunday services are often devoted to the trivial pursuit of worldly things. After all, churches are competing for attention in a media-driven world. So the church vainly tries to put on a bigger, flashier spectacle than the world.
Evangelical fad surfing. Contemporary evangelicals have therefore become very much like “children, tossed here and there by waves and carried about with every wind of doctrine” (Eph. 4: 14). They follow whatever is the latest popular trend. They buy whatever is the current best seller. They line up to see any celebrity who speaks spiritual-sounding language. They watch eagerly for the next Hollywood movie with any “spiritual” theme or religious imagery that they can latch on to. And evangelicals discuss these fads and fashions endlessly, as if every cultural icon that captures their attention had profound and serious spiritual significance.
Evangelical churchgoers desperately want their churches to stay on the leading edge of whatever is currently in vogue in the evangelical community. It almost seems like ancient history now, but for a while, any church that wanted to be in fashion had to sponsor seminars on how to pray the prayer of Jabez. But woe to the church that was still doing Jabez when The Purpose-Driven Life took center stage. By then, any church that wanted to retain its standing and credibility in the evangelical movement had better be doing “Forty Days of Purpose.” And if your church didn’t get through the “Forty Days” in time to host group studies or preach a series of sermons about The Da Vinci Code before the Hollywood movie version came out, then your church was considered badly out of touch with what really matters.
It is too late now if you missed any of those trends. To use the language of the movement, they are all so five minutes ago. If your church is just now experimenting with Emerging-style worship, candles, postmodern liturgy, and the like, then you are clearly way behind—that train already left the station…and crashed.
Of course, I’m not suggesting that all those trends are equally bad. Some of them are not necessarily bad at all. For example, there can be great benefit in teaching a congregation how to respond to something like The Da Vinci Code. But contemporary evangelicals have been conditioned to anticipate and follow every fad with an almost mindless herd mentality. They sometimes seem to move from fad to fad with an uninhibited and undiscerning eagerness that does leave them exposed to things that may well be spiritually lethal. In fact, the question of whether the latest trend is dangerous or not is not a welcome question in most evangelical circles anymore. Whatever happens to be popular at the moment is what drives the whole evangelical agenda.
That mentality is precisely what Paul warned against in Ephesians 4:14. It has left evangelical Christians dangerously exposed to trickery, deceitfulness, and unsound doctrine. It has also left them completely unequipped to practice any degree of true biblical discernment.
The sad truth is that the larger part of the evangelical movement is already so badly compromised that sound doctrine has almost become a nonissue.
The mad pursuit of nondoctrinal “relevancy.” Even at the very heart of the evangelical mainstream, where you might expect to find some commitment to biblical doctrine and at least a measure of concern about defending the faith, what you find instead is a movement utterly dominated by people whose first concern is to try to keep in step with the times in order to be “relevant.”
Sound doctrine? Too arcane for the average churchgoer. Biblical exposition? That alienates the unchurched. Clear preaching on sin and redemption? Let’s be careful not to subvert the self-esteem of hurting people. The Great Commission? Our most effective strategy has been making the church service into a massive Super Bowl party. Serious discipleship? Sure. There’s a great series of group studies based on The Matrix trilogy. Let’s work our way through that. Worship where God is recognized as high and lifted up? Get real. We need to reach people on the level where they are.
Evangelicals and their leaders have doggedly pursued that same course for several decades now—in spite of many clear biblical instructions that warn us not to be so childish (in addition to Eph. 4:14, see also 1 Cor. 14:20; 2 Tim. 4:3-4; Heb. 5:12-14).
What’s the heart of the problem? It boils down to this: many in the evangelical movement have forgotten who is Lord over the church. They have either abandoned or downright rejected their true Head and given His rightful place to evangelical pollsters and church-growth gurus.
March 3rd, 2010 | 12:46 pm | #1
Thanks for posting this, Frank.
I agree with Pastor John MacArthur.
And I really appreciate this comment by Mr. Kontov:
“My point is that the defenders of solid teaching simply can not win. The main reason as to “How we made Such an Eevangelical Mess” is very much an issue of technology. TV, Internet, texting, cell phones, etc–all these brief shallow communication forms, dull people’s minds in general, and that plays into the hands on the bad teachers because people do not think as deeply as they could, and when the mind is shallow and empty, wrong doctrine can take grip much more easily. How do you fight against this? It is next to impossible.”
March 3rd, 2010 | 2:35 pm | #2
This is an insightful piece and perhaps and excellent example of why many of us former evangelicals have returned or are heading to Rome. It all comes back to authority. I was a moderately happy evangelical who hopped churches every 7 or 8 years because of the reasons listed above. I am now an extremely happy Catholic whose faith has grown in ways I could never have imagined once I came home.
March 3rd, 2010 | 2:53 pm | #3
Wendy,
While I certainly grant that “Evangelicalism” is generally in a bad mess, I do know that the RCC is generally in a bad mess too!
Stuart,
I hope your comment does not get deleted. I think it’s good.
There’s one Evangel co-blogger who frequently deletes comments without justifiable warrant.
March 3rd, 2010 | 3:18 pm | #4
There’s only one who deletes comments and whole posts without any mention — and he knows who he is. The readers do, too.
I delete comments which are blatant insults without any basis for their affrontery — and usually I note when I do it. The readers here are aware of that as well.
March 3rd, 2010 | 4:38 pm | #5
Why should we care about fixing such movements? They are broken because they wander from the Truth. I probably have no ground to stand on since I’m Anglican, but I see no hope but through the Sacraments. They give us divine life.
Why do I want to revive and give life to a movement that puts man at the center of worship? Sermons are the focal point of Evangelical “worship”. God the Holy Trinity must be our focus. The Sacraments are our hope, life, and joy. One CANNOT read the Church Fathers and conclude otherwise.
Orthodox and Catholics may read this and laugh at me being Anglican and holding this conviction, but they will not laugh at the conviction itself.
March 3rd, 2010 | 4:45 pm | #6
Thank you for posting this. Every conservative Christian denomination is struggling with each of these concerns/issues. Pastor MacArthur has hit the nail squarely on the head.
March 4th, 2010 | 1:50 am | #7
His diagnosis is mainly right, but of course, its rather obvious with anyone with half a brain could see it.
Here is the problem and this will continue to be the problem. Church discipline.
You can preach about truth and values till you are blue in the face. It won’t change the status quo. Church discipline will. Let’s face it, divorce, cohabitation and even abortion are pretty much tolerated in evangelicalism (I am not denying they are tolerated other places)
The unspoken pact is this. Laymen get no power, no voting rights, no oversight of funds, and no recourse in a church court in exchange for no accountability-theological or moral. They go where they like and do what they like and no one really prys all that much into their lives. In exchange, pastors get to appoint who they like and have control of funds and the direction of the parish and can kick out anyone they please, just not too many at once, in exchange for not expecting much or holding their congregations responsible.
This is why denominations that have any cojones whatsoever are reasonably small, but their members are far more devoted and sacrificing and theologically astute.
Until it comes about that there is some kind of unified church discipline such that if you screw around on your wife at the baptist church that you can’t just run down to the Lutheran church down the street, MacArthur’s remarks, along with the Manhatten Declaration mean absolutely nothing.
March 4th, 2010 | 10:05 am | #8
Wow. I agree with Perry Robinson.
March 4th, 2010 | 10:21 am | #9
Perry: “Until it comes about that there is some kind of unified church discipline such that if you screw around on your wife at the baptist church that you can’t just run down to the Lutheran church down the street”
That ain’t gonna ever happen. There’s *always* some church you can go to if you get excommunicated.
eg., abortionist George Miller got excommunicated by the LCMS, only to then join the ELCA.
“MacArthur’s remarks, along with the Manhatten Declaration mean absolutely nothing.”
I wonder if John MacArthur likes his remarks being mentioned in the same sentence as the Manhattan Declaration as meaning absolutely nothing.
March 4th, 2010 | 11:13 am | #10
TUAD,
Perhaps not completely, but if the major conservative ones did it, you’d exclude fruits, scoundrels and the impenitent to the fringes and make those bodies stronger.
Second, ELCA and Co are dying. And even if they weren’t anyone with half a brain would know that ppl who went to such places went there for a reason and that such places weren’t really credible.
Talk is cheap. Church disicpline matters.
I don’t care what MacArthur thinks. Every few years we get a new dose of the world is going to hell and we just need to read the bible more and preach the truth. How’s that working? Actions speak louder than words.
I’ve seen what good church discipline can do for a parish. It solidifies it, deepens the committment and affection of the parishoners and they usually have major and substantial growth once the word gets out that such and so is the place to go if you’re serious.
March 4th, 2010 | 11:15 am | #11
Frank,
Agreeing with me could damage your reputation!
March 4th, 2010 | 11:50 am | #12
Perry,
I totally agree with your thesis that church discipline is needed.
But as far as I can tell, the RCC, the EOC, and the various Protestant churches are, by and large, lacking in church discipline.
March 4th, 2010 | 12:40 pm | #13
Christopher Benson,
Your reading and reasoning skills are off the mark today.
I’m a big fan of 9Marks ministry, but one ministry *cannot* speak to the various Protestant churches in America.
Furthermore, if you had read my comment with a modicum of reasoning, you should have known that I’m saying that the RCC and EOC are not paragons of virtue either on upholding one of the marks of a true church: The mark of church discipline.
Why you would recite the RCC’s lack of church discipline upon Ted Kennedy, Pelosi, and Kerry to me is senseless.
FWIW, Pope BXVI obliquely warned pro-abort politicians from taking communion when he was here. Pelosi took communion anyways.
March 4th, 2010 | 1:04 pm | #14
TUAD,
Yes and no. In two ways. First it is spotty. Some parishes and jurisdictions are more strict than others. It depends to some extent on local control. ROCOR or the OPC aren exactly lightweight. I know, I have first hand experience with both of them. (I am in GOARCH which isn’t eactly known for being strict.)
Second, at other times it takes a lot or something really bad to get booted or disciplined.
In my remarks, I think I made it clear that I wasn’t excluding the Orthodox or Rome but MacArthur’s statements were in the context of Protestantism. But to be fair, its not like when David Hocking or some other evangelical leader gets caught speaking in tongues with his secretary that there is any substantial church discipline. My remarks weren’tment to score points against Protestantism. Its a problem for everyone.
As the culture reverts to a more consistent pagan aestheticism the only thing that will distinguish bodies is not their clever arguments, but their moral discipline.
The argument will come down to something like bare facts. If you want to live this way, this is your one option, if that way, then this is your one option. The middle ground of the gentleman heathen is quickly evaporating. That is to say, the space in our culture where one can be morally upright but not advocate a Judeo-Christian ethic is shrinking. You are either with the hedonists or with God. In this way, Postmodernism (which is not Relativism) has done us a great favor by eliminating the supposed neutral ground upon which moderns stand. The sodomite marriage issue is a key example. There is no morally neutral concept of equality upon which to build political pluralism. This why Nazi political philosopher Carl Schmidt is a big problem. Everyone is trying to show that it doesn’t all come down to power relations. Comunitarianism is supposed to be a middle ground between Pluralism and an appeal to power, but that won’t last long. Its a fad and more an expression of hope than anything. Expect the 1930′s to be replayed, complete with financial disaster.
March 4th, 2010 | 1:13 pm | #15
Perry: “My remarks weren’t meant to score points against Protestantism. Its a problem for everyone.”
Cool. We’re in agreement there.
“That is to say, the space in our culture where one can be morally upright but not advocate a Judeo-Christian ethic is shrinking.”
I know some pagans and atheists who would disagree with this dichotomy. As do you.
“Expect the 1930’s to be replayed, complete with financial disaster.”
You, Stuart, and myself are in agreement there.
But I hope I’m wrong!!
March 4th, 2010 | 1:29 pm | #16
Mr. Benson,
I’d argue that Christian hedonism is an oxymoron. God is not good because he is self loving. Maximizing narcissism doesn’t make it any less so. It isn’t a third way.
Besides, Piper isn’t saying anything new. Its just rehashed Aquinas and Augustine. If I am going that route, I’d rather read them than someone reguritating them and passing it off as something quais-new, insightful and novel.
March 4th, 2010 | 1:39 pm | #17
TUAD,
“I know some pagans and atheists who would disagree with this dichotomy.”
Yes, its called “denial.”
But I am not presenting this so much as a principle, but as a reality that is begining to manifest itself. When argument fails to arbitrate, reality will. They can’t see where it *is* going and how bad it is going to get or how much cultural achievement has been lost already. Look at architecture, dress, manners, etc. Let’s face it, polygamy is next. Incest is already legal in a number of European states. You can’t have a sizable majority of your electorate incapable of reading beyond the 8th grade reading level and looking at pornography on a regular basis and not have serious problems. If you haven’t seen “Caprica” you should. Barring that, That Hideous Strength will do just fine.
March 4th, 2010 | 1:52 pm | #18
I believe I’ve also heard MacArthur talk about the priority they place on church discipline at his church. He didn’t draw it out explicitly here, but he did talk about “Clear preaching on sin and redemption” and “Serious discipleship”, which I expect would include exercise of church discipline.
It’s good to draw it out explicitly, though.
March 4th, 2010 | 1:58 pm | #19
Perry: “When argument fails to arbitrate, reality will.”
My favorite sentence of the year. So far.
“They can’t see where it *is* going and how bad it is going to get or how much cultural achievement has been lost already. Look at architecture, dress, manners, etc.”
Defenders against the critics of cultural rot like to point out the achievements of technology. Eg. High-speed wireless connectivity, etc….
But I agree with you that architecture, dress, and manners is on the downgrade.
“Let’s face it, polygamy is next.”
The pro-gay marriage crowd says no way to this concern by proponents of historical marriage.
March 4th, 2010 | 2:04 pm | #20
“Besides, Piper isn’t saying anything new. Its just rehashed Aquinas and Augustine. If I am going that route, I’d rather read them than someone reguritating them and passing it off as something quais-new, insightful and novel.”
Wow.
I don’t have any references handy, but I’ve heard Piper deny that he’s presenting anything new. The cynicism and contempt there is as strange as it is unwarranted.
For that matter, your concept of Christian hedonism seems to be backwards, at least in this element: “God is not good because he is self loving.” Right–other way around. As I understand it, Piper’s point is that God is self-loving because he’s good. And that teaching us to “taste and see that the Lord is good” (and truly rejoice in appreciation & worship of him & his nature & character) is hardly narcissism. Not when the alternative is idolatry & finding “satisfaction” in things that don’t deserve so much of our affection, or robbing ourselves of the deeper joy knowing him.
Not that our goal should be “the sensations of joy”. If that’s our goal, we might as well find ways of directly stimulating the brain’s pleasure centers. And if that’s what you’re rejecting when you say that “Christian hedonism” is an oxymoron, I’m fairly sure Piper would join you.
March 4th, 2010 | 7:41 pm | #21
My two cents, one of the most glaring problems with Evangelicals is the constant copying of the secular, they like nothing more than being cheap imitation knock offs. They are followers and not innovators, something is successful in the world, and they rush to duplicate, all in the name of advancing the gospel. The end justifies the means and all that rubbish. Worship leaders should have tattoos and earrings to attract the lost, please for the love of God be original, boldly stand up for the word of God. Nothing is as appealing as something that’s pure and unadulterated.
March 5th, 2010 | 9:07 pm | #22
Well, the Rick Warren and Bill Hybels period has lead as mention to many evangelicals leading the camp because they have no connected with the historical church or earlier saints. Reading Clement of Rome and others help me more than old the purpose driven stuff.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact