VOLUME 22 - NUMBER 2 (August 1999)
THE WORLD CHRISTIAN MOVEMENT
[Image]
EVANGELISM VS. EVANGELIZATION
By Albert James Dager
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PART THREE
In our previous issue we outlined the basis for what has come to be
called
the World Christian Movement. In summary, the World Christian Movement
(WCM)
is a concerted global, ecumenical effort begun some years ago by diverse
Christian organizations networking to evangelize the world by the year
AD
2000. The watchword for the WCM is "evangelization," as opposed to
"evangelism." Evangelization is the "Christianizing" of all the world's
people groups by means of a work that combines social and political
action
as equal elements with the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Evangelism, a legitimate
implementing of the Great Commission, is the preaching of the Gospel
with
the intent to save individual souls. In some cases evangelism is utilized
in
evangelization, but it is not always pure in the sense that evangelization
recognizes the gospels of diverse religious groups -Roman Catholic,
Orthodox, etc.as equal within the evangelization process.
At the heart of the WCM is the U.S. Center for World Mission (USCWM),
in
Pasadena, California, founded by Ralph D. Winter. USCWM has produced
a study
course on missions entitled Perspectives
, which is used by hundreds of
organizations to train their missions leaders.
Additionally, we have found that a large segment of the WCM is youth
oriented, whereby churches working with Christian youth organizations
send
teenagers to accomplish the task of evangelization. This in place of
evangelism, which the Lord has commissioned to elders known as evangelists.
In most cases, these youth are not actually ministering the Gospel,
but
rather employing certain tactics to gain peoples' attention for the
presentation of a watered-down gospel. These tactics include miming,
puppets, movies (such as the "Jesus" Project shows), and other non-offensive
means to persuade people to think about Jesus to some degree. The youth
themselves seldom minister the pure Gospel to the people. If they do,
it is
not generally under the auspices of the youth ministry's program, but
as
individuals who see the need to do so on a one-to-one basis.
Using acceptable means to draw listeners is not wrong. The problem is
that,
once drawn, they do not hear a clear presentation of the true Gospel.
"Jesus
saves" is only a cliche unless the hearer is told who Jesus is, from
what
and to what He saves, and the need to repent from sin, as well as the
cost
of following Him. The WCM, however, citing the Joshua 2000 Project
in Nepal
as an example of evangelization, says:
Nepal has been literally saturated with the
gospel in five years.
From the time the constitution was changed
in 1990 to allow for
greater religious freedom to the present,
almost every village in
every district has had gospel witness through
local evangelists,
national teams involved in Christian literature
distribution, the
"Jesus" film, gospel recordings, radio and
other means. All
fifty-one peoples of Nepal listed in the Joshua
Project 2000 list
of least evangelized peoples could now be
said to have had the
gospel preached to each person!71
Yes, provided "each person" has a radio, television or boom box, and/or
is
literate. This illustrates the loose interpretation of evangelization
"to
every person" held by the World Christian Movement.
SOME CLARIFICATIONS
In any movement comprised of diverse elements working in unity of purpose
there are bound to be misunderstandings as to the ultimate goal of
that
movement. We have stated in our previous issue that not everyone involved
in
the World Christian Movement has the same idea of what the goal is
or how it
is to be achieved. Observers might be confused if they hear different
voices
offering differing views on the same issues while claiming to be in
unison
with one another.
The goal of the World Christian Movement is stated succinctly by Ralph
D.
Winter, and it is one with which we find little disagreement:
A Church for Every People and the Gospel for
Every Person by the
Year 2000!-How can anyone guarantee that this
WILL happen? How can
anyone guarantee that this WON'T happen?
Well, AD2000 leaders are truly sorry if some
find it difficult to
believe that "it CAN happen."... However,
just what are we talking
about? Is it the completion of the Great Commission?
No, no, no.
Is it the Return of Christ?
No, no, no.... So, let us not argue the wrong
cause. Satan would
be happy to embroil us in such things, just
to distract us from
the task before us-the preaching of the Gospel
within every
people. The classical statement of that goal
has been in print
ever since 1981, and is contained in the appendix
of my new book,
"Thy Kingdom Come" under the title, "A Church
in Every People -
Plain Talk About a Difficult Task."72
Winter's clarification of the AD 2000 goal does not allay the confusion
wrought by many within the movement who do urge everyone to get on
board to
complete the Great Commission by the year 2000. In truth, his statement
seems to contradict earlier claims as to the purpose of the U.S. Center
for
World Mission described in:
What will it take to finish Christ's Great
Commission to take the
Good News to every nation people group) on
the face of the earth?
The U.S. Center for World Mission is being
established for just
that purpose. We're the largest strategy center
in the world
wholly dedicated to sending the Gospel across
the last frontiers
to the 16,750 hidden people groups who have
not yet had
opportunity to hear.73
It would appear as if Winter's latter statements betray the realization
that
this goal will not be attained by the year 2000, the date originally
targeted. Now the goal is not to complete the Great Commission, but
to
merely insert a "Christian presence"-even Roman Catholic-into every
"people
group."
We have no problem with either position, whether to complete the Great
Commission or, as Winter says, have a Church for every people by the
end of
the millennium. The problem is the ecumenism which characterizes the
movement, as well as various other factors that tend to water down
the true
Gospel. Thus, the "preaching of the Gospel," according to some in the
WCM,
is presenting Jesus as a familiar icon within indigenous cultures rather
than as the historical, only-begotten Son of God who lived, died and
was
resurrected at a specific time in human history. This is evidenced
by some
who claim that it is not necessary for one to know Jesus in order to
be
saved.
IS JESUS THE ONLY WAY?
In its Perspectives course, the U.S. Center for World Mission offers
an
eclectic mix of teachings on the subject of evangelism by well-known
Christians. Some of these leaders present solid biblical approaches
to the
subject; some present a liberal, social-gospel perspective. While the
course
consistently espouses faith in Jesus Christ as the basis for evangelization,
not everyone contributing to the course presents faith in Jesus Christ
as
the only way of salvation. In his Perspectives article, "Jesus Christ
and
World Religions," Ralph Covell, Adjunct Professor of World Mission
at Denver
Conservative Baptist Seminary, affirms the need to present Jesus to
every
culture. But he then suggests that modern missionaries must rethink
the idea
that men are lost without Christ.
No doctrine is more important for the Kingdom
of God than the
unique person of its King and the obedience
of his subjects to
witness for him in all the world. To proclaim
the message of this
King to all the religions of the world demands
not only
inculturation but "inreligionization, an inside
understanding of
the "faith experience" of other peoples. How
does God's Kingdom
relate to the religious kingdoms? Has the
King revealed himself in
world religions? Does this revelation make
it possible for people
to be saved? If so, how? Is overt faith in
Christ, the King, the
only way for people to be saved? Is it just
for God to condemn
those who, by virtue of their birthplace and
the neglect of his
church, have never had a chance to hear the
Gospel of the Kingdom?
Is dialogue with adherents of world religions
a help or hindrance
in the task of world evangelization?
Evangelicals as a group have long neglected
to analyze these
issues They are clear on the uniqueness of
Christ and on God's
will to save all humanity, but they face the
dilemma that most of
the people of the world are comfortable in
the religion in which
they were born. Christ is the unique, but
apparently not the
universal, savior. When crucial target dates
appear-1900 and 2000,
for example-they mount new crusades to spread
Christ's message
universally, but without giving any new, creative
thought to the
relationship of these efforts to the nagging
questions posed by
world religions.
For the most part, evangelical scholars from
the time of the
Wheaton Congress on Evangelism (1966) to the
Lausanne II
International Congress on World Evangelism
(Manila 1989) have been
satisfied with predictably repeating their
basic proof texts on
the finality of Christ. Disturbing biblical
texts which might
nuance their attitudes to other religious
expressions are glossed
over, put in footnotes, subsumed under traditional
views, or
placed in the last paragraph of an article.74
While not quite answering his questions, Covell plants seeds of doubt
about
whether faith in Jesus Christ is really necessary for salvation. He
accuses
Evangelicals of neglecting to analyze these issues. Three points in
this
passage need to be addressed:
1) Covell asks, "Is dialogue with adherents of world religions a help
or
hindrance in the task of world evangelization?" To this we must respond
that
"dialogue" between truth and error cannot enhance truth; it can only
result
in denigration of the truth. While the simple definition of "dialogue"
is
"conversation between two or more persons," its expanded definition
is "an
exchange of ideas and opinions." In the area of religious dialogue,
conversation means nothing without the participants attempting to persuade
one another of what each perceives to be truth. Dialogue assumes that
there
is something to be learned from both sides of the issue. This is borne
out
in Covell's statement that Evangelicals have failed to give "any new,
creative thought to the relationship of these efforts to the nagging
questions posed by world religions." But is there any truth apart from
God's
Word that can be learned from any religious expression? Not according
to
Scripture:
Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers:
for what
fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness?
and what
communion hath light with darkness?
And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or
what part doth he
that believeth with an infidel?
And what agreement hath the temple of God with
idols? for ye are
the temple of the living God; as God hath
said, I will dwell in
them, and walk in them; and I will be their
God, and they shall be
my people.
Wherefore come out from among them, and be
ye separate, saith the
Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and
I will receive you,
And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall
be my sons and
daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.
(2 Corinthians 6:14-18)
The approach that Covell suggests is that which has been implemented
by
Roman Catholicism in its relationship with world religions. The important
task of Roman Catholicism is to insert its presence within every culture;
in
order to do this it has traditionally allowed each culture to retain
its
religious expression and meld it with Roman Catholicism. Demon gods
have
been transformed into Roman Catholic saints, pagan rituals have been
blended
with the Catholic mass, and Catholicism has adopted different attitudes
depending upon the culture in which it has sought to establish its
"Christian presence. In many Catholic countries pagan rituals are performed
in Catholic churches under the approving eyes of the priests.
It is this attitude which accounts for the pope's ability to proclaim
faith
in Christ while engaging in unified worship with animistic religions.
2) Covell asks the question, "Is it just for God to condemn those who,
by
virtue of their birthplace and the neglect of his Church, have never
had a
chance to hear the Gospel of the Kingdom?"
This is what skeptics of the Faith have asked for centuries. By human
reasoning it is not just for God to condemn those who have not heard
the
Gospel. But Isaiah speaks for God when He says:
For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither
are your ways my
ways, saith the LORD.
For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways
higher than your ways, and my thoughts than
your thoughts.
For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from
heaven, and
returneth not thither, but watereth the earth,
and maketh it bring
forth and bud, that it may give seed to the
sower, and bread to
the eater:
So shall my word be that goeth forth out of
my mouth: it shall not
return unto me void, but it shall accomplish
that which I please,
and it shall prosper in the thing whereto
I sent it. (Isaiah
55:8-11)
Likewise, Ezekiel says:
Hear now, 0 house of Israel; Is not my way
equal? are not your
ways unequal? (Ezekiel 18:25)
It is presumption for man to assume anything about God, whether that
presumption turns out to be true or not. Job's friends spoke many truths
about God, but they were chastised by God for having spoken presumptuously.
We cannot go beyond what is written in the Scriptures, which are largely
silent about the fate of those who have not heard the Gospel. One portion
of
Scripture used by Universalists gives only a hint about those who perish
without the Law, but says nothing about grace:
But after thy hardness and impenitent heart
treasurest up unto
thyself wrath against the day of wrath and
revelation of the
righteous judgment of God;
Who will render to every man according to his deeds:
To them who by patient continuance ill well
doing seek for glory
and honour and immortality, eternal life:
But unto them that are contentious, and do
not obey the truth, but
obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,
Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of
man that doeth evil,
of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;
But glory, honour, and peace, to every man
that worketh good, to
the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:
For there is no respect of persons with God.
For as many as have sinned without law shall
also perish without
law: and as many as have sinned in the law
shall be judged by the
law,'
(For not the hearers of the law are just before
God, but the doers
of the law shall be justified.
For when the Gentiles, which have not the law,
do by nature the
things contained in the law, these, having
not the law, are a law
unto themselves:
Which shew the work of the law wrItten in their
hearts, their
conscience also bearing witness, and their
thoughts the mean while
accusing or else excusing one another;)
In the day when God shall judge the secrets
of men by Jesus Christ
according to my gospel. (Romans 2:5-16)
Here Paul was speaking to the Jews in Rome, explaining to them that
the Law
cannot justify anyone. His explanation was given in order that the
Jews
might see that it is by faith that salvation comes, not by the keeping
of
the Law. In that context, then, those of the nations other than Israel
who
came to God through faith in Jesus Christ were counted among the righteous.
He states that those who patiently do well in seeking for glory and
honor
will receive eternal life; those who continue to do evil will be condemned.
In the overall context of God's Word we know that no man can do righteously
without faith in the God of the Bible whose only begotten Son died
for their
sins. All of man's righteousness is vanity and, as Isaiah puts it,
"filthy
rags" to God (Isaiah 64:6).
All we really know is that Jesus had to die for our sins in order to
procure
for us eternal life; we must place out faith in that great sacrifice
in
order to appropriate it for ourselves. And Scripture affirms the necessity
to preach Jesus Christ as the only way to be saved:
For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
How then shall they call on him in who In they
have not believed?
and how shall they believe in him of whom
they have not heard? and
how shall they hear without a preacher?
And how shall they preach, except they be sent?
as it is written,
How beautiful are the feet of them that preach
the gospel of
peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!
(Romans 10:13-15)
In light of these and many other Scriptures that insist upon the necessity
to place one's faith in the person of Jesus Christ exclusively and
uniquely,
the question arises: why did Jesus die if it is not necessary for His
sacrifice to be presented to those who would be saved? And why are
we
commanded to have nothing to do with the religious rites and beliefs
of
pagan nations if those rites and beliefs point to Jesus, as suggested
by
Covell and those whose teachings he embraces?
All they leave us with is their human reasoning and opinions based upon
what
they think a "just" God would do.
The one thing that escapes them is that our salvation is not predicated
upon
justice; it is predicated upon mercy. If we wish to have the destiny
of all
men (ourselves included) based upon justice, then all men would be
lost. Is
that not the reason Jesus came in the first place-to seek and save
those
that are lost? Is it not an axiom of the Faith that all men are condemned
to
begin with, and that God's sacrifice of His only-begotten Son is what
saves
us from that condemnation? When has this belief been abandoned?
I thank God that He offered His Son to take upon Himself the penalty
for my
sins. His sacrifice satisfies God's justice, and provides mercy for
my soul.
So to answer Covell's question, yes, it is just for God to condemn "those
who, by virtue of their birthplace and the neglect of his Church, have
never
had a chance to hear the Gospel of the Kingdom." Just as it would be
just
for Him to condemn those who do hear the Gospel. But, according to
His love
for us, He says through the Apostle Paul:
what shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness
with God? God
forbid. For he saith to Moses, I will have
mercy on whom I will
have mercy, and I will have compassion on
whom I will have
compass'on. So then it is not of him that
willeth, nor of him that
runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.
(Romans 9:14-16)
I would like to believe that all men will one day be saved. But that
is not
what God's Word says; it is human emotion at work. And it reflects
the
emotion-oriented gospel of neo-evangelicalism which cannot countenance
God
doing what He wants to do with His own creation.
Yet rather than presume upon God in any sense, we must allow His silence
in
certain areas to remain among those secret things which belong to Him
alone
(Deuteronomy 29:29). It is not up to us to condemn men, or to impart
salvation to them. Our task is to preach the Gospel and obey God's
Word.
What God does with each individual soul remains His prerogative. It
is wrong
to assume anything other than what His Word clearly states. And it
is wrong
to hedge against what His Word says by suggesting that we can embrace
pagan
rituals and beliefs as valid expressions of the Faith.
3) Covell impugns Evangelicals for insisting that "Christ is the unique,
but
apparently not the universal, savior." But can Jesus be unique and,
at the
same time, "universal"? To say that Christ is the unique Savior is
to say
that only through Him can one be saved. To say that He is the universal
Savior is to imply that He will save those who do not come to Him as
the
unique Savior. This is a form of"Christian universalism"-all may be
saved by
Christ without knowing Christ-as opposed to traditional universalism
which
states that all will be saved, period. Traditional universalism has
long
been regarded as a major heresy that has inserted itself into the modern
Christian consciousness as a result of liberal theological adherents.
"Christian universalism" seeks a middle ground between biblical salvation
through conscious surrender to Christ, and traditional universalism.
Covell
suggests that it has been rejected largely because Evangelicals have
subsumed certain biblical texts which might imply that universalism
is a
valid Christian belief. But he fails to cite those biblical texts in
order
to prove his point. What Covell believes is that Jesus is found in
other
religious expressions apart from biblical faith. After quoting the
Lausanne
Covenant on the uniqueness of Christ, he states:
Since this was not a church-originated confessional
statement,
many of the signators may not have been affirming
their agreement
with every jot and tittle. This, however,
has been the basic
parameter within which most evangelical theologians
have worked.
Some, however, both before and after Lausanne,
have been bold
enough to take some fresh initiatives.
First, a small number of evangelical writers
affiirm that the
divine self-revelation (the illumination of
the divine Logos plus
the testimony of God's creation) is at least
potentially salvific,
and not merely judgmental in its intent. This
general revelation
is broad enough, they claim, to include a
sense of God's kindness
and mercy, as well as his claim on the human
conscience. If the
individual responds to this sense of need
and gives oneself in
"self-abandonment to God's mercy," then salvation
is possible....
Don Richardson (1984) appears to have opened
the door for many
more people to be saved through general revelation
than has been
the usual evangelical view. John Sanders and
Clark Pinnock affirm
that Christ's salvation is accessible to all
humanity, either in
this life or as a result of "eschatological
evangelism," either at
the time of or after death....
Second, a corollary to this view is that such
salvation does not
depend on the hearer knowing specifically
about the historic
Jesus. The process is compared to those who
were saved in the Old
Testament period under the law by casting
themselves on God's
mercy, seen only dimly and partially through
the sacrificial
system. However, the only basis for this salvation,
as for any of
God's people, is the atoning death and resurrection
of God's son.
Works of merit, so prominent in all religious
systems, including
Christianity, are specifically excluded as
ways of reconciling
humanity to God. Evangelicals find unacceptable,
even as does an
ecumenical theologian such as Carl Braaten,
the theocentric model
proposed by Paul Knitter that reduces and
perhaps eliminates the
definitive role of Christ in Salvation....
Third, within the evangelical tradition, an
option for a few
thinkers has been that human religious systems
are both a response
to and a suppression of God's personal and
direct revelation. J.H.
Bavinck commented:
"In the night of the bodhi, when Buddha received
his great, new
insight concerning the world and life, God
was touching him and
struggling with him. God revealed Himself
in that moment. Buddha
responded to this revelation, and his answer
to this day reveals
God's hand and the result of human repression.
In the 'night of
power' of which the ninety-seventh sutra of
the Koran speaks, the
night when 'the angels descended and the Koran
descended from
Allah's throne, God dealt with Mohammed and
touched him. The great
moments in the history of religion are the
moments when God
wrestled with man in a very particular way...
The Christian missionary then does not bring
God or Christ to
another culture. God the creator and Christ
the Logos, who gives
light to every person coming into the world,
has been working
there long before the missionary arrived.
Cross-cultural communicators will be sensitive
to this fact, both
to the positive and negative, even as they
proclaim God's love as
revealed in the incarnate Christ.
Fourth, dialogue, except as the first step
in the evangelizing
process, is still a "dirty" word to many Evangelicals.
Many point
out, probably correctly, that the broad Evangelical
community is
gradually abandoning its conviction about
the lostness of
humanity, and that this was one reason for
mainline denominations
losing their motivation for world mission.
If, however, God's
self-revelation may be found in the world's
religions, then there
is every reason to engage in serious dialogue.75
Covell credits as being "bold enough to take some fresh initiatives"
those
who do not agree with every jot and tittle of the Lausanne statement
on the
uniqueness of Christ. While the Lausanne Convention put in writing
a sound
biblical account of Christ's uniqueness, much of the rest of the statement
is faulty. And Covell suggests that many within the Lausanne Convention
did
not really believe the statement on Christ's uniqueness even though
they
signed the statement. Covell's words indicate his affirmation of those
who
did not really believe it. Certainly he says nothing to challenge those
whose false doctrines he quotes.
For example, regarding those who claim that salvation is possible through
general revelation, Covell says "If the individual responds to this
sense of
need and gives oneself in "self-abandonment to God's mercy," then salvation
is possible. However, while God's existence is evident in general
revelation, His mercy is revealed only in the Bible which gives testimony
to
the person of Jesus Christ and His sacrifice for our sins. One cannot
abandon oneself to God's mercy apart from Jesus Christ.
Those who claim that "Christ's salvation is accessible to all humanity,
either in this life or as a result of 'eschatological evangelism,'
either at
the time of or after death," Covell does not challenge. Yet God's Word
says:
And as it is appointed unto men once to die,
but after this the
judgment: So Christ was once offered to bear
the sins of many;
and unto them that look for him shall he appear
the second time
without sin unto salvation. (Hebrews 9:27-28)
Those Covell credits with boldness and whom he quotes with favor reveal
further their belief that faith in Jesus Christ is found in all religious
expressions; thus, all religious expressions offer salvation. Among
those
affirmed are Buddhism and Islam. Therefore, evangelists must recognize
that
the people to whom they are bringing the Gospel already have the Gospel;
they merely need to enter into dialogue in order to learn how Christ
can be
glorified through those people's unique religious expressions.
Covell further affirms this idea:
Protestant missionaries in China did better
[than their missionary
counterparts in Japan] with Confucian ideology,
recognizing that
this represented the warp and woof of Chinese
society. In their
preaching, writing, and training they tried,
with varying degrees
of success, to speak and write within a Confucian
framework. In
fact, their own mental grid of Scottish realism
or "common sense,"
popularized through William Paley's Natural
Theology, fitted
nicely with Chinese "natural theology." Some
missionaries, most
notably those from the London Missionary Society,
followed the
path pioneered by the early Jesuit missionaries
and affirmed that
God's self-revelation was writ large on the
pages of the ancient
Chinese classics.
With a few exceptions, missionaries were fearful
of converts who
looked "too confucian." Some, however, argued
for "Confucius plus
Christ," noting that a Chinese Christian who
performed the
Confucian rites "renounces nothing, nor is
he supposed to accept
any anti-Christian doctrine." No issue in
Asia, whether in China
or Japan, offended the sensitivities of the
receptor cultures more
than the attitude of Protestant missionaries
toward the ancestral
rites. These were viewed generally as religious
idolatry, and
little attempt was made to understand their
social dimensions. As
a result, they were rejected out of hand,
and this proved to be an
insurmountable obstacle to the reception of
the Gospel message
(Covell 1978, 1986). Evangelical missionaries
are required to do
better today.76
Do better? Better than what?
Obviously, Covell means that evangelical missionaries are to adopt the
Jesuit missionary approach which assumes that "God's self-revelation
was
writ large on the pages of the ancient Chinese classics" (and, we must
assume, all other pagan religious expressions). Nor are they to look
upon
ancestral rites as idolatry (which, I suppose, no longer exists).
In other words, they are not to present Christ Jesus apart from the
religious context of the pagan cultures into which they go. They are
to
learn from pagan religions how to engage in their rituals as means
to
worship God through Jesus Christ. This will be less offensive to the
cultural sensitivities of the people.
God forbid that Jesus be "a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence,
even
to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also
they
were appointed" (I Peter 2:8).
NEO-EVANGELICALISM
We should understand that in the World Christian Movement, "evangelical"
really means "neo-evangelical." The movement chooses to apply to today's
liberal, unbiblical, ecumenical movement within Protestantism a term
which
denotes adherence to the purity of the Gospel. In order to do this,
it has
created three classes of "Evangelicals," as outlined by Covell:
How do American Evangelicals understand world
religions? It is
difficult to be precise, for American evangelicals
are not a
unified group. In general, Paul Knitter is
right when he puts them
into three groups: fundamentalists, conservative
evangelicals, and
ecumenical evangelicals. The latter two groups
can be identified,
at least informally, with the Lausanne Committee
for World
Evangelization (LCWE) and its doctrinal commitment.
American
evangelicals associated with the LCWE come
largely from particular
evangelical denominations belonging to the
National Association of
Evangelicals or from interdenominational churches.
Some, however,
are affiliated with mainline ecumenical denominations
within the
Protestant mainstream.77
Rowland C. Croucher, of John Mark Ministries in Australia, points out
the
confusion that surrounds the word "evangelical" today:
There are now, says one evangelical seminary
professor on the US
west coast, sixteen kinds of "evangelicals."!
If as the truism
puts it, the only constant thing is change,
that dictum is
certainly true of evangelicals today....
A US Gallop poll (1977-1978) defined an evangelical
as one who
"has had a born again conversion, accepts
Jesus as his or her
personal saviour, believes the Scriptures
are the authority for
all doctrine and feels an urgent duty to spread
the faith". For
its purposes, an evangelical also places a
strong emphasis on a
personal relationship with God and adheres
to a "strict moral
code"....
In my travels to pastors' conferences, I find
hardly anyone who
doesn't want to be thought of as "evangelical'
at least in some
sense. I only know one liberal" in the older
usage of the word-a
Congregational minister, now retired and in
his eighties.
"Newsweek", in an article on evangelicals
(April 26,1982), says:
"So many different kinds of Christians now
call themselves
evangelical that the label has lost any precise
meaning." US
church historian, Martin Marty, says the best
he can suggest is
that evangelicals be defined as "people who
find Billy Graham or
his viewpoints acceptable."78
These revealing statements affirm that "evangelicals" are not all
evangelical. The term "evangelical" refers to a basic belief in evangelism.
The difference is in how salvation in Christ Jesus is perceived, whether
affirming Jesus as the unique Savior (the only Way to God found only
through
biblical revelation) as espoused by true believers, or as a universal
savior
(the only Way to God working through all the world's religions, hidden
and
unnamed, to be revealed by open-ended dialogue) as espoused by
neo-evangelicals.
Billy Graham
Prominent among neo-evangelicals, and associated with the World Christian
Movement, is Billy Graham who has affirmed his belief in the latter
universal savior.
Appearing on Robert Schuller's Hour of Power
television program, June 8,
1997, Graham stated categorically that he believes people of other
faiths
are members of Christ's Body, even if they have never heard of Jesus.
After
reminiscing about the past fifty years and how Billy Graham had encouraged
him in starting his television program, Schuller asked Graham, "Tell
me,
what do you think is the future of Christianity?" To this question
Graham
replied:
Well, Christianity and being a true believer-you
know, I think
there's the Body of Christ which comes from
all the Christian
groups around the world - or outside the Christian
groups. I think
everybody that loves Christ, or knows Christ
whether they're
conscious of it or not-they're members of
the Body of Christ.
How can one love Christ without being conscious of it? Or was Graham
speaking of Christians who might not be conscious of being members
of the
Body of Christ? His further words clarify his meaning:
And I don't think that we're going to see a
great sweeping revival
that will turn the whole world to Christ at
any time. I think
James answered that-the Apostle James-in the
first council in
Jerusalem, when he said that God's purpose
for this age is to call
out a people for His name. And that's what
God is doing today;
He's calling people from out of the world
for His name, whether
they come from the Muslim world, or the Buddhist
world, or the
Christian world, or the non-believing world,
they are members of
the Body of Christ because they've been called
by God.
At this point, we still gave Graham the benefit of the doubt, allowing
that
he may have meant that God is calling people out from among these various
religious systems to follow Christ. But Graham's following words revealed
that this isn't what he meant. He meant that, even while in these religious
systems - even those in "the non-believing world" - they are members
of the
Body of Christ:
They may not even know the name of Jesus, but
they know in their
heart that they need something that they don't
have, and they turn
to the only light that they have. And I think
that they are saved,
and that they are going to be with us in heaven.
Graham has redefined the Body of Christ without offering anything more
substantial than what he thinks or believes. Schuller asked for
clarification:
SCHULLER: What I hear you saying, that it's
possible for Jesus
Christ to come into a human heart and soul
and life, even if
they've been born in darkness and have never
had exposure to the
Bible. Is that a correct interpretation of
what you're saying?
GRAHAM: Yes, it is. Because I believe that.
I've met people in
various parts of the world in travel situations,
that they had
never seen a Bible or heard about a Bible,
and never heard about
Jesus, but they believe in their heart that
there was a God, and
they tried to live a life that was quite apart
from the
surrounding community in which they lived.
SCHULLER: This is fantastic! I'm so thrilled
to hear you say that!
There is a wideness in God's mercy!
GRAHAM : There is; there definitely is.
After again reminiscing about how Graham helped Schuller get his Hour
of
Power program going, Schuller asked:
Billy, if you look into the future, what challenges
would you
throw out to Christians, or to pastors thousands
of pastors, and
hundreds of rabbis, and, they tell me, over
a million Muslims a
week watch this program. What challenge would
you have to these
listeners?... Give them a message right from
your heart.
GRAHAM: Well, the message is that God loves
you. Whoever you are,
wherever you are, whatever your religious
background, God loves
you. He wants to come into your heart and
change the direction of
your life, and give you a peace and a joy
that you've never had
before. And He will do that today, if you
will make that
commitment to Him.
In his advice to pastors, rabbis and Muslims, Graham merely tells them
that
God loves them. But which God? Jesus is not presented as the incarnate
Word
of God and the only way to God. Nor does he (or the WCM) ever tell
them to
count the cost of following Jesus.
Schuller then extolled the virtues of his mentor, the late Norman Vincent
Peale, and the late Roman Catholic Archbishop Fulton R. Sheen, asking
Graham
what he thought of these men. To this Graham replied:
I knew both of them, as you did, and loved
them both. And I have
in my book a story of how Fulton Sheen came
to my apartment on a
train once, and we had two or three hours
together. And when I
went to his funeral they took me right up
to the place of burial.
And I felt I had lost a very dear friend.
And since that time, the
whole relationship between me and my work,
and you and your work,
and the Roman Catholic Church, has changed.
They open their arms
and welcome us, and we have the support of
the Catholic Church
almost everywhere we go. And I think that
we must come to the
place where we keep our eyes on Jesus Christ,
and not on what
denomination or what church, or what groups
we belong to.
More recently, following the tragic death of John F. Kennedy, Jr., Graham
appeared on Larry King Live to answer questions about his relationship
with
the Kennedy family:
KING: Right now, we'll spend the rest of this
program with the
Reverend Billy Graham. He comes to us from
our studios in
Jacksonville, Florida. He was interviewed
by John Kennedy Jr. for
an issue of George. How well did you know
young John, Billy?
GRAHAM: Well, I got to know him fairly well.
I crossed paths with
him on several occasions, including the
Time magazine gala in New
York and places like that. And he and his
wife postponed coming
home from their honeymoon about two days in
order to come and see
me in New York. They spent about an hour-and
a-half to two hours
in my room at the hotel. And the paparazzi
people were after him
at that time very strongly, and he had been
more or less trying to
shield his wife from it. I think it was new
to her.
KING: You knew his father very well. Was this
a very good chip off
the old block?
GRAHAM: Yes. I think that I was impressed with
him in every way,
everything I've read and heard about him since
then. He was coming
to my home. He wanted to come he asked if
he and his wife could
come and spend the weekend with us. And I
said, "Of course you
can." And I have found out from some of his
people that know him
very well that he was really a searching Christian.
He was
searching for something more in life than
he already had. And it
seems to us, you know, that he had everything.
But he wanted more.
And I think that he really wanted Christ to
come and take over his
life.
KING: You must have seen him as baby, didn't you, Billy?
GRAHAM: Yes, I saw him as a baby when his mother
was feeding him,
and we were going out to play golf, and we
stopped by. And that
was the first time that I'd ever met Jackie
but I met the
president, Kennedy, several times before.
But his father is the
one Kennedy is the one that wanted me to come
down there because
there had been a religious issue in the election
between Catholic
and Protestant. And he thought that I could
help the president
adjust to a new situation.
KING: All right, Billy, I assumed you heard
Father Moynihan, the
Catholic priest who spoke....
GRAHAM: Yes, I thought he was wonderful.
KING: What - what do you say to - well, you're
kind of America's
voice to the heavens in a sense. What do you
say to a family in a
case like this? And then what do you say to
America? What do you
say to parents who've lost a child? How can
you possibly deal with
that?
GRAHAM: I would say that God loves you. God
has a plan in your
life. No accidents happen to a true believer,
that this was in,
somehow, the plan of God, but we cannot understand
it. And to try
to analyze it as to why, it's impossible.
We have to say by faith
that God had a plan, and I believe he did
have a plan. And there's
a passage of scripture that John Kennedy Jr.
read at his mother's
funeral that was read by Cardinal Cushing
at his father's funeral.
I was there as a guest of the family at St.
Matthew's in
Washington for that funeral....
KING: What do you say to the Public, not the
direct family, the
public which is taking this loss terribly?
GRAHAM: Yes. It has shocked us all. When I
first heard it, it
shocked me because I thought of him, you know,
he was more
handsome than I think any man I ever knew,
and he was strong
physically, and he was so kind to everybody.
And I have talked to
people who worked for him at George magazine,
and they've told me
that what a kind and considerate person he
was. He always had time
for everybody. He signed their autographs
if they wanted it. And
he was-he just was a remarkable young man....
KING: You told John Jr. about the last time
you were with his
father. And we understand he was really intently
interested in
that. What happened?
GRAHAM: Well, the last time that I was with
his father was-I spoke
at all the presidential prayer breakfasts
when he was the
president. He's reportedly said that Billy
Graham is the only
Protestant I feel comfortable with....
KING: How many funerals have you gone to, Billy?
GRAHAM: Oh, hundreds I suppose.
KING: You ever get used to that?
GRAHAM: I am an old man. I've had the opportunity.
I've been a
clergyman for nearly 60 years.
KING: I know. But do you ever get used to having to say goodbye?
GRAHAM: If I know that that person has been
a real good person and
is close to God, I think I rejoice with them,
because I know
they're in Heaven. If a person has been a
very bad person and has
shown no evidence of faith, I think I would
have an extra tear for
that person.
KING: So you rejoice in the death of a good person?
GRAHAM: Right.79
One might get the impression that Graham is more in awe of the Kennedys
than
of Jesus. Throughout the entire interview the name of Jesus was never
mentioned. "Christ" was alluded to on a few occasions, but not with
a
definite connection to the person of Jesus. There are many "Christs"
that
are the figments of men's imaginations.
Nor were the terms "good," or "faith" defined. Graham knew he was addressing
a secular audience. It seems that it would have been necessary to affirm
that "goodness" has nothing to do with salvation, and that faith in
Jesus is
the only faith acceptable to God.
Of course, this would have offended Larry King and countless viewers.
But
considering Graham's previous remarks that unbelievers faithful to
their
religious traditions are members of the Body of Christ, there is no
reason
for him to risk offending anyone; "faith" in whatever they believe
in is
sufficient.
This is not the first time Graham has alluded to the possibility of
salvation apart from Jesus. The twist is that now salvation apart from
Jesus
is really salvation in Jesus; the people just don't know that they
are
saved.
Remember that Graham told Schuller that he didn't think that "we're
going to
see a great sweeping revival that will turn the whole World to Christ
at any
time." Given that confession, it is understandable that Graham would
like to
see people saved by some other means. That realization has no doubt
affected
others within the World Christian Movement, spurring them to accept
the idea
that men can be saved apart from the preaching of the Gospel -that
they are
already saved by Christ through faithful adherence to their religious
traditions.
The influence that Graham wields over the Christian community is tremendous.
To present a new gospel on the basis of what he thinks and believes,
without
offering a shred of biblical evidence to support it, should cause wholesale
rejection of that new gospel.
But there has been no concern evidenced by the mainstream voices in
the
Christian media or churches. And others of high esteem among Christian
leaders have echoed this siren song. The neo-evangelical gospel affirms
that
Jesus is the only way to God. But it qualifies this truth by suggesting
that
Jesus is found in all the world's religions. Thus, anyone who lives
by faith
according to their religious traditions is already in Christ. It is
only up
to the Church to inform them of how their religious traditions point
to
Christ, having been given them as a measure of light by God through
the
founders of those religions.
This is how Billy Graham can say he believes that all "good" men will
be
saved, and that faithful unbelievers are members of Christ's body.
But what does the Apostle Paul say?
I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him
that called you into
the grace of Christ unto another gospel
Which is not another; but there be some that
trouble you, and
would pervert the gospel of Christ.
But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach
any other gospel
unto you than that which we have preached
unto you, let him be
accursed.
As we said before, so say I now again, If any
man preach any other
gospel unto you than that ye have received,
let him be accursed.
(Galatians 1:6-9)
Strong but sobering words in view of the new gospel of universalism
(which
is not a new gospel, but an old heresy lately insinuated into the ranks
of
mainstream Christianity).
Now, where did Paul ever preach the gospel found in neo-evangelicalism?
Nowhere does he (or any of the apostles) suggest that one may be saved
by
being faithful to one's pagan religion. Paul did preach Christ to the
Romans
on Mars Hill, but he merely took the opportunity to reveal to them
the
"Unknown god," whom they worshipped as a means to cover all their bases.
He
did not affirm that they could continue in their pagan beliefs and
practices, but must know and follow Jesus Christ personally.
In spite of their insistence that we believe their new gospel,
neo-evangelical leaders offer no Scripture no empirical evidence from
God's
Word that would justify abandoning centuries of belief that is grounded
in
Scripture. We are to believe it because they are telling us they believe
it
. It is a convolution of God's Word to suggest that being in Christ,
or
being "saved," means something other than a living, obedient faith
in Jesus
Christ as the only way to God. So consumed with a desire for unity
at any
cost, neo-evangelicals are erecting a barrier to unity with those who
would
remain faithful to the truth.
Unity Or Separation?
Not all involved in the World Christian Movement would agree with the
neo-evangelical gospel. Many are ignorant of it. Of those who are aware
of
it, it appears as if they are willing to tolerate it for the sake of
unity
in order to accomplish their goal of world evangelization by the year
2000.
But does this please God?
We are commanded in God's Word not to fellowship with heretics. But
is it
any better to fellowship with those who, in their essential beliefs
are not
heretics, but practice fellowship with heretics? Does not separation
for the
sake of maintaining the purity of the Gospel demand it?
It has become the custom of late for some in evangelical ranks to associate
with and even promote from the pulpit others whose doctrines and practices
are not pure. The motive behind this is the hope to glean whatever
"good"
they can from these people's teachings. John B. Ashbrook, writing in
Axioms
of Separation, states, "God's work done in God's way produces only
good
results. God's work done in man's way produces good and bad results."80
Because men produce good works the gullible and naIve assume that those
good
works are ordained and sanctioned by God; they therefore wish to associate
with them. But these are the most deceptive of Satan's lies:
For such are false apostles, deceitful workers,
transforming
themselves into the apostles of Christ. And
no marvel; for Satan
himself is transformed into an angel of light.
There fore it is no
great thing if his ministers also be transformed
as the ministers
of righteousness; whose end shall be according
to their works. (2
Corinthians 11:13.15)
If, then, Satan's ministers of righteousness are evil, regardless of
the
"good" they do, should we not keep away from them; should we not, in
fact,
expose them? And if there be those who espouse true faith in Jesus
who join
with them, should we not also keep ourselves from them and warn them
of the
evil they are condoning? And if they refuse our counsel, should we
not
separate from them for the sake of our own testimony?
Yes. For to fellowship with those who fellowship with darkness is to
condone
the darkness ourselves. Yet this is seen as "divisive," "unloving,"
"unChristian."
Therefore, our plea is to those true brethren who are part of the WCM,
and
who are compromising their position for the sake of the work they perceive
will not be accomplished apart from those who are promoting the
neo-evangelical gospel.
We should thank the Lord for showing us so clearly the deception that
is
taking hold on the hearts of many. Truly, contrary to neo-evangelical
belief, the Lord's words demonstrate how the vast majority of the world's
population will not be saved:
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. (Matthew
7:13-14)
In actuality the neo-evangelical gospel is not a new gospel; it has
been
around since the beginning, and has its modern expression in universalism.
That universalist gospel is now being accepted within traditionally
evangelical circles, both charismatic and non-charismatic. This will
effectively open the door to the unification of evangelical Christianity
with all religions and philosophies.
In the Brave New World Order religio-political scheme it will not be
necessary for everyone to be of the same religion. Ml that will be
necessary
is that "negative," "exclusive" religious beliefs (such as the Gospel
of
Jesus Christ and insistence upon obedience to His Word) be sufficiently
neutralized to allow mankind to march in unison into the New Age.
Of course, love for unity will result in hatred for divisiveness. The
powers
that be will never admit to hating those whom they accuse of divisiveness,
but they will "hate the sin and love the sinner" to death. They will
believe
they are doing God a service by putting to death His true disciples.
And the leading voices among today's Christian leadership will so mesmerize
the people with their oratory and sweet songs of love for Jesus that
the
people will cheer when the "evil" is purged from their midst.
At the heart of the WCM's position on unity is a satanic deception that
will
culminate not in the true evangelism sought by many within the movement,
but
in the reestablishment of the Holy Roman Empire under the reign of
the
coming man of sin, the anti-Christ.
Again, this is not to say that individual souls will not be saved through
the efforts of those working within the WCM, unaware of the true
implications of its goals and methods. God works wherever His Word
goes
forth, often in spite of, rather than because of, men's efforts. But
there
is no getting away from the prophetic pronouncements of God's Word
of what
the condition of the world will be when Jesus returns:
And shall not God avenge his own elect, which
cry day and night
unto him, though he bear long with them?
I tell you that he will
avenge them speedily. Nevertheless when the
Son of man cometh,
shall he find faith on the earth? (Luke 18:7-8)
This know also, that in the last days perilous
times shall come.
For men shall be lovers of their own selves,
covetous, boasters,
proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents,
unthankful, unholy,
Without natural affection, trucebreakers,
false accusers,
incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that
are good, Traitors,
heady, high-minded, lovers of pleasures more
than lovers of God;
Having a form of godliness, but denying the
power thereof: from
such turn away. (2 Timothy 3:1-5)
For then shall be great tribulation, such as
was not since the
beginning of the world to this time, no, nor
ever shall be. And
except those days should be shortened, there
should no flesh be
save& but for the elect's sake those days
shall be shortened. Then
if any 'nan shall say unto you, Lo, here is
Christ, or there;
believe it not. For
there shall arise false Christs, and false
prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders;
insomuch that,
if it were possible, they shall deceive the
very elect. (Matt
24:21-24)
For the mystery of iniquity doth already work:
only he who now
letteth will let, until he be taken out of
the way. And then shall
that Wicked be revealed, who m the I,ord shall
consume with the
spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with
the brightness of his
coming: Even him, whose coming is after
the working of Satan with
all power and signs and lying wonders, And
with all deceivableness
of unrighteousness in them that perish; because
they received not
the love of the truth, that they might be
saved. And for this
cause God shall send them strong delusion,
that they should
believe a lie: That they all might be
damned who believed not the
truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
(2 Thessalonians
2:7-12)
And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the
disciples caine unto
him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall
these things be? and
what shall be the sign of thy coming, and
of the end of the world?
And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take
heed that no man
deceive you. For many shall come in
my name, saying, I am Christ;
and shall deceive many.
And ye shall hear of wars and rumors of
wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all
these things must come
to pass, but the end is not yet.
For nation shall rise against
nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there
shall be famines,
and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers
places. All these are
the beginning of sorrows.
Then shall they deliver you up to be
afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall
be hated of all
nations for my name's sake. And
then shall many be offended, and
shall betray one another, and shall hate one
another. And many
false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive
many. And because
iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall
wax cold. But he
that shall endure unto the end, the same shall
be saved. And this
gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in
all the world for a
witness unto all nations; and then shall the
end come. (Matthew
24:3-14)
These verses do not give us hope for a world turned to Christ. On the
contrary they paint a picture of evil which will abound increasingly
until
Jesus returns, while those who serve God in truth will be persecuted.
And while the Lord tells us that the Gospel will be preached in all
the
world for a witness to all nations, it is in the context of rejection
and
apostasy. He does not say that all nations will have a "Christian presence"
established among "every people group."
CONTINUED IN PART FOUR
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTES
71. Mission Frontiers, Jan-Feb, 1996, p.17.
72. Ralph D. Winter, Editorial, Mission Frontiers Bulletin, May-June,
1995.
73. Mission Frontiers, Vol.3, No. 1,1981.
74. Ralph Covell, "Jesus Christ and World Religions, Current Evangelical
Viewpoints," Perspectives on the World Christian
Movement, Study Guide, 1997 Edition (Pasadena: Willlam Carey Library,
1997),
p. K-i.
75. Ibid., pp. K-2-3.
76. Ibid., p. K-4.
77. Ibid. p. K-1.
78. Rowland C. Croucher, "Recent Trends Among Evangelicals", Part One,
adapted from chapter one of Recent Trends Among Evangelicals
(Heathmont,
Australia: John Mark Ministries, 1995), found at
http://www.Pastornet.au/jmm/aclm/aclm0015.htm
79. Transcript, Larry King Live, July 20, 1999.
80. John E. Ashbrook, Axioms of Separation
(Mentor, OH: "Here I Stand"
Books, 1989), p.13.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This article sponsored by: Hebrews928@aol.com
link to CONTENDERS WEB SITE