As many of you are aware, other than our article “The Purpose Driven Claim” in the Summer 2004 (Vol. 10, Issue 3) MCOI Journal and a few statements in the article “An Indistinct Sound” in the Summer/Fall 2005 (Vol. 11, Issue 3) we have not said very much about Pastor Rick Warren. That is not to say that we haven’t had concerns but do realize that human leaders have clay feet and we need to be as gracious as possible with one another. Not all issues and disagreements are of equal importance. Therefore we thought it best to wait and let Warren be self revelatory. A number of issues began to crystallize for me over the last week. I was speaking with Dr. Earl Radmacher about some other projects we are working on and Rick Warren came up in the course of conversation. Dr. Radmacher mentioned that a friend had met and was favorably impressed with Warren. Dr. Radmacher asked him, “What do you think about his position that expositional teaching is a thing of the past and that today is the day story telling?” Dr. Radmacher’s friend responded. “Well, that is a bit of a problem.” The question that comes to mind is, if for Rick Warren sound biblical expositional teaching is out and story telling is in what sort of story has he been telling?

As Rick Warren’s books and programs continually increased in sales in 2005 he seemed to be everywhere and dropped little tidbits of helpful info in each public appearance. I have to admit that I was taken by surprise on April 22 of 2005 when the Special to the Tribune section was headlined with “Evangelical Christians have hailed the “Purpose Driven” Philosophy; now a local Catholic church will host a conference espousing it” by Sean D. Hamill. It struck me as odd that Warren who represents himself as an Evangelical, in fact, a Southern Baptist, would be assisting 40 Chicago area Roman Catholic Churches in growing their congregations numerically. That is until I read the story teller at work a month later in the transcript of the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life: Myths of the Modern Mega-Church where he states among other things:

And, you know, growing up as a Protestant boy, I knew nothing about Catholics, but I started watching ETWN, the Catholic channel, and I said, “Well, I’m not as far apart from these guys as I thought I was, you know?

Little things that seemed askew before began making sense. Having abandoned sound biblical teaching for story telling the theme of Warren’s new story appears to have become a simple message of how to fill churches. Once Pastor Warren concluded there aren’t any real notable differences between Roman Catholicism and Evangelicalism then guiding the Roman Catholics into the best ways to market their churches and bring more possible members through their doors is as much a part of his story as teaching Evangelicals.

As Rick Warren told his story to the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life he weaved in a bit of trivia that he is not a fundamentalist. He didn’t mention which of the fundamentals he rejects or if he embraces any of them. He is concerned that churches, at least Evangelical and Roman Catholic churches are able to fill up their buildings and challenge people to be more spiritual. Ah yes, more spiritual. One of the spiritual leadership books he began recommending on his Pastors.com website is Peter Senge’s book The Fifth Discipline. It is true that Senge’s leadership principles are rooted in spirituality but Warren seemed to neglect mentioning that the wisdom and spirituality is Prajna Wisdom which is a form of Buddhism as author Peter Senge admits . For me a bit more head scratching ensued as the story telling darling of fad driven Evangelicalism leads the church in to New Age and Eastern Mystical Contemplative Prayer seemingly unnoticed. Whether this is intentional or unintentional I have no way of knowing. That is a question of motives and as such is something that I cannot answer. I would suggest that Rick Warren is sloppy and undiscerning. However, in the position of leadership that he has attained that is no less dangerous than if he was purposely leading the 300,000 or so pastors and congregations into false beliefs and pagan practices. This is the very reason that James wrote:

Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, knowing that as such we shall incur stricter judgment. (James 3:1)

With increased leadership stature and visibility goes greater responsibility and therefore greater care and accuracy in what a leader says and how they act. Their freedoms are curtailed due to their responsibilities and the example they set.

As Warren continued developing and embellishing upon his story he turned to developing the Purpose Driven Synagogue. Reading Warren’s continuing story in the Jewish Journal further pointed out the consequences of abandoning exegesis and sound Bible teaching in favor of story telling as I read:

Warren told Wolfson his interest is in helping all houses of worship, not in converting Jews. He said there are more than enough Christian souls to deal with for starters.

At times when Joy and I are watching a movie we have to pause it to recap the story up to that point in order to make sure we understand where the story teller has taken us and see if we have a glimpse of where the story is going and how it might end. So far Warren’s story is that he is not a fundamentalist, there are more than enough Christians and Warren’s purpose is to help all houses of worship grow. There is very little difference between Roman Catholicism and Evangelicalism and since there are more than enough Christians he isn’t interested in converting Jews and all of these groups will have better prayer lives by embracing Buddhism. I do have to admit that the story is becoming increasingly intriguing as it moves further away from sound biblical teaching. It even seems to have its own great commission which might sound something like this:

Go therefore and make all nations Purpose Driven, baptizing them in the name of the P.E.A.C.E. Plan, teaching them to read, write, solve world hunger and the AIDS pandemic, and lo, I am with you always, even until we all live together in perfect peace and harmony in a Purpose Driven World..

As with all really good stories occasionally some real tension is added to give the hero the opportunity to shine. Rick Warren’s November 10-12 visit to Syria has provided that. The Syrian press reported that Rick Warren was impressed at the peace and harmony which exists between the Muslims and Christians in Syria. He was impressed with the leadership of President al-Assad and the religious stability, tolerance and coexistence. For about a day YouTube carried a video of Warren’s remark’s but it mysteriously vanished shortly after columnist Joseph Farah at World Net Daily sent Warren the link asking him for an explanation. There was of course a flurry of activity questioning Warren’s newest part of his evolving story. Joseph Farah ended up writing four stories on this, ”The purpose-driven Lie”, ”Megapastor Rick Warren’s Damascus Road experience”, ”Rick Warren disciples: Where are you?” and ”Calling Rick Warren!”. Other blogs as well as radio programs also raised the tension of the story.

Farah points out that Warren contacted him after his first article went out asking why Farah hadn’t contacted him before it went public. As it turns out Farah did make that attempt but as is so often the case, it went unanswered. I have had the same results myself. I have written to Warren before each article in the Journal and again prior to starting on this one I wrote to him on November 21 with a number of questions and so far there has been no response. When presented with the evidence of his statements including the video link by Farah, Warren again went silent and the evidence was removed from YouTube. With another twist of irony the audio of the now missing YouTube video was supplied to Lighthouse Trails Publishing by Bruce DeLay from Talk Radio 1170 KFAQ this past Monday. An MCOI ministry associate forwarded me a copy of Warren’s November 22 email which was sent from the Pastors.com website explaining that the President of Syria gave Warren permission to send teams and implement his P.E.A.C.E. plan in Syria. He probably won’t have to develop a Purpose Driven Mosque as the mosques seem very purpose driven already. The purpose is chanted in unison regularly by attendees,” Death to America” and “Death to Israel.” Their peaceful and tolerant lifestyle was further demonstrated in the assassination of Pierre Gemayel.

In his Pastors.com email Warren states, “Friends, I am aware that inaccuracies, misquotes, and misperceived motivations get reported about me in the press daily.” That may be true but it does little to address where he was accurately quoted with the quotes being substantiated by available audio and the statements are demonstrated to be simply false and very harmful. However, it is admittedly a good story. Does Warren equate that being asked to be publicly accountable for his public statements is the same as being persecuted as Jesus was? Is it his belief that Joseph Farah, MCOI and other Evangelicals really are the “world” as Warren writes:

Most of the time, I just ignore them. Jesus said, “If the world hates you, remember that it hated me first.” (John 15:18 – NCV)

Warren further expounds on this persecution theme:

I love the paraphrase of Matthew 5:11-12 (Msg): “Count yourselves blessed every time people put you down or speak lies about you to discredit me. What it means is that the truth is too close for comfort and they are uncomfortable. You can be glad when that happens-for though they don’t like it, I do! And all heaven applauds. And know that you are in good company. My prophets and witnesses have always gotten into this kind of trouble.”

The downtrodden hero is a very important part of any really good story. The underdog who seems powerless against those evil doers who hurl accusations against him but the persecuted hero stays the faithful course in spite of what looks like insurmountable odds as they are unfairly treated. The prophets fit that bill as Jesus pointed out. Hebrews chapter 11 spends a great deal of time talking about these heroes of the faith and as the writer enumerates their persecutions he pauses for a breath with an astounding statement, “Men of whom the world is not worthy” (Hebrews 11:38). Does Rick Warren really regard being questioned about what he says publicly the same as:

..…and others experienced mockings and scourgings, yes, also chains and imprisonment. They were stoned, they were sawn in two, they were tempted, they were put to death with the sword; they went about in sheepskins, in goatskins, being destitute, afflicted, ill-treated (men of whom the world was not worthy), wandering in deserts and mountains and caves and holes in the ground. (Hebrews 11:36-38)

As Rick Warren returns from the peace loving religiously tolerant nation of Syria he is preparing for the next chapter in his story telling. He will be hosting Barack Obama and other speakers at Saddleback Community Church on November 30 – December 1. For those who are unaware, Barack is the Senator from Illinois, who along with his wife have shared their concerns and fears of the rise of conservatism in the United States and the possibility that Evangelicals will take away the right of mothers to crush the skulls of their children and suck out their brains just moments before delivery is complete. (A copy of his fundraising letter sent by his wife Michelle is available at ProLifeBlogs.com). But the way Rick Warren responds gives the impression that to even question his story and alliances with those who openly oppose Evangelicals and hold to an the antithesis of a biblical worldview which includes the brutal murder of a completely defenseless baby is labeled persecution and the questioner is placed in the category of “the world.” That is an easy way to avoid having to answer legitimate criticism. Warren could always try the tact of “He won’t be in my pulpit.” That is a distinction without a difference and is not unlike former President Clinton claiming he didn’t have sex with Monica Lewinsky because oral sex isn’t sex. The AIDS Conference is a Saddleback Community Church sponsored event, held at Saddleback Community Church, led by Pastor Rick Warren. It is promoted on the Saddleback Community Church, Pastors.com and Purpose Driven websites and Barack Obama is one of the invited speakers. On the other hand Warren may not have a problem with Obama’s drive against conservative Evangelicals and his publicly stated support of the brutal torture and murder of the nearly born. After all Barack is Purpose Driven in these areas and perhaps that is all that matters. On Wednesday, November 29, WorldNetDaily carried the article, “Christian leaders to Warren: Keep Obama from pulpit” Will Warren listen? I don’t expect him to. Again, I cannot know what Rick Warren thinks nor what his motives may be. What I can say is that his actions speak so loudly that it is difficult to hear anything else.

As is so often the case, all stories, good or bad, eventually have an ending. According to the Christianity Today article “Painful Decline” posted on 11/21/2006, the Purpose Driven fad has peaked and is beginning its slow fade out. What will be the next fad? Will Warren begin working on a sequel to his story or will another story teller arise? Is it possible that church leadership might try something unusual and daring like “…preach the word, be instant in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke and exhort with all long suffering…” (2 Timothy 4:2)? Nah, that’s probably not very marketable being too first century and all.

In recent years there has been an escalation in the din and wrangling about the nature and purpose of this season of the year. In an increasingly paganized society the meaning and reason for this extended season of celebration is becoming more and more murky. For some Thanksgiving is little more than a four day holiday dedicated to overeating and watching football between naps and meals. For others it is a celebration that the elections are finally over and they can return to something more meaningful and less painful like repeatedly jamming a pencil in their ear. For many, Thanksgiving is the day to gather one’s strength and strategize for the opening bell of the buying frenzy which begins early on Black Friday and acts as the official kick off of the “Christmas Season.” Is Charles Dickens’ character Ebenezer Scrooge’s assessment of this time more accurate today than it was even when it was penned? “What’s Christmas time to you but a time for paying bills without money; a time for finding yourself a year older, but not an hour richer….”

As Black Friday kicks off the buying frenzy political correctness will seek to further confuse and confound. I heard someone say the other day (hopefully tongue-in-cheek), “Those fundamentalists are trying to force Christ in to Christmas now!” Should the stores and other retailers say “Merry Christmas” and thus try to unfairly interject Christ into this otherwise secular season? Of course, there is what sounds like the more religiously neutral ”Happy Holidays.” That is until one realizes that the word “holiday” is derived from the contraction of two 14th Century Old English words Halig (holy) and daeg (day) or as we would say it “Holy Day.” “Happy Holidays” is by its very nature a religious greeting and reminder to one another as it is used that these are (or at least were) Holy Days. Then there is what seems like the non-descript “Seasons Greetings,” Well, which season would that be I wonder? Historically that would be the Advent season. The last Sunday of November begins the 4 week focus and preparation of the celebration of the first advent or birth of Christ. (Of course, the religious Holy Days of Hanukkah occur during this period and the newly founded non-religious celebration called Kwanzaa begins on December 26).

Initially Thanksgiving was a religious feast celebrated by religious people (the Pilgrims were Puritans) to thank God for His provision and was a cross cultural feast which included 91 Indians who had helped the Pilgrims survive. It was probably more like a traditional English Harvest festival and lasted for about three days. So, although as a culture we seem to have lost the original purpose of Thanksgiving (as is the case in so many areas) we have at least made progress in one area and increased the celebration time from three to four days.

As I reflected on these things this week I asked myself, “Self, what am I thankful for?” and began compiling a list. First, I have to echo the Apostle Paul’s words, “Thanks be to God for His indescribable gift!” (2 Corinthians 9:15). The grace of God poured out into the lives of those who are His left Paul speechless. He had spent time encouraging the Corinthians by telling how he had been boasting about them. Reading this one can see him as a proud father bragging about his children. He was thankful for the financial generosity that they would be exhibiting to support the ministry to those in need. Like Paul, I am humbled and left speechless by the gift of salvation as well as those He has raised up to financially support this ministry that He has called Joy and I to.

I am thankful for my beloved Joy. Even after being married for 36 years she still takes my breath away. I am thankful for my children and grandchildren and the special time this day and this season will give us together. I am thankful for my mother and her loving me even when I was a rebellious teenager and doing all she could to provide for and raise six children by herself. I am thankful for Joy’s late father (he died a year ago this month) who prayed for us and the ministry every day and Joy’s mother who continues to do so. I am thankful for friends and ministry supporters who are God’s gift to me. I think I get a sense of the thankfulness that Paul had to God for all of the relationships, beginning with reconciliation to God brought about through Jesus Christ, which God had brought in to his life. His thankfulness for how he saw God growing in those whom he had discipled, taught, prayed for and wept over. For Paul it wasn’t about stuff. It wasn’t nickels and noses but seeing unbelievers coming to the faith and growing in their knowledge and understanding of God to the point that it changed how they lived.

I am also thankful for the season. The culture we live in is more like the first century than any other time since then. Living in an increasingly pagan culture also brings with it challenges that can be seasonally enhanced. The Apostle Paul writes in 2 Timothy 4: 1-3:

I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by His appearing and His kingdom: preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance with their own desires…

Rather than argue over what the retail store employees should say we have a real opportunity to give the gospel as people are more open to talking about the reason for the season. In context Paul’s charge was directed at the Church not the culture. Perhaps in our day and age the Church may be the place to start as well. As believers are trained in sound doctrine and grow spiritually their ability to see God working all around them and in others increases and along with that the ability to be thankful also expands.

Take No One For Granted

There once was a little boy who wanted to meet God. He knew it was a long trip to where God lived, so he packed his suitcase with cupcakes, several cans of root-beer and started on his journey.

When he had gone about three blocks, he saw an elderly woman. She was sitting on a park bench watching the pigeons. The boy sat down next to her and opened his suitcase. He was about to take a drink from his root beer when he noticed the lady looked hungry so he offered her a cupcake. She gratefully accepted and smiled at him.

Her smile was so wonderful that he wanted to see it again, so he offered a root beer as well. Once again she smiled at him. The boy was delighted!

They sat there all afternoon eating and smiling without saying a word. As it began to grow dark, the boy realized how tired he was and wanted to go home. He got up to leave but before he had gone no more than a few steps, he turned around and ran back to the old woman, giving her a big hug. She gave him her biggest smile ever.

When the boy arrived home his Mother was surprised by the look of joy on his face. She asked, “What has made you so happy today?” He replied, “I had lunch with God.” Before his mother could respond he added, “You know what? She’s got the most beautiful smile in the whole world!”

Meanwhile, the old woman, also radiant with joy, returned to her home. Her son was stunned by the look of peace on her face. He asked,”Mother, what has made you so happy today?” She replied, “I ate cupcakes in the park with God.” And before her son could reply, she added, “You know, he is much younger than I expected.”

Too often we underestimate the power of a touch, a smile, a kind word, a listening ear, an honest compliment, or the smallest act of caring; all of which have the potential to turn life around.

People come into our lives for a reason, a season, or a lifetime. Take no one for granted and embrace all equally with joy!

—Unknown Author

Thanks be to God for His indescribable gift!

Several years ago a friend, Steven “Z”, had a group of Jehovah’s Witnesses coming to his apartment to talk. He had met them through a couple of friends who would also be there and he asked if Joy and I would join them. He and his friends wanted to talk with them and share the gospel. Joy and I don’t typically like large group meetings like this as they can become free-for-alls but we agreed. As the meeting progressed and we interacted with what they believed and asked questions, using their material and comparing it to Scripture when an odd thing occurred. One of Steven’s friends who had brought the JWs shifted his chair closer to one of the young JW women and began apologizing for our “meanness” to them. He had succumbed to what Joy has termed “The Bimbo Factor.” He had become more concerned with not hurting her feelings than he was with proclaiming the truth of the gospel vs. the teachings of a false prophet organization.

Richard Mouw, president of Fuller Theological Seminary

I thought about this as I read Richard J. Mouw’s article, “Shoot-First Apologetics: What a dead bluebird taught Walter Martin about defending the faith,” in the November 2006 Christianity Today.

I also thought about the Apostle Paul’s words in 2 Corinthians 4:1-7:

Therefore, since we have this ministry, as we received mercy, we do not lose heart, but we have renounced the things hidden because of shame, not walking in craftiness or adulterating the word of God, but by the manifestation of truth commending ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God. And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. For we do not preach ourselves but Christ Jesus as Lord, and ourselves as your bond-servants for Jesus’ sake. For God, who said, “Light shall shine out of darkness,” is the One who has shone in our hearts to give the Light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ. But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, so that the surpassing greatness of the power will be of God and not from ourselves;

The apostle Paul spent a great deal of time correcting the Corinthian Church who were busy making friends and participating with the unbelievers around them. The problem wasn’t that they cared about non-Christians but that they were acting like them and became more concerned about what the pagans thought than what God had said. Paul recognized and reminds those of us who are missionaries to cults and New religious movements, that we carry “this treasure in earthen vessels.” We will do it imperfectly but even though that is the case we should not succumb to the “Bimbo Factor.” We must see ourselves as ambassadors for Christ carrying out the ministry of reconciliation (2 Cor. 5:18-21). In order to be a good and worthy ambassador we must understand the worldview and official position of those that we have been sent to as well as what they may personally believe and how that may differ from the official position. This is the point which brings a separation between Richard Mouw and a few others and the apologetics/discernment ministries in general.

Mouw sets up a false dichotomy in the first paragraph of the article:

I was chided recently by someone who was upset with me because of my extensive talks with Mormon scholars. “How can you engage in friendly conversations with people who believe such terrible things?” he asked me. I tried to explain that in order to criticize Mormonism, it should be on matters that they actually believe, not on what we think they believe. I said the best way to know Mormon beliefs is to actually engage in dialogue with Mormons.

Now while it may be true that there are a few who think that shouting at Mormons through a megaphone that they are serving Satan qualifies as evangelism, this is not generally true of those in apologetics or missions to New Religions. Rather we understand that we are ambassadors and as such have to understand the beliefs of the individual we are talking with and if that is all that Mouw was saying I would agree. However, we also need to understand the official positions of a particular group, in this case Mormonism. Although we need to talk with individual Mormons, especially since salvation is individual, one person at a time, and not organizational, we have to remember that the individuals do not represent the official position where they personally diverge from it.

This is reminiscent of Mouw’s apology to the Mormon Church on November 14, 2004. Where he said:

Our public relations between our two communities have been-to put it mildly-decidedly unfriendly. From the very beginning, when Joseph Smith organized his church in 1830, my evangelical forebears hurled angry accusations and vehement denunciations at the Mormon community-a practice that continues from some evangelical quarters even into this present day.

Could it be that our forbears took Deuteronomy 13:1-5; 18:20-22 and Matthew 7:15- 23 seriously? If that is the case was Mouw bearing false witness ? Does Mouw concur that the church had become truly apostate and God raised up Joseph Smith as a true prophet to restore the true church as he claimed or, was he a false prophet as our forbears concluded? But Mouw continues:

I am now convinced that we evangelicals have often seriously misrepresented the beliefs and practices of the Mormon community. Indeed, let me state it bluntly to the LDS folks here this evening: we have sinned against you. The God of the Scriptures makes it clear that it is a terrible thing to bear false witness against our neighbors, and we have been guilty of that sort of transgression in things we have said about you.

The LDS teaching that we are gods in embryo has been the official teaching extending from the days of its founder Joseph Smith. That an individual Mormon, even if they teach at an LDS institution claims that they don’t personally believe or understand this teaching isn’t the same as demonstrating that the church doesn’t believe or teach it. The problem is compounded when one of the “friends” that is being protected, Robert Millet (Mouw wrote the Foreword and After word for his book A Different Jesus?: The Christ of the Later-Day Saints) is shown in a video on YouTube teaching the Mormon misionaries to be something less than honest on these questions. Have Mouw and others become more concerned with protecting their friends in Mormonism from having to defend official and at times embarrasing church positions or is it just easier to shoot apologists first?

I was in speaking in Denver on November 1, 2006 when the local 10:00 PM news broke a story that Pastor Ted Haggard of New Life Church in Colorado Springs, CO, and President of the NAE (National Association of Evangelicals) had been accused by Mike Jones, a male prostitute in Denver, of being involved in homosexual trysts with him for 3 years as well as being a Crystal Meth addict. Mike Jones was interviewed as was Pastor Haggard. Haggard at first denied that there was any truth to the allegations. My friend Bill Honsberger of Haven Ministries in Aurora, CO is familiar with several of the reporters at the station which broke the story – and although he and I hoped there was indeed no truth to the allegations, we were concerned. We wanted to believe that these were false accusations, timed to impact the election. Haggard, as President of the NAE had been vocally opposed to Gay marriage. On the other hand, these particular reporters are fairly careful to check out their sources and some are known to be Christians. As a result, they try to be doubly careful to not carry false accusations.

The next day (Thursday) Haggard resigned as the President of the NAE and put himself on administrative leave at New Life Church. That did not look good, although Haggard still protested his innocence. Then, on Friday morning, Haggard announced that part of the allegations were true but didn’t clarify which ones. By Friday afternoon, he was admitting that he had bought Crystal Meth, but only once, and claimed that he never actually took it, but threw it away. He also said that he had let Jones give him a back massage, but still claimed that he had not engaged in sexual relations with Jones. It was all beginning to sound very Clintonesque, as well as bearing an uncomfortable resemblance to the Bakker/Swaggert scandals of the early 1980′s.

Late on Saturday afternoon AP Writer Kim Nguyen published the story “Evangelical chief quits amid sex scandal” which carried an announcement by the Church’s Overseer Board, which stated:

“Our investigation and Pastor Haggard’s public statements have proven without a doubt that he has committed sexually immoral conduct.”

The Overseer Board will continue the investigation:

“to determine how extensive Haggard’s misconduct was.”

Finally on Sunday morning the honest confession came and was read before the congregation in both morning services, and with it self recrimination and a request for forgiveness.

As awful and as sad as this episode is, I am not here going to join the ranks of the “Ted is evil” club – nor will I in any way attempt to defend him. God judges and restores His own in His own time. I think there are bigger questions at stake in this for all in positions of leadership.

When this story first broke, some friends of ours wondered aloud if this behavioral pattern is somehow linked to charismatic extremism. After all, Haggard is closely linked with Word Faith and other false teachers. There is, after all, a sorry history with Jim Bakker, Jimmy Swaggert, Earl Paulk and similar accusations leveled against Paul Crouch. But non-charismatic leaders have been guilty as well. Bill Gothard’s ministry was rocked by a sex scandal, Southern Baptist executive committee member and pastor, Lonnie Lathum, Gordon MacDonald and other big guns within Evangelicalism have also been involved in sex scandals. So what is the common denominator?

When Kings Go Out to Battle

2 Samuel 11: 1 opens with the words:

“Then it happened in the spring, at the time when kings go out to battle, that David sent Joab and his servants with him and all Israel, and they destroyed the sons of Ammon and besieged Rabbah. But David stayed at Jerusalem.”

The text doesn’t tell us why David stayed behind, but mentioned it because it was highly unusual for the king not to be leading the army. David had been a hero of epic proportions for Israel since he was a youth. The next verse tells us a bit more:

“Now when evening came David arose from his bed and walked around on the roof of the king’s house, and from the roof he saw a woman bathing; and the woman was very beautiful in appearance.” (2 Samuel 11:2)

Why was David lying in his bed in the afternoon? We are not told but clearly there is something amiss with this man of action, this hero of epic proportions. As we read through the balance of the account we find that David had an affair with this woman, Bathsheba. She became pregnant and David devised a plan to cover up his sin by having her husband retuned from battle, so he and others would believe that he had fathered the baby. The problem was that the husband, Uriah the Hittite, believed that loyalty to God, Israel, Judah his commander, his comrades and his purity of devotion took priority over his personal pleasure:

The ark and Israel and Judah are staying in temporary shelters, and my lord Joab and the servants of my lord are camping in the field. Shall I then go to my house to eat and to drink and to lie with my wife? By your life and the life of your soul, I will not do this thing. (2 Samuel 11:11)

Uriah’s fidelity to his calling cost him his life – David plotted to place him in the front line of the battle – and he wrote out Uriah’s death sentence and had Uriah personally and unknowingly deliver it to his commander, Joab. How very different is this man of power and wealth who is terrified of being found out as a weakling than he was as a weakling who trusted in God? As a youth he was very much like the man he just ordered to his death. I wonder if that thought even crossed his mind?

We first met David in 1 Samuel chapter 16 when Samuel was sent to anoint him as king. He was the youngest son of Jesse and the least likely candidate. David was small of stature, at least in comparison to his brothers for when Samuel looked at them and their size God told him:

Do not look at his appearance or at the height of his stature, because I have rejected him; for God sees not as man sees, for man looks at the outward appearance but the Lord looks at the heart. (1 Samuel 16:7).

While Saul was off to battle David tended his father’s sheep. David had no power, no position but was a servant and realized that he was a servant. His father sent him with some provisions for his brothers who were at the battle lines with the king and David obediently complied. Saul, if you recall, was a head taller than the rest of the people (1 Samuel 10:23). When David arrived at the battle lines he observed something which perplexed him. A large Philistine was publicly taunting God’s people who were terrified of him. David told Saul something to the effect of “Don’t worry. I can handle this.” (1 Samuel 17:32). We see here a real contrast between the man of power, Saul, and the powerless man, David:

Then Saul said to David, “You are not able to go against this Philistine to fight with him; for you are but a youth while he has been a warrior from his youth.” But David said to Saul, “Your servant was tending his father’s sheep. When a lion or a bear came and took a lamb from the flock, I went out after him and attacked him, and rescued it from his mouth; and when he rose up against me, I seized him by his beard and struck him and killed him. “Your servant has killed both the lion and the bear; and this uncircumcised Philistine will be like one of them, since he has taunted the armies of the living God.” And David said, “The LORD who delivered me from the paw of the lion and from the paw of the bear, He will deliver me from the hand of this Philistine ” And Saul said to David, “Go, and may the LORD be with you.” (1 Samuel 17:33-37)

Saul tried to give him his protective armor but he was so much bigger that it proved to be more of a hindrance than a help and David took it off. He went with very little from a human standpoint. A small youth with a slingshot, five smooth stones and a view to please and trust God while all watched. We know the end of the story. David killed Goliath and cut of his head with his own sword. So what happened between these two points in the life of David?

Thou Art the Man!

David’s loyalty to God was gradually replaced with largess in his life. When he was young with no position, no possessions and no personal power, he had complete trust in God. As he became a person of position and power he acquired a sort of amnesia which led him to behave as if he could do what he wanted without consequence. He lost his fear of God. Just when David had become comfortable with the idea that he had successfully hidden his sin, God sent him a message through the prophet Nathan. Nathan used allegory and told the story of a rich man with a huge flock and a poor man with one little ewe lamb. The rich man stole the poor man’s ewe lamb and David became so enraged that he said, “As the Lord live, surely the man who has done this deserves to die.” (2 Samuel 12:5) After David pronounced his judgment in verse 6 Nathan turns David’s words against him when he said, “You are the man!” God through Nathan then proceeded to remind David where his possessions, power and position had come from to begin with:

Thus says the Lord God of Israel, ‘It is I who anointed you over Israel and it is I who delivered you from the hand of Saul. I also gave you your master’s house and your master’s wives into your care, and I gave you the house of Israel and Judah; and if that had been too little, I would have added to you many more things like these! Why have you despised the word of the Lord by doing evil in His sight? You have struck down Uriah the Hittite with the sword, have taken his wife to be your wife, and have killed him with the sword of the sons of Ammon. (2 Samuel 12:7-9)

Everything David had, his power, his possessions and his position, was from God. God would have gladly given him more. Instead David had blinded himself by forgetting his place and where his heart should be. By forgetting his place in serving the nation at the head of the army, he stayed home. He was alone and unaccountable with no thought to how his actions would affect others. He deceived himself into thinking that he would be able to avoid public exposure and accountability by virtue of all he had attained. But after all of his manipulation and progressive sin God said in effect, “Enough is enough! After all I have given you, you have despised Me.” (2 Samuel 12:10). The ripple effect of David’s sin is huge. He would perpetually be in a state of war (v:10). There would be turmoil within his home (v:11) and it would be visible for all of Israel to see (v:12). The child of this union would die (v:14) and bring additional sorrow to Bathsheba who had lost her husband (v:24). We see many of these things come to pass in the following chapters.

Back to Ted

I would suggest that Ted Haggard is but the most recent example of someone who achieved position and power and in the process lost sight of God. In a sense this brings us full circle back to where we started last week:

Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, knowing that as such we shall incur stricter judgment. (James 3:1)

The higher one is elevated in positions of leadership in the church, the more accountable they become to a larger number of people. That is because what we do has a profound effect on those we lead and especially those who are the closest to us. Gayle Haggard is very likely devastated, and will have to suffer shame and grief right along with her husband Ted, for what he did without her knowledge. Their children will be crushed as their father, their protector, their hero seems to be a total stranger to them, and they too will have to suffer the humiliation of his actions. The ripple effect extends out. The church leadership was forced into taking a position against someone they considered their friend and leader. The church will have to struggle to build credibility within their ranks as well as within the community. The NAE will suffer and Evangelicalism has received yet another black eye. And people outside of the church will have another opportunity to deride people of faith, and perhaps another reason to reject God Himself.

Church leadership structure is not supposed to be an unaccountable top-down authoritarian structure. Jesus Himself made this very point:

You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them. It is not so among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be your slave just as the Son of Man did not com to be served but to serve and to give His life a ransom for many. (Matthew 20:25-28)

As leaders, remembering who we are (servants), what we are called to do (serve the body and glorify our Lord) and how our actions impact those around us can go a long way toward preventing us from falling into a pattern of sin. The cost is simply too high. We desperately need others around us to regularly remind us not to believe the PR about us. Pedestals are too rickety to maintain a good foothold, and to take our stand upon one can invite a disastrous fall.

Pedestals

Thousands cheer, chant, and clap as one of their own
is proudly carried toward the lofty pedestal.
The audience urges him up the stairway,
step by step, higher and higher,
far above the masses on the prominant platform.
The media is there with lights, cameras
and prime-time coverage.
Publishers huddle around the base,
for they know pedestal-people sell well.
The crowds on satellite hook-ups
hang on every last word,
for he seems so close to eternity.
Yet he feels unsure, unworthy,
afraid and very alone . . .
But at that height
no one notices,
no one questions,
no one confronts.
And so, in a split second,
the trap door swings,
the noose tightens,
the crowd gasps.
Undeterred, the mob moves on
to build more pedestals;
to encourage another of their own
up the starlit steps.
But mostly to wonder why those
at the pinnacle keep falling
from the heights.

(c) Copyright 1988 James N. Watkins
Used by permission from James N. Watkins

For one in leadership in the Church being accountable is crucial. James writes, “Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, knowing that as such we will incur a stricter judgment.” (James 3:1) More visible positions of leadership carries greater responsibility due to the influence one has over those that look to them for leadership and direction. That is a main reason why the filing of Amicus Curiae with the Texas Supreme Court by CRI on behalf of The Local Church of Witness Lee is so grievous. All of us have feet of clay and are prone to making mistakes. Again, James points this out, “For we all stumble in many ways.” (James 3:2a). However, when speaking or writing, especially when making a public statement, great care and clear thinking must be used.

Several weeks ago it came to my attention that Hank Hanegraaff had filed an Amicus Curiae. For those who are unsure what this is, Amicus Curie is Latin and means “Friend of the Court”. It is filed by a party who is not directly involved with the case as an attempt to persuade the court in a particular direction. Motives can vary as to why a party may file and we cannot always access motives. So far, this is the case with Hank Hanegraaff, President of CRI as well as Gretchen Passantino of AIA who also filed an Amicus Curiae on August 18, 2006 agreeing with Hank Hanegraaff’s filing. The case in question is between The Local Church of Witness Lee who are attempting to sue John Ankerberg, John Weldon and Harvest House Publishers over being included in their volume Encyclopedia of Cults and New Religions (ECNR).

There is a brief history of the legal battles between The Local Church and John Ankerberg, John Weldon and Harvest House Publishers at Apologetics Index. However, a short description of the issues here may be helpful. The Local Church focused in on a portion of a paragraph in the introduction discussing what some cult leaders have done which reads:

…oppose moral convention, denied their followers blood transfusions and medical access, encouraged prostitution for making converts, sometimes raped women, beaten their disciples, molested children, practiced black magic and witchcraft, engaged in drug smuggling and other criminal activity, including murder… (John Ankerberg & John Weldon, Encyclopedia of Cults and New Religions, Harvest House Publishers, Eugene OR, 1999, p XXV)

The claim by The Local Church is that the average reader would assume that The Local Church is being accused of all of these behaviors and crimes because they are included in the volume. If this is true ECNR would be defamatory. By excerpting or taking this partial paragraph out of its immediate context and attempting to append it to the preceding section the claim by the Local Church is that these criminal activities are part of Ankerberg and Weldon’s characteristics of the cults listed in this volume. The problems with this are two-fold. First, on page XXIII the last paragraph on the left column begins:

“The characteristics of cults illustrates the applicability of the term.” (John Ankerberg & John Weldon, Encyclopedia of Cults and New Religions, Harvest House Publishers, Eugene OR, 1999, p XXIII)

A few sentences later, as they are preparing to give a list of characteristics they state:

“The list is not exhaustive. Not all groups have all the characteristics and not all groups have every characteristic in equal measure.” (John Ankerberg & John Weldon, Encyclopedia of Cults and New Religions, Harvest House Publishers, Eugene OR, 1999, p XXIII)

They then go on to list of 12 characteristics that would comprise a hypothetical “perfect cult.” The list ends on page XXIV. Page XXV begins with the words, ‘Another problem with the term “cult…’” which signifies a transition from the list of 12 characteristics to something else. In this case how the word is used. The Texas Court of Appeals ruling as authored by Chief Justice Sherry Radack came down to two essential points. One was, “Therefore, we conclude that being labeled a ‘cult’ is not actionable because the truth or falsity of the statement depends upon one’s religious beliefs, an ecclesiastical matter which cannot and should not be tried in a court of law.” In other words, the term “cult” is religiously defined and the court does not decide religious truth. It should be noted that The Local Church and John Ankerberg, John Weldon and Harvest House Publishers are all in agreement that this case is not over the use of the term “cult.”

The second point, which is likely the most important point, is that the section in question is not “…of and concerning the church…” The courts reasoning was that in order to qualify there had to be some indication that these criminal activates were being applied to The Local Church specifically or to all of the groups in the ECNR. Simply being in a volume which says that some groups which may or may not be included in this volume have done these things is not the same as saying that The Local Church or any particular group in this book has done any of these things. As Chief Justice Radack stated:

We have already held that nothing in the book singles out the church as having committed the ‘immoral, illegal, and despicable’ actions alleged in its petition. Simply being included in a group with others who may have committed such ‘immoral, illegal, and despicable’ actions does not give rise to a libel claim

As E. Calvin Beisner, Ph.D, Associate Professor of Historical Theology and Social Ethics at Knox Theological Seminary points out:

The Local Church’s complaint depends on readers’ reasoning thus:

[The book says that] some cults commit illegal acts.
[The book says that] the Local Church is a cult.
Therefore [the book says that] the Local Church commits
illegal acts.

…the argument commits the fallacy of undistributed middle and therefore is not reasonable, i.e., no reasonable person would draw that conclusion from the book. The court recognized this and ruled accordingly. I cannot but agree, …

After the Brief Interlude

After reviewing the brief, which had been filed with the Texas Supreme Court on August 14, 2006, I immediately attempted to call Hank at his offices in Charlotte, NC. After being put on hold for a few minutes I was told that they could not put me through to Hank but that CRI’s V.P., Paul Young, is the one who would answer questions related to this. I was put through to Paul’s voice mail, left a message as to why I had called and requested a call back which never came. Shortly after that a copy of Hank’s brief surfaced on the Internet and with its availability I posed some questions to CRI publicly in our weekly E-Letter The Crux.

1) Is it now CRI’s position that the courts should be the ones to determine correct theology? If so is CRI going to close their doors in deference to the courts determining sound biblical teaching?

2) If Hank and CRI believe that The Local Church is a theologically sound Christian group in the essentials of the Christian faith, as he indicates, why would he appeal to a court of unbelievers asking them to clear the way for believers to sue other believers before a court of unbelievers in clear violation of 1 Corinthians Chapter 6?

On Tuesday October 17, 2006, CRI posted their Position Statement: PSL001 titled, “Statement From Christian Research Institute And Answers In Action: Re: Our Amicus Filings On Behalf Of The Local Churches.” There are a number of problems with this document but, as Anton Hein from Apologetics Index points out:

The most glaring problem in CRI’s statement is that both Hank Hanegraaff and Gretchen Passantino appear to have bought in to the very issue the court has so thoroughly rejected: it appears they believe that an excerpt from the introduction of the Encyclopedia of Cults and New Religions could be construed by – as the court’s ruling puts it – “a person of ordinary intelligence,” to apply equally to all the groups listed in the main part of the book – the Local Church included.

CRI’s Position Statement argues that somehow the courts refusal to interfere with our First Amendment rights of free speech and the free exercise of religion jeopardizes our “First Amendment rights of free speech and the free exercise of religion.” No where in the document do they explain exactly how this is the case. CRI’s Position Statement spends a fair amount of time castigating the Appellate Court for not ruling on the definition of the word “cult.” The court refrained as they saw the definition of this term as primarily theological and they were not willing to wade into theological waters. To quote Chief Justice Radack again:

“Therefore, we conclude that being labeled a ‘cult’ is not actionable because the truth or falsity of the statement depends upon one’s religious beliefs, an ecclesiastical matter which cannot and should not be tried in a court of law.”

It seems that Hank and CRI recognize and agree that the courts should not be arbiters of theological claims:

While our courts quite rightly are prevented by our Constitution from deciding the truth or falsity of theological or religious claims (Position Statement: PSL001 )

I assume that means CRI is not planning on closing it’s doors anytime soon in deference to the courts determining the truth and validity of religious claims which I am sure is a relief to many. Unfortunately the Position Statement goes on to create a straw man argument as it continues:

…our courts are expressly charged with deciding whether or not secular claims are upheld or libelous in issues such as fraud, sexual abuse, false imprisonment, larceny, bioterrorism, pedophilia, and so forth (the kinds of characteristics ECNR uses for cults). When ECNR attributes those kinds of actions to the groups they term cults, they are placing themselves in a position to be challenged legally in the realm of libel if they cannot substantiate their charges. (Position Statement: PSL001)

That the court did not take a position on the use of the term “cult” does not mean that the court didn’t take a position on whether or not the 39 words on page XXV mentioning a number of criminal activites were libelous against The Local Church itself. It seems to be missed, avoided or simply not commented on, whether intentional or unintentional I do not know, that the court was clear that the criminal behavior could not reasonably be “…of and concerning the church…” (The Local Church). The CRI Position Statement also contends that:

…the use of the term cult is not the foundation either for our Amicus support or for the suit or its appeal. (Position Statement: PSL001 )

While I cannot confirm or deny this claim, that was the sole focus of the Amicus while not a word was said in an attempt to demonstrate that the 39 words in question had in fact been applied to the Local Church by the authors or publisher. The court was clear. Simply being written about in a volume which contains those words in no way demonstrates that they were “…of and concerning the church…”.

Three Opposing Views

To complicate this even more, it appears that at the time CRI released their Position Statement they were holding three opposing views simultaneously.

1) Their 1996 view, “Our conclusion can only be that some of the basic teachings of Witness Lee and the Local Church are heretical and dangerous” in the article titled The Teachings of Witness Lee and the Local Church by Cal Beisner, Bob and Gretchen Passantino. (Oddly, after I mentioned this in a recent issue of The Crux it vanished from the CRI website).

2) Hanks position in the Amicus was that the Local Church is not a cult and that he disagrees with The Local Church on secondary issues as he does with other Evangelicals and denominations. It is implicit here that he views them as orthodox in the essential doctrines of the faith.

3) They will make a decision and public announcement as to the orthodoxy or heretical nature of The Local Church in the future once they complete their research.

We asked that if position one is incorrect will CRI publicly repent and publish their apology for bearing false witness in their 1996 paper to at least the same degree as they promoted this position? So far there is no official answer on that question either. This brings us back to our original questions:

1) Is it now CRI’s position that the courts should be the ones to determine correct theology? If so is CRI going to close their doors in deference to the courts determining sound biblical teaching?

2) If Hank and CRI believe that The Local Church is a theologically sound Christian group in the essentials of the Christian faith, as he indicates, why would he appeal to a court of unbelievers asking them to clear the way for believers to sue other believers before a court of unbelievers in clear violation of 1 Corinthians Chapter 6?

The answer to question number 1 is no. Question number 2 is as yet unanswered. Now we have more unanswered questions. Has CRI been bearing false witness against The Local Church all of these years? If so, are they going to publicly repent to at least the same degree as they have borne their false witness? Are they bearing false witness against John Ankerberg, John Weldon and Harvest House publishers by claiming they made libelous statements against The Local Church when they did not as both the court and Dr. Calvin Beisner have demonstrated?

Hank Hanegraaff is a high profile leader but does he wear that responsibility biblically as a servant? Is he accountable or does he consider himself above accountability in a papal way less tbe big hat? Is the Board of Directors at CRI in agreement with him and more to the point, is he accountable to them or are they simply a figurehead? I certainly don’t have answers to these questions but I do know that the Church which is the Body of Christ does have a way to bring accountability to a leader that has strayed if those to whom he is supposed to be accountable do not or cannot bring about repentence and restoration. They may not be able to vote in a meeting but there is something that may speak louder than the voice, letters or emails. Nickels and noses are a very powerful vote.

The Apostle Paul penned some very powerful words pointing out that the Jews were condemned by the Law when he wrote:

But if you bear the name “Jew” and rely upon the Law and boast in God, and know His will and approve the things that are essential, being instructed out of the Law, and are confident that you yourself are a guide to the blind, a light to those who are in darkness, a corrector of the foolish, a teacher of the immature, having in the Law the embodiment of knowledge and of the truth, you, therefore, who teach another, do you not teach yourself? You who preach that one shall not steal, do you steal? (Romans 2:17-21)

Hank, like the rest of us in discernment and mission to cults and new religions, are correctors and teachers. As such it is even more critical for us that we are consistent in living out our teaching and being correctable ourselves. Somehow abandoning biblical teaching in order to assist in facilitating litigation before non-believers does not exemplify that.