How the Church Has Allowed Sin to Escape

VOL. 25, NO. 3 JULY-SEPTEMBER 2005 EDITOR: KEITH A. MORSE

by David M. Tyler“[T]he medical model of human

behavior, when carried to its logicalconclusions, is both nonsensical andnonfunctional. It doesn’t answer thequestions which are asked of it, itdoesn’t provide good service, and itleads to a stream of absurditiesworthy of a Roman circus,’’ wrote E.Fuller Torrey, M.D., in The Death ofPsychiatry.1

Garth Wood, in The Myth of Neuro-sis: Overcoming the Illness Excuse,observed, ‘‘For far too long peoplehave been led to believe that theperson suffering from an excess oflife’s problems needs ‘expert’ medicaland psychotherapeutic intervention,thus allowing the ‘patient’ to qualifyfor ‘illness,’ ... Such a view is danger-ous nonsense. If we are not ill thenwe are well, although we may beunhappy.’’2

The Apostle Paul, in Romans 3:23,declared, ‘‘For all have sinned and fallshort of the glory of God.’’

Words can be powerful. They caninspire and they can comfort. Wordscan move us to action. They can calma raucous crowd and quiet a fright-

The words, ‘‘That’s one small step fora man; one giant leap for mankind’’helped shape a generation.

Words affect thoughts and behavior.Changing a word’s usage can havefar-reaching consequences. Considerthe word, ‘‘gay.’’ Heard in conversa-tion, its meaning 100 years ago wasnot the same as it is today. Often, theimpact of words on a culture is silentand slow. Sometimes the impact isconsidered positive, sometimes nega-tive.

In the mid-1960s, a remarkableevent related to a word occurred inevangelicalism. The event would havea devastating effect on evangelismand the sanctification of believers.Yet, in spite of the destructive conse-quences, this event went unnoticed bymany Christians.

(continues on page 16)

Inside this Issue:Is PFO Really Needed or Should We Quit? ................. Page 2Gregory Boyd’s Judgmental Response to Discernment .. Page 4Do You Need a Faith Lift? .......................................... Page 5

ened child. Words such as ‘‘sola fide’’have shaped Christianity. A wordsuch as ‘‘freedom’’ shapes our world.

How the Church Has Allowed Sin to Escape

2 · The Quarterly Journal July-September 2005

James Bjornstad ................................Cedarville, OHG. Richard Fisher ............................... Bricktown, NJRobert L. Griffin ............................. Gulf Shores, AL

Personal Freedom OutreachP.O. Box 26062 • Saint Louis, Missouri 63136-0062 • (314) 921-9800

Visit PFO’s Web Site at: http://www.pfo.org

Joan C. Cetnar ................................ Kunkletown, PAM. Kurt Goedelman ........................Saint Louis, MOKeith A. Morse .......................................Denver, CO

Board of Directors:

2005 – PFO. All rights reserved. ISSN: 1083-6853. These articles may not be stored on web pages or Internet sites without permission. TheQuarterly Journal is the newsletter publication of PFO. Published by Personal Freedom Outreach, P.O. Box 26062, Saint Louis, MO 63136.PFO’s Journal may also be obtained on CD-ROM in Portable Document Format (.PDF) for use with Adobe® Reader® software.

©

IS PFO REALLY NEEDEDOR SHOULD WE QUIT?

In a day of pluralism and tolerance, apologetic anddiscernment ministries are viewed by some as anti-quated, unneeded, and in the way of getting togetherand getting along. In a day when unity is put far abovetruth, counter-cult ministries are seen as passé and evenobstructionist.

Televangelists and Word Faith teachers can draw tensof thousands to their meetings while discernment confer-ences struggle to get a hundred. Truth, clear thinking,and biblical precision are definitely not in, and heresiesare gaining popularity. Orthodoxy is out and falsedoctrine is in vogue.

Of course, there are many reasons for this: Men lovedarkness rather than light. We have an unseen enemywho goes about like a roaring lion. And liberalism hasso eroded confidence in Scripture that many are turningto mysticism and experience. Subjectivism is the drug ofchoice. Many of the religious are addicted to their ownadrenalin.

Truth be known, the deception is getting deeper andmore subtle. This only underscores the need for organi-zations such as Personal Freedom Outreach. Someoneneeds to sound the alarm. Without discernment minis-tries, who will do it?

The evangelical Church has tried so hard to be relevantto the world that it is becoming irrelevant. Rather thancompromise with the dominant culture, we need to standmore strongly for our distinctives and distinctiveness.

The Apostle Paul warned us in 2 Timothy 3 thatdeception would be as alluring and impressive as themagicians of Moses’ day (v. 8). The antidote, Paul says, isto carefully follow doctrine (v. 10), but few are listening.Paul further warns that ‘‘evil men and seducers willgrow worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived.” (v.13).

Deception has multiple masks. Deception is hard tospot. Deception is covered with religious clichés de-signed to deceive and that is why we need all the helpwe can get from those with discernment. Deceivers aretricky and most times wear disguises. Deceivers mayeven say they believe in Jesus, so we fail to stay alert towhat they layer onto the name of Jesus. Some may noteven ask, ‘‘Which Jesus?’’

Take, for instance, the following testimony. Read itslowly and see if you can find anything wrong with it:

’’...today’s society makes me constantly wonder ifanyone knows what it’s like to give your heart andmind to the truth of Christ and Yahweh, and to behated and ridiculed for those beliefs, especially bypeople that don’t even know me. I’m always tryingto make sense of everything I read and everything I


David M. Tyler ................................ Granite City, IL

Dr. Jay E. Adams.....................................Enoree, SCRev. Gary E. Gilley ............................ Springfield, IL

Dr. Norman L. Geisler ....................... Charlotte, NCDr. Ron Rhodes.........................................Frisco, TX

Board of Reference:

July-September 2005 The Quarterly Journal · 3

MEYER HOMESUP FOR SALE

Two of the five palatial homes owned by Joyce MeyerMinistries are reported to be up for sale. The asking pricefor both homes is more than $2.5 million.

Meyer and her husband, Dave, live in one of the fiveresidences in the compound. The other four are occupiedby the Meyers’ married children and their spouses. Thetwo homes up for sale are used by her children and flankthe house where the Meyers live.

Meyer’s ministry pays all expenses for the homes,including property taxes, utilities, landscaping, andrenovations. Meyer and her children live in the homesfree of charge as employees of the ministry. MarkSutherland, spokesman for Meyer’s ministry, indicatedthat the other three homes may be placed on the marketas well. According to a report in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, ‘‘Joyce Meyer, her husband, and their fourchildren all serve on the board of directors that makesfinancial decisions for the ministry.’’

In late 2003, the St. Louis newspaper featured afour-part report on Meyer, calling attention to herextravagant personal lifestyle at the expense of ministryfinances. As a result, Wall Watchers, a non-profitorganization watchdog group, called upon the InternalRevenue Service to investigate Meyer and her family.

According to Rusty Leonard, founder of the NorthCarolina-based Wall Watchers, ‘‘The sale of those housesis an indication that either the IRS is breathing downJoyce Meyer’s neck or her lawyers are telling her to dosomething before the IRS does. The fact that they havehuge homes owned by the ministry is very question-able.’’

The IRS refused comment on whether it was conduct-ing a specific investigation of Meyer or her ministry.According to federal law, funds acquired from the sale ofthe homes must be returned to the ministry.

SATAN'S EX-WIFE DIESThe woman who claimed to have risen to the top ranks

of witchcraft and satanism — to the point of beingmarried to Satan himself — is dead.

Edna Elaine Knost died Feb. 19, 2005. She was 59.

Knost gained a brief measure of notoriety in somecircles after teaming with Ruth Bailey — an Indianaphysician turned spiritual warfare fanatic. Knost andBailey claimed to have fought the forces of darkness byleading more than a thousand people in their smallIndiana community out of hard-core satanism and intoChristianity during a two-year span. Eventually, the pairsaid, satanists drove them from the region. Facts reveal aless sinister reason for their departure. In the fall of 1983,legal and medical officials in the area began to mount amajor investigation of Bailey’s medical practices, whichled to her losing her license.

Knost and Bailey fled to California where they peddledtheir wild tales to tract publisher Jack Chick. Chick,always on the lookout for bizarre stories, previously hadpublished the fabrications of John Todd and AlbertoRivera. Chick collected and printed Bailey and Knost’saccounts in two full-length books, He Came to Set theCaptives Free (1986) and Prepare for War (1987), whichwere published with Rebecca Brown, M.D., as the author.Bailey, after arriving in California, had her name legallychanged to Rebecca Brown.

In Brown’s books, Knost, identified only as ‘‘Elaine,’’reported that as an infant her mother unknowingly soldher to Satan. She claimed that, as a teenager, she wasinducted into Satan’s service at a ‘‘witch camp.’’ She alsosaid that at a national competition of witches, shesurpassed all her colleagues and was named top witch.This position, she maintained, allowed her to become‘‘Satan’s representative on an international level,’’ travel-ing the world, meeting with heads of state and foreigndignitaries to negotiate the sale of arms. Knost, around1980, came in contact with Bailey as the result of ahospital stay and was purportedly converted to Chris-tianity.

As the 1980s came to a close, Knost dropped out ofsight. According to Brown’s web site, ‘‘For several yearsprior to her death Elaine was in very poor health andlived quietly. She was not in a public ministry of anysort.’’ Brown’s association with Knost and publisher JackChick concluded around the time she married DanielYoder in December 1989. Yoder, like Knost, madeincredible biographical claims and told preposteroustales.

In 1989, following numerous inquiries, PFO began amajor study of the theology and claims which Brown andKnost were making for themselves. Several articles werepublished in various editions of this journal, with theprominent reports being collected and published inbooklet form under the title Drugs, Demons and Delusions.

—MKG



Some writers get better with eachnew book. Others go from bad toworse. Such is the case with GregoryA. Boyd and his new book, Repentingof Religion. Boyd’s 2000 offering, TheGod of the Possible, proposed that Godcould not know all the future andthus was limited in knowledge.1 Boydtook the Bible’s anthropomorphismsliterally and ended up describing adeity not much better or smarter thanhumanity. Boyd aligned with the her-esies of open theism and presented avulnerable, compromised being de-void of sovereignty. He views God asan extremely intelligent — but notomniscient — chess player.

Book-length answers to Boyd’s he-retical views followed. Bruce Ware’sGod’s Lesser Glory and Their God is TooSmall; Norman Geisler’s Creating Godin the Image of Man; and John TalMurphree’s Divine Paradoxes were justa few.

Boyd is right when he states, ‘‘If ourmental picture of God is skewed, ourrelationship with God, with ourselves,and with others will be skewed aswell.’’2 However, it is Boyd’s view ofGod that needs straightening out.

Repenting of Religion is a 238-pagepaperback with the subtitle, Turningfrom Judgment to the Love of God. In hisbook, Boyd stacks the deck by pre-senting ‘‘religion’’ in a negative lightand implies that anyone who dis-agrees with his premise possesses thisbad form of ‘‘religion.’’

Boyd’s unbiblical premise is statedin the preface, where he writes, ‘‘Welove only insofar as we abstain fromjudgment.’’3 He also asserts that‘‘judgment is the ‘original sin’’’4 and,‘‘Our only job is to love, not judge.’’5

Even the usually lenient ChristianityToday went negative on Boyd and —probably in his view — sinned bynegatively judging him. John Wilsonwrote:

‘‘A judgmental assessment of judg-mentalism is, predictably, full ofcontradictions. ... Such judgment,Boyd argues — based on hisBonhoeffer-influenced reading ofGenesis — is in fact the primalsin from which all other sinsderive. ... Perhaps these quota-tions from Boyd’s book will sug-gest what a strange brew it is, abook riven by self-contradictionsand flawed by a hermeneutic sonaive it beggars belief. Railingagainst judgment, Boyd issuessweeping judgments against thechurch throughout its entire his-tory — judgments that rest al-most entirely on sheer assertion.... Mocking other Christians fortheir ‘system’ of evaluating andranking sins, he himself estab-lishes a hierarchy that collapsesall sin into the sin of ‘judgment,’the defining sin of ‘religion.’’’6

If judgment had been the originalsin, then Jesus and Paul were guilty of

commanding us to commit it. InMatthew 7:15, Jesus instructed us tomake judgments with regard to falseprophets and wolves in sheep’s cloth-ing. In 1 Corinthians 5-6, Paul com-manded that sin be judged in theChurch. Peter, in his second epistle,took to task false prophets and falseteachers. Even a cursory study of theOld Testament reveals hundreds ofjudgment passages directed at Israeland the surrounding nations.

DELIVER USFROM JUDGMENT

Boyd states his thesis and calls it aparadigm shift for most Christians:

‘‘The thesis of this book is thatlove is the central goal of cre-ation and thus of the Christianlife, and that its main obstacle isour getting life from our knowl-edge of good and evil — fromour judgment.’’7

In Boyd’s view then, ‘‘judging’’ isan obstacle and an impediment tolove. The Bible never sets up a falsedichotomy between love and judg-ment, as Boyd does. God who is loveis also justice and judge.

Boyd did not get these views fromthe Bible and he reveals to his readerssome of his sources. One source wasDietrich Bonhoeffer; another was amystical experience he says he had ata shopping mall.



‘‘I’ll be the first to say that we darenot give to any human being — letalone an impostor — the worship andpraise that belong to God alone andHis Christ ... It is possible, I suppose,that the world is making a horriblemistake here,” writes Paul Maier inhis theological thriller novel, MoreThan a Skeleton.1

Some would suggest that faith con-sists of believing strongly in some-thing or believing in something oneknows isn’t true. Others consider itjust upbeat, positive thinking.

One respected Christian leader,writing about ‘‘Ventures of Faith,’’likens it to trial and error. QuotingHebrews 11:6 (‘‘Without faith it isimpossible to please God’’), he buildsto:

‘‘God has a work that He desiresto do, and God is simply lookingfor people who are in harmonywith what He desires in orderthat He might show Himselfstrong on their behalf. The key isto discover what it is that Godwants to do. I’ve found that thebest way is by just stepping out.Try it and see. Maybe God willwork. Maybe God is wanting towork. Let’s give Him a chance.But again, always have the atti-tude ‘If it doesn’t work, let’s notpush it.’ Maintain that flexibilityof being able to walk away froma project. If it’s obvious that itisn’t working, then let’s not push

it and try and make it work.’’2

If the above were true, then the OldTestament prophet Jeremiah failedmiserably and many of today’s cultsmust be under God’s blessing.

This same writer further says:

‘‘So, take a step in faith. If itworks, rejoice. If it doesn’t, lookfor something else. Give God theopportunity. I believe strongly ingiving God an opportunity, andwhen it works, glorious! Butwhen it doesn’t work, youhaven’t really gotten that deeplyinto it so that you can’t just walkaway and say, ‘Well, it surelooked like a great idea, didn’tit?’ Don’t lock yourself on to itand get yourself in so deep thatyou can’t walk away.’’3

So we are to ‘‘take a step in faith’’and see if it pans out. But pragmatismisn’t faith.

Many pastors have done it God’sway according to Scripture and sawlittle success, as measured in nickelsand noses, then have done it theirway and achieved such ‘‘success.’’The operative questions are ‘‘Is itright?’’ and ‘‘Is it biblical?’’

Many evangelicals seem confusedthese days. The root of the confusionis that the Church at large has lost thebiblical meaning of the word ‘‘faith.’’We don’t define words today; we tryto ‘‘feel’’ them.

The word ‘‘faith’’ is tossed aroundlike a piece of putty that can bemolded by anyone holding it. We aretold that faith is this, or that, or someother thing until we feel as though weare with Alice, in Wonderland, wherewords can mean whatever we wishthem to mean.

LET NO MAN PUT ASUNDER

The word ‘‘faith’’ has been divorcedfrom the Scriptures and its biblicaldefinition. Loss of the true under-standing of faith will undermineChristianity. After all, we are ‘‘savedby grace through faith’’ (Ephesians2:8) and “without faith it is impossibleto please God” (Hebrews 11:6).

Cults thrive on confusion. Faith, asthey define it, becomes a weapon ofcontrol and exploitation. It is impera-tive that we understand what is, andwhat is not, biblical faith.

EVERYONE CAN DO IT

There is a sense in which everyonecan exercise some form of faith. It is ahuman faith. We are created with theability to exercise faith and to committo certain things. The essence ofhuman faith is unquestioned belief,anything believed, or allegiance tosomething or someone. We can be-lieve in Santa Claus, the EasterBunny, our government, America andapple pie. We can believe and trust inmutual funds or stocks and bonds.Every human has the ability to believe


things — true or false — and theability to have allegiances.

Theologian Louis Berkhof writes:

‘‘The word ‘faith’ is not exclu-sively a religious and theologicalterm. It is often used in a generaland non-religious sense, andeven so has more than one con-notation.’’4

Charles Hodge concurs:

‘‘Faith in the widest sense of theword, is assent to the truth, orthe persuasion of the mind that athing is true. In ordinary popularlanguage we are said to believewhatever we regard as true.’’5

A TWO-EDGED SWORD

The rub comes in when we skewthis general ability to trust (have faith,believe in, or commit to) and put thewrong objects between ourselves andGod, trusting them for eternal life andspiritual guidance. We may be able totrust our mom and dad, the localbank, a friend or neighbor, and that isall well and good on a human level,but what we commit to for eternallife, salvation, and divine guidance isanother matter.

When it comes to our eternal des-tiny we can have misplaced faith. Mis-placed faith can imperil our souls.Cult leaders can thrive in an environ-ment of misplaced faith. What are theforms of misplaced faith and whatdoes the Bible say about saving faithor rightly placed faith? The variousforms of misplaced (religious) faithare:

1. Faith in an individual leader.This can be easily illustrated from arecent novel, More Than a Skeleton, byPaul Maier. In modern day Israel, aman named Joshua Ben Yosef (JesusSon of Joseph) gathers followersworldwide as he claims to be thereturned Jesus Christ. Joshua appearsin what he calls an ‘‘intermediatecoming’’ to warn humanity and pre-pare them for his coming in powerand glory. Born in Bethlehem andraised in Nazareth, he begins to dothe miracles in the same places and inthe same way that Jesus performedthem in the Gospels. He even raises

one of his disciples, Shimom, from thedead.

Shannon Weber, the wife of one ofthe novel’s key characters, encountersJoshua as he heals a blind man. She isdumbfounded. Maier narrates thescene:

‘‘It was too much for Shannon.She, too, fell to her knees, handsclasped, head bowed in rever-ence, eyes brimming with tears.Joshua stopped, walked over toher, layed his hand on her head,and whispered, ‘You, too, daugh-ter, will be free of your problem.’... He caressed her cheek lovinglyand moved on. A feeling ofincredible peace came over Shan-non, a soft featherbed of faithdisplacing the demons of doubtthat sometimes tormented her.’’6

Maier is portraying faith, trust, andcommitment of one individual in an-other.

Many years ago, author DaveBreese wrote, ‘‘Only Jesus Christ de-serves disciples!’’7 Nearly every cultrequires allegiance to an overly pre-sumptuous leader and Messiah figure.Yet Christ alone is to be followed.However, as Breese correctly notes,‘‘How fearful is the contrast of the lifeand ministry of many religious lead-ers in our time. The cults are repletewith the stated or implied suggestionon the part of leaders as to someunusual divine capability that mightwell inspire worship on the part oftheir followers.’’8 And Breese furtherrecognizes:

‘‘The cult leader also strengthenshis presumptuous leadership byarrogating to himself the positionof being the only repository ofdivine truth. He frequently talksabout ‘my message, my revela-tion, my leadership, my people.’In doing this, he is pushing theheretical proposition that he hasbeen made the true custodian ofsome private revelation fromGod.’’9

‘‘FAITH’’ ON THE FRINGE

On the edge of the fringe of theCharismatic movement we havemany self-proclaimed ‘‘apostles’’ and

‘‘prophets’’ who promote themselvesas conduits for the Godhead. Theysay they are God’s ‘‘anointed.’’ Theyclaim to channel and impart the HolySpirit and enamor followers withtheir messages purportedly fromheaven itself. They readily dispense‘‘revelations.’’ God, it seems, is al-ways speaking to them or throughthem. Even their false prophecies,which should incur the wrath offollowers, hardly make a dent becauselong ago, their followers abandonedScripture and its tests of a prophet inDeuteronomy 13 and 18. They haveunwavering faith in a presumptuousmessianic leader. They are so investedin their ‘‘prophet’’ that they havecomplete faith in him. They are de-ceived and blind. Long ago thesefollowers have abandoned the biblicalcriteria for the identification ofApostles, which are:

‘‘1. He must have accompaniedJesus during His earthly minis-try, which was from His baptismuntil His Ascension (Acts 1:21-23). 2. He must have been apersonal witness of the resur-rected Lord Jesus (1 Cor. 15:7;1 Cor. 9:1; Acts 1:22; 4:33; 10:39-42). 3. He must have received apersonal call from Christ toApostleship and a commission tofulfill its duties (Lk. 6:13; Mk.3:14-15). 4. He must have had, ashis field of labour, the wholeworld, rather than a local churchor group of churches (Mt. 28:19;Mk. 16:15).’’10

We could add that the Apostleswere the foundation of the Church,and a foundation needs to be laid butonce. The Church is the building, notthe foundation (Ephesians 2:20-22). Totry to lay a foundation all over againone must disrupt the building andcause havoc.

Finding counsel, guidance, and helpfrom a concerned pastor or fellowChristian is a far cry from puttingone’s trust in their spiritual guru,feeling they cannot function or livewithout his (or her) help and pro-phetic vision. The examples of JimJones’ cult in Jonestown, Guyana;David Koresh’s Branch Davidians inWaco, Texas; and Marshall Apple-


white’s Heaven’s Gate cult in SanDiego show the sometimes horrificend of cultic and presumptuous mes-sianic leadership. It illustrates that ourfaith must be in God and His Word ifwe are to be safe.

Next on the list of misplaced (reli-gious) faith is:

2. Faith in an institution. In thiscase, the organization takes the placeof God and has the final word on allmatters of spirituality. All truth andinterpretation reside in a group ofautocrats and “group think” is de-manded. This has ancient roots andwas a major issue in the Reformation.Curtis Crenshaw explains:

‘‘It was the church that wasinfallible, the Spirit of Godguarding the church, speakingdirectly to it and through it. Thisis how a new doctrine such asthe Immaculate Conception origi-nated. The Reformers rightly sawthat this would lead to enormoussubjectivity, to endless new doc-trines, and to continued enslave-ment of the lay people to thehierarchy of the church. Theyargued that though the HolySpirit was a person and the Biblea book, nevertheless He alwaysspoke through Scripture alone.To separate the Holy Spirit fromthe written Word was the veryessence of Roman Catholicism,locating infallibility to those whocould ‘hear’ Him and essentiallyplacing the Bible in the back-ground. ... In several such state-ments, it was obvious to Calvinthat Sadoleto had made thechurch leaders the custodian ofthe truth and the elite of thechurch the official interpreter ofthe Bible, thereby separating theHoly Spirit from the Bible.’’11

In short, Catholicism sees faith as acommitment to all that the RomanCatholic Church has ever taught —biblical or unbiblical — and summa-rizes this in the latest official Cat-echism of the Catholic Church autho-rized by the late Pope John Paul II:

‘‘Through the centuries manyprofessions or symbols of faithhave been articulated in response

to the needs of the different eras:the creeds of the different apos-tolic and ancient churches, e.g.,the Quicumque, also called theAthanasian Creed; the profes-sions of faith of certain Counsels,such as Toledo, Lateran, Lyons,Trent; or the symbols of certainpopes, e.g., the Fides Damasi orthe Credo of the People of God ofPaul VI.’’12

A mirror image of this is the cult ofthe Jehovah’s Witnesses. They denymajor Christian doctrine, includingthe triune nature of God, the deity ofJesus Christ, the personage of theHoly Spirit, the bodily resurrection ofChrist, salvation by grace, and theright to save a life through a bloodtransfusion. They claim their organi-zation and bureaucracy alone is God’s‘‘channel of communication’’13 to itsfollowers. Slavish obedience is de-manded under threat of future eternalannihilation.

One source on the Jehovah’s Wit-nesses, apologist Robert Bowman,writes:

‘‘It is universally argued byevangelical critics of the Jeho-vah’s Witnesses that their beliefsare based on the authoritativeteachings of their religious lead-ers in the Watchtower Bible andTract Society. In one sense this isquite true. Certainly the Jeho-vah’s Witnesses today learn theirdoctrine from the Society’s publi-cations and representatives, a factthat the Witnesses themselvesgenerally would not dispute.And the publications of the Soci-ety are filled with warnings tofollow the organization’s teach-ings without question.’’14

To the indoctrinated Jehovah’s Wit-ness, his or her leadership is virtuallyinfallible and not to be questioned.From its inception, the organizationstated its exclusive patent on truth. A1919 Watchtower publication rhetori-cally asked, ‘‘Is not the Watch TowerBible and Tract Society the one andonly channel which the Lord has usedin dispensing his truth continuallysince the beginning of the harvestperiod?’’15

This idea of the one and onlychannel is almost laughable (if not sotragic) as it is claimed by most all themajor and minor cults. We have more‘‘one and only channels’’ than weneed. One can channel-surf the cults;they are all on Satan’s network.

Having considered misplaced faithin an individual, as well as in aninstitution, we must also contemplate:

3. Faith in an idea. This character-izes the mind set of those in what iscalled the Word Faith camp. TheWord Faith movement is a looselyconnected group of ministers andwriters that defines faith in meta-physical terms. They borrow theseideas from one another and theydescribe faith as a force that can beharnessed and used by anyone. Thisimpersonal force can be manipulatedand used to create new reality. Ourwords, we are told, capture and directthe force of faith. Therefore we mustalways say positive things. Our faithends up being faith in faith or faith inthe positive words we can utter toaffect our own reality. This nevercomes to grips with all the real, butnegative, statements of almost everysingle Bible character, including Jesus.God instructed the Old Testamentprophets to vocalize all kinds ofnegative statements. It is obvious thatWord Faith is not God’s message.This idea seems to always work incultures that are rich and greedy, butnot in the slums or poverty nations.

NAMING NAMES:THE HALL OF SHAME

Names attached to this idea are OralRoberts, Benny Hinn, Kenneth Hagin,Gloria and Kenneth Copeland, Freder-ick Price, Charles Capps, T.D. Jakes,Joel Osteen, Jerry Saville, NorvelHayes, Robert Tilton, and Jan andPaul Crouch. Pat Robertson inhabitsthe fringe of the Word Faith bypromoting many of the above. Thereis little doubt that this idea appeals tothe greed of most humans and, as aresult, it has become a lucrative busi-ness with its promoters busy buildingtheir own little kingdoms and, insome cases, multiple mansions. TheCanadian Broadcasting Commission(CBC News), for instance, reported


that Benny Hinn has a ‘‘parsonage’’ inSouthern California overlooking thePacific Ocean worth $10 million!16

The roots of Word Faith go backapproximately 70 to 80 years to theideas of Smith Wigglesworth andE.W. Kenyon. If Wigglesworth couldbe said to be the grandfather of thisidea, then Kenyon can be called itsfather.

British-born Wigglesworth (1859-1947) is more mythical because docu-mented evidence of his spiritual pow-ers and exploits is scarce.17 We knowhe was a plumber who had no formaleducation, and who actually startedworking at six years of age. His wifetaught him how to read. The writingsthat survive him show he was noprophet: he predicted Christ wouldreturn in 1900.

Wigglesworth said faith ‘‘is thepersonal, inward flow of divine favorwhich moves in every fiber of ourbeing.’’18 And he further claimed that,‘‘there is within you a divine force,the power of limitless possibilities.’’19

So faith is a power, a flow, a forcethat we can manipulate from within.Electricity or gravity are forces aswell: impersonal, possible to manipu-late, and everywhere available toeveryone.

Kenyon (1867-1948) absorbed manyof the religious ideas of his day,including strains of metaphysicalthought and mind science. It can beestablished that ‘‘E.W. Kenyon is thetwentieth century father of the Wordof Faith movement, even more sothan Kenneth Hagin. Kenyon is thesource of their theology, and Hagin isthe popularizer.’’20 Like a virus, theidea of faith as a force passes fromone false teacher to another. KennethCopeland says, ‘‘Faith is a powerforce. It is a tangible force. It is aconductive force. It will move things.Faith will change things. Faith willchange the human body.’’21 We be-come mini-gods and controllers of ourown fate and destiny.

So, according to these above andmany more, faith is a metaphysicalforce that we can manipulate and useto create and change reality. Through

the force of faith, we can speakourselves healthy and rich.

LITTLE GODSThe twisted logic is as follows: God

manipulated and used the force offaith by speaking faith-filled words tocreate the universe. In the same way,we can speak faith-filled words andcreate a new reality for ourselves. Theproblem is simply that God createdeverything by and through His ownomnipotence, and we are not omnipo-tent. Assigning the attributes of Godto man is idolatry.

Curtis Crenshaw has an accurateread on the Word Faith camp:

‘‘It is the essence of the charis-matic movement that the Bible isnot sufficient for life and godli-ness. It is necessary, but not suffi-cient. We hear much from thecharismatics about the necessityof Scripture; but since they be-lieve in new revelation in theform of dreams, visions, impres-sions on the heart, and state-ments like ‘God told me in myspirit man,’ they say nothingabout the Scripture alone beingall we need.’’22

This now brings us to the nextmisconception:

4. Faith in an image. Those whoknow the Bible are familiar with theTen Commandments. They are famil-iar with God’s command to ‘‘make nograven image’’ (Exodus 20:4). NoBible believer would consider bowingor kneeling before a religious statueor a religious image. It is just anotherform of idolatry. However, religiousstatues are just one type of image.

A bit more subtle is the concept ofimage today, as it is used to speak ofpictures, films, drama, PowerPoint,and other visual images used toenhance truth. There is definitely atidal wave in regard to the use ofimage and images in the modernsense as they relate to Bible storiesand spiritual truth. There is the con-stant drumbeat that we are a visualsociety. We have no argument withthe idea that the soul is moved bymore than word and that the powerof images can reach souls. Jesus re-

peatedly used word pictures, as wellas common illustrations (sower andseed, thorns, flowers, a king and hisson, etc.).

Any thinking person, though,would assent to the fact that there is adanger that the image could becomean idol or be seen as more powerful,seductive, and desired than the Wordof God. The image is to be a windowletting light in to shine on truth. Godforbid that we would be so enamoredwith the glass and the frame that weforget the rest of the room. But it canhappen.

A CHILLING TREND

Having said the above, very fewwould want to get rid of pictures,films, and so forth in the illustrationof truth. The frightening thing, how-ever, is a trend within the Church todisplace the Scriptures with images.Having lost the concept of the Gospelas the power of God unto salvation(Romans 1:16), we hear such forbid-ding statements as:

‘‘Reformed Christians are exam-ining what it means for them toseek God apart from the spoken andwritten word of Scripture. Answersvary, especially since the crazehas touched both conservativeevangelicals and liberal mainlin-ers, who sometimes have differ-ent agendas for the use of im-ages. But on at least one point,there is agreement: a longstand-ing hallmark of Reformed tradi-tion is disappearing.’’23

Let’s pray this ‘‘craze’’ ends quickly.

So some think we can seek Godapart from Scripture. What God? Whoor what defines Him? How can wehave images without content? Do wegive the images any meaning wewish? Some pastors need to get hon-est and just admit: 1) They have noconfidence at all in the Bible andreject the words of all the prophetsand Jesus Himself. 2) That they aretoo lazy to put the time into prepar-ing vital, dynamic, and interestingsermons, and that it is their dullness,not the Scriptures, that are the turnoff. 3) That they may as well stopcalling their churches ‘‘Christian


churches,’’ because they have jetti-soned what defines them. The com-mand to ‘‘preach the Word’’ (2 Timo-thy 4:1) has not become obsolete andneither has ‘‘faith comes by hearingand hearing by the Word of God’’(Romans 10:17). We are to proclaimthe Gospel, making disciples as Christcommanded (Matthew 28:19-20).

There is no inherent power in animage, but there is in the Word ofGod. Blessing only comes as weinvest ourselves in the teaching andpreaching of Scripture. If people wantto go to the movies or the art gallery,then they should go. The Church,however, must be what it is, the pillarand ground of truth. Imagery may behelpful at some level, but when theimages displace, rather than illustrate,the Word of God, we are in deeptrouble.

Let’s move on and now consider:

5. Faith in insanity. Some placetheir faith in things that defy allreason and rationale. This gross idola-try launches people headlong intowhat can only be called religiousinsanity. The ‘‘flagellants’’ of Italy area vivid example of this. Flagellation isthe ‘‘Whipping or beating a person inorder to improve health or morals’’and it ‘‘dates back to ancient times inwestern culture. Flagellation has beenemployed to induce spiritually el-evated states of consciousness.’’24

This practice still goes on today:

‘‘Some Roman Catholics belong-ing to the organization calledOpus Dei (‘Work of God’) whipthemselves for purification andecstasy. Some members of themodern witchcraft movement inEngland, particularly in theGardnerian and Alexandrianbranches, have included ceremo-nial scourging in their initiationrituals to symbolize that painfulexperiences can expand one’sconsciousness.’’25

GETTING STRANGERAND STRANGER

India is replete with religious andmoral insanity. One recent news ar-ticle reported that, ‘‘One of the major

Hindu festivals in Nepal and India isTihar, which was celebrated Novem-ber 10-15. Each day features a differ-ent type of worship. Day one is crowworship. Day two, dog worship. Theother three days are set apart for theworship of wealth, brothers, andCOW DUNG.’’26

Then, there is a local church fight-ing a legal battle to use hallucinogensin their services. In an AssociatedPress article titled, ‘‘Church can servesacred tea,’’ it was reported:

‘‘The Supreme Court sided Fri-day with a New Mexico churchthat wants to use hallucinogenictea as part of its services thisChristmas. ... The Bush adminis-tration contends that the hoascatea is illegal and dangerous.Nancy Hollander, attorney forthe Brazil-based O CentroEspirita Beneficiente Uniao doVegetal, told justices in a filingthat hoasca is not only safe, butto members it ‘is sacred and theirsacramental use of hoasca con-nects them to God.’’’27

Moving on, we will also weigh:

6. Faith in our intuition. A song byJosh Groban tells us, ‘‘You haveeverything you need, If you just be-lieve. If you just believe. If you justbelieve. If you just believe. Just be-lieve.’’ One has to be amazed at theraw humanism and mysticism andthen ask, ‘‘Believe what?’’

In the motion picture, The PolarExpress, the conductor (Tom Hanks)says, ‘‘One thing about trains: Itdoesn’t matter where you’re going.What matters is deciding to get on.’’What if the train is heading for abridge that is out? We’d better be surethat any train we board or anyendeavor we commit to has a knownoutcome. Materials are availablewhich offer suggestions to pastors onpreaching and teaching on thismovie’s themes.28 While we maylearn acting techniques by watchingmovies, there are safer sources toconsult for theology. Imposing theol-ogy on secular movies is as creative asseeing images in clouds or the face ofJesus on a tree trunk.

BURIED TRUTHFaith in an individual, an institu-

tion, an idea, an image for the image’ssake alone, moral insanity, or ourown intuition are all at the bottom ofthe proverbial ‘‘slippery slope’’ whenit comes to the health of our souls. Allof these are misplaced and destructivefaith.

It is surprising that all of these havea thread of truth woven throughthem, but those threads are so over-laden with so much error that truth islost. Committed Christians do havefaith in an individual: Jesus our Sav-ior. We promote an institution be-cause Jesus said He would build HisChurch. Certainly, we promote ideasand constructs in the many Christiandoctrines we teach. Images such aspictures and film can be an aid to ourteaching the Bible.

The Apostle Paul was accused ofbeing mad. Unbelievers think of bibli-cal things as odd and perhaps crazy.Also, at times, our intuition, guidedby Scripture, has us doing things thatwe know please the Lord. The (hu-man) ‘‘faith’’ commitments that we’vesurveyed are a negative broken mir-ror image of the truth. They totallydistort any germ of veracity.

ONLY ONE PLACE TO FIND IT

So what is true faith? True faithmust be defined by the Bible. God’sWord is the only sure and unchang-ing foundation. In the Old Testament,the Hebrew root word for ‘‘faith’’ isthe word he’emin. This word is oftentranslated ‘‘believe’’ and carries theidea of trust or trusting in somethingor someone. Theologian CharlesHodge affirms that the ‘‘primary ideaof faith is trust.’’29 The next questionis: Trust in what?

Inherent in the idea of faith is anobject. What or who, according to theBible, is it that we are to ultimatelytrust? We cannot just say, ‘‘believe,believe, believe,’’ because the issue is:Where will what we trust in take us?Will we believe, trust in, and committo an individual, an institution, anidea, an image, just plain insanity, orour own intuition when it comes toeternal issues, eternal health, andeternal life?


Proverbs 3:5-6 instructs us to, ‘‘Trustin the LORD with all your heart, Andlean not on your own understanding;In all your ways acknowledge Him,And He shall direct your paths.’’ Thecontext is God’s commands, God’struth, and God’s directions (vv. 1-3).We must trust the Word and bringour thoughts and ideas to its grid.Ultimately saving faith is simply trustin God, the saving work of Jesus, andGod’s Word. The Bible is always ourstarting and ending point.

The Scriptures are very clear as tothe objects of our faith. Faith not onlyimplies an object, as we stated, butmandates it. The Greek word usedthroughout the New Testament ispisteuo and the classical use was clear,‘‘conveying the thought of a move-ment of trust going out to, and layinghold of, the object of its confidence.’’30

Ultimately, as far as religious faith isconcerned, the only worthy objects offaith are God and His Word. If myfaith is not grounded in God and HisWord, my faith is misplaced and mytrust will be disappointed.

Hebrews 11:1 does not give to us adefinition of faith, but a description ofits essence when it says, ‘‘faith is thesubstance [or realization] of thingshoped for, the evidence [or confi-dence] of things not seen.’’ The foun-dation and object of our faith here is‘‘the Word of God’’ (v. 3).

The Ryrie Study Bible instructs usthus:

‘‘Faith is described in this greatverse as the assurance (or reality,the same word translated ‘na-ture’ in 1:3) of things hoped for, theconviction (as in John 16:8) ofthings not seen. Faith gives realityand proof of things unseen, treat-ing them as if they were alreadyobjects of sight rather than ofhope.’’31

The words of respected theologianLouis Berkhof are equally helpful:

‘‘If faith in general is a persua-sion of the truth founded on thetestimony of one in whom wehave confidence and on whomwe rely, and therefore rests onauthority, Christian faith in the

most comprehensive sense isman’s persuasion of the truth ofScripture on the basis of theauthority of God. ... The knowl-edge of faith consists in a posi-tive recognition of the truth, inwhich man accepts as true what-soever God says in His Word,and especially what He saysrespecting the deep depravity ofman and the redemption whichis in Christ Jesus.’’32

J. I. Packer opens the rich meaningof the word ‘‘faith’’:

‘‘The Reformers restored biblicalperspectives by insisting thatfaith is more than orthodoxy —not fides merely, but fiducia, per-sonal trust and confidence inGod’s mercy through Christ; thatit is not a meritorious work, onefacet of human righteousness,but rather an appropriating in-strument, an empty hand out-stretched to receive the free giftof God’s righteousness in Christ;that faith is God-given, and isitself the animating principlefrom which love and good worksspontaneously spring; and thatcommunion with God means, notan exotic rapture of mysticalecstasy, but just faith’s everydaycommerce with the Saviour.’’33

R.E. Nixon concurs regarding theobjects of our faith, stating, ‘‘God issupremely the One in whom confi-dence may be placed ... but His wordand His promises are also reliable(Rev 21:5).’’34

NOTE THE DIFFERENCE

In the New Testament we see adistinction between the word ‘‘faith’’and the words ‘‘the faith.’’ While theword ‘‘faith’’ has to do with intellec-tual assent and trust in the LivingGod and His Word, ‘‘the faith’’ (e.g.,Jude 3) has to do with the content ofour faith, sometimes called ‘‘theApostles’ doctrine’’ (Acts 2:42). ‘‘Thefaith’’ is what we believe. It really is thesum total of Christian doctrine.

We should all be concerned aboutthe great basic doctrines of our faith.In 2 Timothy 1:14, Paul calls it ‘‘thegood deposit.’’

T. Ernest Wilson says that ‘‘thefaith’’ is a ‘‘synonym for the messageitself. It is not just the act ofbelieving, but the doctrine be-lieved.’’35 Wilson also warns that ‘‘anundefined faith produces a weak andshaky paradise of peace and tranquil-ity, a heretic’s haven, a peace at anyprice.’’36

Faith, that is, trust and confidencein God, His Word, and His Savior, isthe safest route to travel. We need notworry whether our faith is strongenough. We can take this as para-digm: Strong faith in a weak bridgewill cause us harm and loss, but evenweak faith in a strong bridge will getus across safely. It is not the strengthof our faith, but the strength of ourSavior that is all important.

For a person confronted with aswollen stream with a rotted tree thatfell across its banks, faith in that treewill be in vain. Likewise, lack of faithin a steel bridge will not make adifference in that bridge’s integrity.Christ is our strong bridge. Individu-als (cult leaders), institutions, ideas,images, mystical insanity, and ourintuition are all rotted weak passageways. Our faith must be in the strong,eternal bridge of our loving HeavenlyFather, a Savior, and His infallibleand inerrant Word. These alone aresafety and assurance.

The great hymn writers caught thebiblical concept of faith with thesewords:

‘‘Simply trusting every day,Trusting through a stormy way;Even when my faith is small,Trusting Jesus, that is all.’’37

And:

‘‘My hope is built on nothing lessThan Jesus’ blood and righteous-ness.I dare not trust the sweetestframe,But wholly lean on Jesus’ Name.On Christ, the solid Rock, Istand,All other ground is sinking sand;All other ground is sinkingsand.’’38

Endnotes:1. Kevin Sullivan to Jon Weber from the


novel, More Than a Skeleton, by Paul Maier,(Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers,2003), pg. 156.2. Chuck Smith, Calvary Chapel Distinctives.Costa Mesa, Calif.: The Word For TodayPublishers, 2000, pg. 134.3. Ibid., pg. 137.4. Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology.Grand Rapids, Mich.: William EerdmansPublishing Co., 1975, pg. 500.5. Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology.Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers,1999, Vol. 3, pg. 42.6. More Than a Skeleton, op. cit., pg. 119.7. Dave Breese, Know the Marks of Cults.Wheaton, Ill.: Victor Books, 1975, pg. 45,italics in original.8. Ibid., pg. 47.9. Ibid., pg. 56.10. Alan Morrison, The Serpent and theCross. Birmingham, England: K&M Books,1994, pg. 493, italics in original.11. Curtis I. Crenshaw, Man as God: TheWord of Faith Movement. Memphis: Foot-stool Publishing, 1994, pg. 236.12. U.S. Catholic Conference, Foreword byPope John Paul II, Catechism of the CatholicChurch. New York: Doubleday, 1995, pg.59, italics in original.13. See, for example, The Watchtower, Dec.1, 1981, pg. 27.14. Robert M. Bowman Jr., UnderstandingJehovah’s Witnesses. Grand Rapids, Mich.:

Baker Book House, 1991, pg. 47.15. The Watch Tower Reprints, April 1, 1919,pg. 6414.16. Bob McKeown, host, ‘‘Do You Believein Miracles?’’, CBC News, Nov. 3, 2004.17. See further, G. Richard Fisher, ‘‘Backto the Source, The Truth About SmithWigglesworth,’’ The Quarterly Journal,January-March 1995, pp. 1, 11-14.18. Smith Wigglesworth, compiled andedited by Wayne E. Warner, The Anointingof His Spirit. Ann Arbor, Mich.: VineBooks, 1994, pg. 27.19. Ibid., pg. 35.20. Man as God: The Word of Faith Move-ment, op. cit., pg. 54.21. Kenneth Copeland, The Force of Faith.Fort Worth: KCP Publications, 1983, pg.10.22. Man as God: The Word of Faith Move-ment, op. cit., pg. 4, italics in original.23. G. Jeffrey MacDonald, Religion NewsService, ‘‘Reformed Protestants No LongerSee Images as Idolatrous,’’ ChristianityToday, Dec. 6, 2004, emphasis added.Document available at: www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2004/149/12.0.html.24. Leonard George, Alternate Realities.New York: Facts on File, 1995, pg. 101.25. Ibid., pg. 102.26. David W. Cloud, ‘‘WorshippingDung,’’ Christian News, Dec. 6, 2004, pg. 3,capitalization in original.

27. The Associated Press, ‘‘Church canserve sacred tea,’’ Dec. 11, 2004. Docu-ment available at: www.kansascity.com/m l d / k a n s a s c i t y / n e w s / n a t i o n /10390553.htm.28. Promotional DVD, copy on file.29. Hodge, Systematic Theology, op. cit.,Vol. 3, pg. 43.30. James I. Packer in Everett Harrison,Editor, Baker’s Dictionary of Theology.Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House,1973, pg. 208.31. Charles C. Ryrie, The Ryrie Study Bible.Chicago: Moody Press, 1976, annotationfor Hebrews 11:1, pg. 1850, italics inoriginal.32. Berkhof, Systematic Theology, op. cit.,pp. 501, 503.33. Packer in Baker’s Dictionary of Theology,op. cit., pg. 211, italics in original.34. R.E. Nixon in Merrill C. Tenney,Editor, The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopediaof the Bible. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zonder-van Publishing House, Vol. 2, 1975, pg.483.35. T. Ernest Wilson, Mystery Doctrines ofthe New Testament. Neptune, N.J.:Loizeaux Brothers, 1975, pg. 15.36. Ibid., pg. 16.37. Edgar P. Stites, ‘‘Trusting Jesus.’’38. Edward Mote, ‘‘My Hope Is Built onNothing Less’’ (‘‘The Solid Rock’’).

A RETREAT FROM REASON(continued from page 4)

faith and was ambiguous about oth-ers, such as the resurrection of Christ.David Becker has investigated thetheology of Bonhoeffer and in theChristian News wrote:

‘‘I don’t mean to be critical ofpeople, but I do want to speakthe truth in love, and one of mypet peeves is when I see people,especially those who considerthemselves to be, and presentthemselves as, theologically con-servative, praise Dietrich Bon-hoeffer. Bonhoeffer espoused aso-called religionless Christianity,and expressed doubt about Godas a working hypothesis. He wasa father of the so-called ‘death ofGod’ ‘fad’ of a few years ago. Hewrote a lot and also wrote somethings that sounded orthodox buthe consistently had a low view ofthe Bible, considering a lot of itmyth.’’10

Bonhoeffer set up the most unlikelypremise by suggesting that while

Jesus may have been without sin, Hisbody or flesh was sinful:

‘‘In his flesh, too, was the lawthat is contrary to God’s will. Hewas not the perfectly good man.... The assertion of the sinlessnessof Jesus fails if it has in mindobservable acts of Jesus. Hisdeeds are done in the likeness offlesh. They are not sinless, butambiguous. One can and shouldsee good and bad in them.’’11

Bonhoeffer is contradicted by theApostle Peter and Holy Writ: ‘‘[Jesus]committed no sin and, nor was anydeceit found in His mouth’’ (1 Peter2:22). Certain Gnostics and the Nesto-rians divided the humanity and deityof Jesus in much the same way asBonhoeffer did.12

Bonhoeffer called the Virgin Birth a‘‘hypothesis’’ and added, ‘‘It is bothhistorically and dogmatically ques-tionable. The biblical evidence for it isuncertain.’’13 One may choose to denythe Virgin Birth, but to say the biblical

Regarding Bonhoeffer, Boyd is clearwhen he states, ‘‘my thesis has beengreatly inspired by my reading ofBonhoeffer. Indeed, this work can beunderstood as a consistent interactionwith his thought.’’8 It’s clear thatBoyd must have made some kind ofjudgment that Bonhoeffer was a safeguide to be trusted and followed.Boyd’s lack of discernment — orjudgment — betrays him here. We areonly as good as our sources.

Bonhoeffer was a German Lutheranpastor (1906-1945) who participated inan abortive plot to overthrow Hitler.He eventually was hanged in a Ger-man concentration camp on April 9,1945. Bonhoeffer’s thoughts and writ-ings are obtuse enough to inspireeven ‘‘the ephemeral ‘death of God’theologians.’’9

In some instances, Bonhoeffer de-nied some major fundamentals of the


evidence is ‘‘uncertain’’ is ludicrous.Matthew 1:18-25 allows for no otherinterpretation. From the Spirit’s workin Mary’s womb, (vv. 18, 20), to theGreek word parthenos (v. 23), to Jo-seph’s struggle with divorce, (v. 19),to the clear statement of no maritalrelations until after the birth of Jesus(v. 25), Scripture is emphatically clear.

Another foundation stone is theresurrection of Jesus (1 Corinthians15:1-4, Romans 10:9). Yet to Bonhoef-fer, even this was ambiguous anduncertain:

‘‘Empty or not empty, it remainsa stumbling block. We are notsure of its historicity. The Bibleitself reveals the stumbling blockin showing how hard it was toprove that the disciples had notperhaps stolen the body. Evenhere we cannot evade the realmof ambiguity.’’14

In the end, Bonhoeffer was merelyan apostle of uncertainty.

Then there is Boyd’s shopping mallrevelation. He calls it ‘‘An Experienceof Love.’’15 Boyd describes an existen-tial and subjective mystical experiencewhile, with a Coke in hand, watchingpeople at the mall:

‘‘As I replaced judgmentalthoughts with loving thoughtsand prayers of blessing, some-thing extraordinary began tohappen. I began to see the worthI was ascribing to people, and Ibegan to feel the love I wasgiving to them. As I ascribedworth to people, not allowingany other thought, opinion, orfeeling to enter my mind, myheart began to expand. In fact, atcertain moments I felt as thoughI would explode with love. I waswaking up to the immeasurablevalue and beauty of each personin the mall that afternoon. Sittingin the mall, sipping a Coke,enjoying God’s creations, I wasexperiencing the heart of God. Itfelt like finding home after hav-ing been lost for a long while. Itwas like waking up from a coma.It was like finding undilutedtruth when all you’d known upto that point was the watered-

down kind. I felt as though I wasremembering something I hadlong since forgotten or unveilingsomething I had been coveringmy whole life. The love, joy, andpeace I was experiencing as Idwelt in this place — and it didseem like a mental and spiritual‘place’ — was beyond descrip-tion. ... I believe I was in my ownway participating in God’s seeingand God’s feeling for people. Ibelieve I was participating in hislove.’’16

Subjective experiences are a dime adozen and notoriously unreliable.Others have claimed to experienceGod in the opposite way: seeingpeople in judgment scenes. Ultimatelywe can get correct views of God andman only from the Scriptures. We cannever resort to reductionism wherewe reduce God to primarily oneattribute and all humans to warm,fuzzy love objects. This would be likedefining an automobile as a headlightor a house as a door.

One only need ask how God wouldhave felt that day at the shoppingmall about, for example, the unrepen-tant child predator who walked pastBoyd. When we unconditionally lovecriminals and are non-judgmental, werefuse to shelter and protect the inno-cent. Life is not lived at the mall inecstatic experiences; they are not aparadigm for Christian living. Wemust constantly make evaluations be-tween good and evil, ‘‘Test all things,hold fast to that which is good,’’ Pauldeclares (1 Thessalonians 5:21). Weare sanctified — not by warm feelings— but by the Word of God (John17:17).

Here is where Boyd should havefollowed his own advice:

‘‘We therefore must not try tomake our own imprint of God byprojecting onto him conclusionsabout what he is like deducedfrom our own life experiences,conceptions, and expectations.’’17

Yet this is exactly what Boyd hasdone.

Boyd’s view draws us into a world-view and perspective diametrically

opposed to the Scriptures. The Bible isset up in terms of antitheses, con-trasts, and opposites. We are to thinkin terms of good and evil, darknessand light, God and Satan, and heavenand hell. Proverbs is full of judgmentand contrasts between the fool andthe wise, the moral and immoral,anger and patience. God’s love is notunconditional. Christ had to pay aprice. He met the conditions of justice.Forgiveness is based on confession;salvation is based on repentance andfaith.

Beyond this is Boyd’s commitment— via Bonhoeffer — that judgment isthe original sin. He believes thatbecause the first couple ate from thetree of the knowledge of good andevil, judgment and evaluation of oth-ers’ behavior constitutes continuing toeat from the tree of the knowledge ofgood and evil:

‘‘Our fundamental sin is that weplace ourselves in the position ofGod and divide the world be-tween what we judge to be goodand what we judge to be evil.’’18

In fact, Boyd wants us to return ‘‘toa state where we don’t live by ourknowledge of good and evil.’’19 Re-member that Boyd says that ‘‘Ouronly job is to love, not judge.’’20

Boyd goes so far as to say:

‘‘My conviction is that we haveneglected the biblical teachingthat the origin and essence of sinis rooted in the knowledge ofgood and evil.’’21

Jesus, though sinless, had theknowledge of good and evil as hefaced the temptations and onslaughtsof Satan in the wilderness. It is thechoice of evil that is the essence ofsin, not just an awareness of it.

There is nothing inherently wrongwith the knowledge of good and evil.God has this knowledge (Genesis 3:5).King Solomon prayed for this knowl-edge: ‘‘Therefore give to your servantan understanding heart to judge yourpeople, that I may discern betweengood and evil’’ (1 Kings 3:8) and Godgave him what he asked for (v. 13).The knowledge of good and evil iscommended and likened to the wis-


dom of angels (2 Samuel 14:17). ChristHimself had this knowledge (Isaiah7:15). The issue is not possession ofthis knowledge of good and evil, buthow we have acquired it and what wedo with it.

Boyd misconstrues the doctrine ofsin and what was happening in theGarden at the time of the Fall. Thereal point was that God wantedAdam and Eve to get their views ofgood and evil directly from Him. Adamchose another way to acquire suchknowledge. He selected another routerather than God. He also ignoredGod’s timing for the unfolding ofknowledge and sought to get it sum-marily through an act of disobedi-ence. The knowledge itself was notevil, but rather the source apart fromGod. The crux of the Fall is choice —a choice to distrust God. It was allabout choice: Would Adam get hisviews of God and morality from God,or trust his own wisdom and his rightto choose in another direction andbypass God?

This issue of the nature of sin, theFall, and its relationship to choice isso important it warrants a lengthyquote from C.F. Keil and F. Delitzsch:

‘‘God had given such sacramen-tal nature and significance to thetwo trees in the midst of thegarden, that their fruit could andwould produce supersensual,mental, and spiritual effects uponthe nature of the first humanpair. The tree of life was toimpart the power of transforma-tion into eternal life. The tree ofknowledge was to lead man tothe knowledge of good and evil;and, according to the divine in-tention, this was to be attainedthrough his not eating of its fruit.This end was to be accomplished,not only by his discerning in thelimit imposed by the prohibitionthe difference between thatwhich accorded with the will ofGod and that which opposed it,but also by his coming eventu-ally, through obedience to theprohibition, to recognize the factthat all that is opposed to thewill of God is an evil to be

avoided, and, through voluntaryresistance to such evil, to the fulldevelopment of the freedom ofchoice originally imparted to himinto the actual freedom of adeliberate and self-consciouschoice of good.’’22

The ability to choose is what makesus human and became the stagingground for Adam to obey or disobey:

‘‘By obedience to the divine willhe would have attained to agodlike knowledge of good andevil, i.e. to one in accordancewith his own likeness to God. Hewould have detected the evil inthe approaching tempter; but in-stead of yielding to it, he wouldhave resisted it, and thus havemade good his own propertyacquired with consciousness andhis own free-will, and in thisway by proper self-determinationwould gradually have advancedto the possession of the truestliberty. But as he failed to keepthis divinely appointed way, andate the forbidden fruit in opposi-tion to the command of God, thepower imparted by God to thefruit was manifested in a differ-ent way. He learned the differ-ence between good and evil fromhis own guilty experience, and byreceiving the evil into his own soul,fell a victim to the threateneddeath. Thus through his ownfault the tree, which should havehelped him to attain true free-dom, brought nothing but thesham liberty of sin, and with itdeath, and that without any de-moniacal power of destructionbeing conjured into the tree itself,or any fatal poison being hiddenin its fruit.’’23

UNCONDITIONAL LOVE

Boyd has a penchant for making updefinitions, but never gives linguisticor any other kind of documentation tosupport his assertions.

He uses the term ‘‘unconditional’’love. He says, ‘‘There is a kind of lovethat is universal and unconditional,however. It is the kind of love re-ferred to by the word agape.’’24

The term ‘‘unconditional’’ lovesprings from the secular psychologyof Carl Rogers, who lapsed into oc-cultism in his later years. Biblicalcounselor and author Dave Powlisontakes issue with the notion:

‘‘I also have felt uncomfortablewith the term ‘unconditionallove.’ I rarely use the term be-cause God’s love is so muchdifferent and better than uncon-ditional. Unconditional love, bycontemporary definition, startsand stops with sympathy andempathy, with blanket accep-tance. It accepts you as you are,with no expectations. You cantake it or leave it. But think aboutwhat God’s love for you is like.God does not benignly gaze onyou in affirmation. God cares toomuch to be unconditional. ... I’muneasy with the term uncondi-tional love because it so fre-quently sidesteps reality. It keepscompany with teachings that sayto people, ‘peace, peace,’ when,from God’s holy point of view,there is no peace (Jeremiah23:14,16f). If you receive blanketacceptance, you need no repen-tance. You just accept it. It fillsyou without humbling you. Itrelaxes you without upsettingyou about yourself — or thrillingyou about Christ. It lets you baskwithout reckoning with the an-guish of Jesus in the garden andon the cross. It is easy andundemanding. It does not insiston or work at changing you. Itdeceives you about both Godand yourself. Most people speakof and aspire to unconditionallove containing a large dose ofthis cultural baggage.’’25

Paul Brownback also caught theflaws in the secular and evangelicalvarieties of unconditional love andacceptance:

‘‘We need to be clear that we arenot just talking about accepting aperson as he is when he comes inhis contrition, his sorrows ofheart for the past and his desireto change, to reach out for helpto affect that change. We are also


talking about acceptance of theperson who is bent on continuingin his sin without remorse. Thatis the implication implicit in theidea of unconditional love.’’26

Linguist W.E. Vine sees Christianlove differently:

‘‘Christian love has God for itsprimary object, and expresses it-self first of all in implicit obedi-ence to His commandments, John14:15, 21, 23; 15:10; 1 John 2:5;5:3; 2 John 6. ... Love seeks thewelfare of all.’’27

At times when we seek the welfareof others, it may involve honest,loving confrontation. That may be theloving thing to do as we seek thehighest good of others.

It is commendable that Boyd exaltsGod, the Trinity, and the deity ofChrist in chapter 1, ‘‘Dancing with theTriune God.’’28 He is misleading,however, because he teaches thatGod’s love is “universal and uncondi-tional.” Plus, Boyd never fully ex-plains what he means by ‘‘dancing’’with God.

OUR WORTH IN GOD’S EYESBoyd seems to have assimilated

secular psychological theories whenhe writes of ‘‘Our UnsurpassableWorth before God.’’29

He further explains:

‘‘This is why we can say that theworth God ascribes to us, whichis to say the love God has for us,is unsurpassable. And preciselybecause it is unsurpassable, theact of God ascribing worth to usreveals the perfect, eternal loveof the Father, Son, and HolySpirit.’’30

Then he adds, ‘‘We are invited toreceive the worth God ascribes to usin Christ and are called and empow-ered to extend this worth to ourselvesand all others.’’31

And then this:

‘‘By sacrificing himself for us,God ascribes unsurpassableworth to people who in and ofthemselves have little apparentworth.’’32

Paul exalts the love of God notbecause of our worth, but because ofthe very opposite in that He loved uswhen we were worthless — while wewere yet in our sins (Romans 5:8).

Two decades ago, Jay E. Adamswrote that such talk comes out of theold worth movement and self-esteemtheories. He calls this view a ‘‘falsebelief that borders on heresy.’’33

Did God redeem man because of hisgreat worth? Not a chance, says Ad-ams. This view loses sight of grace:

‘‘In an attempt to exalt man, bysupposing him to be of infiniteworth, God’s grace is unwittingly

denied. This denial is uninten-tional, I presume, because thosewho assert the false doctrinewould in other contexts professto believe that it was not becauseof anything in us that God sentHis Son, but that He did so onlyout of pure, unmerited favor andunwarranted love. ... The point isthat God saved man not out ofpure grace, totally apart fromanything in man that wouldcommend him to God, but ratherbecause of some ‘redeemablevalue’ He saw in him. That is tosay, man was too valuable tolose, and that is why Christ cameto die on the cross! The actualteaching of the Bible (and that ofthe sixteenth-century reformers

and all of orthodox Christianityever since) is that it was notbecause of anything God saw inman that He redeemed him, butout of pure mercy and His deter-mination to set His love on him.God’s love was not the responseto man’s loveableness!’’34

It certainly is commendable thatBoyd emphasizes our position inChrist and the importance of theChurch and fellowship within theChurch. However, he then proceedsto slice and dice the Church for itsfailures, attributing these to churchesbeing too judgmental. Boyd is doingthe very thing he accuses others of.

Romans 2:1 warns, ‘‘Therefore you areinexcusable, O man, whoever you arewho judge, for in whatever you judgeanother you condemn yourself; foryou who judge practice the samethings.’’ Apparently, Boyd is the onlyone allowed to judge.

Cultic leanings can begin very sub-tly. One thing that sends manygroups on their way to culthood issegmented biblical attention, whereone verse, phrase, or concept isstressed and becomes an obsession atthe expense of balanced biblical doc-trine. Boyd goes overboard on love.And, as important as that is, love isnot the only fruit of the Spirit, or theonly character quality insisted uponin the Scriptures. Reading Boyd, one

Paul exalts the love of Godnot because of our worth, butbecause of the very opposite inthat He loved us when we wereworthless — while we were yetin our sins (Romans 5:8).


would think so as he states, ‘‘Love isthe central biblical truth.’’35

It is difficult to understand whatBoyd means when, speaking of thecommand to love, he writes that‘‘there really isn’t any other command-ment.’’36 That is really a biblicallyirresponsible statement. While wewould never deny the importance ofloving God and one another (Mat-thew 22:37-40, John 13:35), we cannever divorce love from truth (‘‘speakthe truth in love,’’ Ephesians 4:15) anddiscernment (‘‘that your love mayabound...in all discernment,’’ Philippi-ans 1:1). Boyd’s segmented biblicalattention causes him to ignorepertinent passages, qualifiers, and,yes, even commands to judge as inMatthew 18.

All through the book Boyd creates afalse dichotomy of love vs. judging,never indicating that there are rightand wrong ways of judging.37 God,who is perfect, is perfect love andperfect judge. God is perfect compas-sion and perfect justice, so the twoneed not be exclusive. Wrong ways ofjudging may be evil, but judging inand of itself is not. Jesus said if weexamine ourselves and are willing totake the log first from our own eye,we can see clearly to evaluate (judge)and help others with their specks(Matthew 7:4-5). We are to makejudgments as Jesus said and ‘‘do notgive what is holy to the dogs’’ (Mat-thew 7:6).

Boyd needs to give heed to balancedbiblical attention, not segmented bibli-cal attention. He is so far out ofbalance he claims that ‘‘the concern tobalance love with any competingcommand is misguided. It is, in fact,unbalanced.’’38

In Boyd’s world, to attempt to bebalanced is to be unbalanced! In fact,Boyd says anything that ‘‘competeswith love as our first and foremostconcern, it becomes to this degreeevil.’’39 Boyd so stacks the deck thathe wants us to believe that to putdoctrine, truth, and holiness on thesame level as love is to create evil.

Boyd violates his own teaching bycondemning overweight people and

those who do not judge them.40 Byhis own criteria he has fallen into thesin of ‘‘religion.’’ Other readers ofBoyd’s volume agree. One customerreview found on the Amazon.comweb page advertising Boyd’s bookstated:

‘‘If only the judgmental authorcould see the speck in his owneye when he attempts eye-sur-gery on the broader evangelicalcommunity he attacks! He shouldrepent of his own ‘righteouser-than-thou’ religious attitude ofself-appointed fruit inspector.’’41

Another reviewer wrote that Boyd,‘‘Does not balance personal skew withGod’s holy wrath against sin’’ andthat the ‘‘problem is not so muchRepenting of Religion, but Repentingof SIN.’’42

It would take a book-length treat-ment to address all of Boyd’s errors.In calling all forms of judgment orevaluation ‘‘religion,’’ he shuts downdiscussion. He is, in fact, despisingthe gift of discernment and seeing itas something evil rather than a pre-cious gift from God. Isaiah remindsus, ‘‘Woe to those who call evil goodand good evil’’ (Isaiah 5:20). As heleans heavily on Bonhoeffer and hisown subjective experience, he distortsScripture. In doing so, Boyd soundsthe call for a retreat from reason.

Endnotes:1. See further, G. Richard Fisher, ‘‘TheInfinitely Intelligent Chess Player — Gre-gory Boyd’s Remaking of God in Man’sImage,’’ The Quarterly Journal, July-Sep-tember 2000, pp. 4-13.2. Gregory A. Boyd, Repenting of Religion.Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 2004,pg. 35.3. Ibid., pg. 9.4. Ibid.5. Ibid., pg. 18.6. John Wilson, ‘‘All You Need Is Uncon-ditional Love,’’ Christianity Today, web siteposting, 2/10/2005, italics in original.Document available at: www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2005/002/33.87.html.7. Repenting of Religion, op. cit., pg. 18.8. Ibid., pg. 10.9. See A.A. Glenn in Daniel G. Reid,Coordinating Editor, Dictionary of Chris-tianity in America. Downers Grove, Ill.:InterVarsity Press, 1990, pg. 173.

10. David Becker, ‘‘Dietrich BonhoefferRejected Classical Christology,’’ ChristianNews, June 5, 2000, pg. 7.11. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Christ The Center.New York: Harper & Row Publishers,1960, pp. 112-113.12. See further, Frank Mead, Handbook ofDenominations in the United States. NewYork: Abingdon Press, 1965, pg. 102.13. Christ The Center, op. cit., pg. 109.14. Ibid., pg. 117.15. Repenting of Religion, op. cit., pg. 13,bold in original.16. Ibid., pp. 14-15.17. Ibid., pg. 35.18. Ibid., pg. 17.19. Ibid.20. Ibid., pg. 18.21. Ibid., pg. 66.22. C.F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, Commentaryon the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, Mich.:William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Vol.1, The Pentateuch, 1985, pp. 85-86.23. Ibid., pg. 86, emphasis added.24. Repenting of Religion, op. cit., pg. 24,italic in original.25. David Powlison, ‘‘‘UnconditionalLove’?,’’ Counsel the Word. Glenside, Pa.:Christian Counseling and EducationalFoundation, 1997, pp. 80-81.26. Paul Brownback, The Danger of Self-Love. Chicago: Moody Press, 1982, pp.65-66.27. W.E. Vine, The Expanded Vine’s Exposi-tory Dictionary of New Testament Words.Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers,1984, “agapao,” pg. 693.28. Repenting of Religion, op. cit., pg. 23.29. Ibid., pg. 27, bold and italics inoriginal.30. Ibid., italic in original.31. Ibid.32. Ibid., pg. 34.33. Jay E. Adams, The Biblical View ofSelf-Esteem, Self-Love, Self-Image. Eugene,Ore.: Harvest House, 1986, pg. 87.34. Ibid., pp. 87-88, italic in original.35. Repenting of Religion, op. cit., pg. 58,italic in original.36. Ibid., pg. 52, italics in original.37. See further, G. Richard Fisher, ‘‘ToJudge or Not to Judge - The Rights andWrongs of Biblical Discernment,’’ TheQuarterly Journal, October-December 1996,pp. 1, 11-13.38. Repenting of Religion, op. cit., pg. 58,italic in original.39. Ibid.40. Ibid., pg. 84.41. Amazon.com web page, ‘‘Repenting ofReligion: Turning from Judgment to theLove of God by Gregory A. Boyd.’’Document available at: www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0801065062/104-3752445-0888723.42. Ibid., capitalization in original.


At that time, a major shift began inhow evangelicals viewed and dealtwith sin. The Church stopped callingsinful and deviant behavior ‘‘sin’’ andstarted calling it ‘‘sickness.’’ Thesexual sinner Paul wrote about(1 Corinthians 6:9) became the sexaddict. The thief (1 Corinthians 6:10)became the kleptomaniac. The drunk-ard (1 Corinthians 6:10) became thealcoholic. The rebellious child(2 Timothy 3:2) became afflicted with‘‘Oppositional Defiant Disorder.’’ Afamily in which the husband will notwork, the wife will not keep thehome, and the children will not obeyis no longer considered sinful; it isdysfunctional. The liar became a com-pulsive liar. The gambler became acompulsive gambler. The idolater be-came a person who suffers from anobsessive-compulsive disorder. The‘‘deeds of the flesh, which are immo-rality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry,sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, out-bursts of anger, disputes, dissensions,factions, envying, drunkenness, ca-rousing’’ (Galatians 5:19-21) have allbeen redefined using psychopatho-logical words.

Placing sin in the category of sick-ness compromises the message ofsalvation. It sets aside the historical-grammatical method of interpretingScripture and replaces it with ahermeneutic centered on pathology ofthe flesh. This interpretation viewsman as a victim who is sick ratherthan a sinner who is responsible toGod. It eliminates the necessity forrepentance. As such, the doctrine ofthe total depravity of man is under-mined. Culpability and guilt vanishand there is no need for a Savior. In asimilar way, sanctification is hin-dered. There is no need for repen-tance and change; no need for dis-cipleship and spiritual growth. Believ-ers are duped into thinking they aresick and need recovery. This explana-tion removes accountability. For ex-ample, if one has the flu, one is sickand misses work. No fault is assignedand one is not personally accountablefor the sickness by one’s employer. If

the drunkard has a “disease” calledalcoholism, he is no longer account-able for his behavior, rather, he issick. It is not his fault. He has no needto repent; he needs 12 steps to recov-ery. Sick people need recovery. Sin-ners need Christ.

Pastors must realize that when theyturn sin into sickness in the pulpit orin ministering to others, they arepreaching ‘‘another gospel.’’ Paulwrote:

‘‘I am amazed that you are soquickly deserting Him whocalled you by the grace of Christ,for a different gospel; which isreally not another; only there aresome who are disturbing you,and want to distort the gospel ofChrist’’ (Galatians 1:6-7, NAS).

WORLDLYWORDS VS.SPIRITUALWORDS

The faculty of language and speechis one of the greatest abilities Godgave to mankind. Of all the thingsman does, speaking is one of the mostimportant. The uniqueness of lan-guage is highlighted in God’s revela-tion to man through His Word. JesusChrist Himself is the living Word.When God spoke and wrote, Heraised language to a place of signifi-cance. Spoken and written languagebecame the principal medium oftruth. Through words, God revealedHimself. Through words, God revealsHis plans and purposes. Throughwords, God defined, explained, andinterpreted the world around Adamand Eve. God said to them:

‘‘‘Be fruitful and multiply, andfill the earth, and subdue it; andrule over the fish of the sea andover the birds of the sky, andover every living thing thatmoves on the earth.’ Then Godsaid, ‘Behold, I have given youevery plant yielding seed that ison the surface of all the earth,and every tree which has fruityielding seed; it shall be food foryou; and to every beast of theearth and to every bird of the skyand to every thing that moves onthe earth which has life, I havegiven every green plant for food’;

and it was so’’ (Genesis 1:28-30,NAS).

God spoke, but Satan spoke also.God’s authority was challenged andHis words were contested. The devilhad a dramatically different way ofexplaining and interpreting Adamand Eve’s world:

‘‘Now the serpent was morecrafty than any beast of the fieldwhich the LORD God had made.And he said to the woman,‘Indeed, has God said, ‘‘You shallnot eat from any tree of thegarden”?’ And the woman saidto the serpent, ‘From the fruit ofthe trees of the garden we mayeat; but from the fruit of the treewhich is in the middle of thegarden, God has said, ‘‘You shallnot eat from it or touch it, lestyou die.’’’ And the serpent saidto the woman, ‘You surely shallnot die! For God knows that inthe day you eat from it your eyeswill be opened, and you will belike God, knowing good andevil’’’ (Genesis 3:1-5, NAS).

We live in a world where there aremany interpretations of the same setof facts. One person looks at a butter-fly and is moved by the splendor ofGod who created it. Another looks atthe same butterfly and is moved byevolution’s ability to make such adelicate insect. One man looks at achild’s behavior and sees a sicknessthat is said to be caused by a chemicalimbalance in the brain that could becorrected through the use of medica-tions. Another man looks at a child’sbehavior and sees rebellion and sin.

It is not the facts, but the interpreta-tion of those facts at the core of theissue. Many explanations of life andthe world do not recognize the au-thority of God and are, therefore,incompatible with a biblical world-view. The right things are not saidbecause the right things are not be-lieved. Adam and Eve listened to theserpent and believed an interpretationthat was contrary to God’s truth.From that point forward, the war ofwords has been raging. Today, Chris-tians are listening to sinful man’s —

PRESCRIPTION(continued from page 1)


or the serpent’s — interpretation ofthe facts, rather than God’s.

Christians are involved in the logi-cal outgrowth of the war of wordsevery day. It is the battle of ideas.While most believers, understandably,think of the battle in terms of itsspiritual dimensions and ‘‘other-worldliness,’’ we must realize there isan intellectual side to the battle thatmust not be overlooked. Paul wrote:

‘‘Finally, be strong in the Lordand in the strength of His might.Put on the full armor of God,that you may be able to standfirm against the schemes of thedevil. For our struggle is notagainst flesh and blood, butagainst the rulers, against thepowers, against the world forcesof this darkness, against thespiritual forces of wickedness inthe heavenly places. Therefore,take up the full armor of God,that you may be able to resist inthe evil day, and having doneeverything, to stand firm’’ (Ephe-sians 6:10-13, NAS).

Paul goes on to write about thevarious elements of the Christian ar-mor. There are the defensive piecesand one offensive/defensive piece:‘‘the sword of the Spirit, which is theword of God’’ (v. 17). If the Word ofGod can be neutralized in the life of aChristian, he is left with no offensiveweapon for the battle. He is strucktime and time again, yet he cannotstrike back. To any military strategistor, for that matter, to anyone, thedefensive strategy alone can be seenas a losing strategy.

The Church has always been in-volved in a defensive battle involvingideas and words. These battles can befound all through the New Testamentand Church history. There were de-bates about Jesus’ identity and nature(Matthew 16:13). There were disputesover Christ’s bodily resurrection (Acts17:18). There were arguments as towhether a person must keep the Lawof Moses in addition to faith in orderto be saved (Acts 15:5).

In Paul’s letter to Timothy, he spokeof his concern about worldly philoso-

phies that were being taught at Ephe-sus (1 Timothy 1:3). The battle ofideas and words continued through-out the centuries as one heretical ideaarose after another. Conflicts of ideasand philosophies are what led theearly Church to organize its state-ments of doctrinal beliefs, such as thedeity of Christ, personage of the HolySpirit, the Trinity, and so on. Duringthe Middle Ages, perversion hadcrept into the Church, and a battle ofideas concerning the purity of theNew Testament and salvation bygrace alone through faith alone inChrist alone was fought by theReformers.

In the 18th century, man became‘‘enlightened’’ and optimistically be-lieved his reasoning powers and sci-entific approaches would lead to abrighter future without God. In the19th century, problems and challengesarose from Darwinism and Freudian-ism. Since the Church’s inception, ithas been in one skirmish after anotherwith competing worldviews, ideas,and words.

A worldview is a set of beliefs thatshapes the way a person views hisworld. It is the lens through which aperson processes the events in his life.There is a biblical worldview, a natu-ralistic worldview, and so on. Everyperson has his or her own worldview.Thus, the correct worldview is veryimportant in understanding words,ideas, events, and behaviors. Manydisagreements among individualsstem from their differing worldviews.Atheists and Christians, Protestantsand Roman Catholics, Calvinists andArminians, and others have differentworldviews. In each case, man hasconstructed a grid, as it were, thatfilters out certain ideas and argu-ments leading him to a belief or aninterpreted fact. Those whose world-views differ often consider those withother views to be in error. Confused?Know this: God’s Word is absolutetruth!

Christians need to start thinking ofChristianity not as a collection of bitsand pieces of ideas to be believed, butas a complete, conceptual system — atotal worldview, as it was originally

designed. To break any worldviewinto disconnected parts will distort itstrue character. To mix certain parts ofa worldview with a competing oneleads to confusion and chaos. Eachworldview carries its own assump-tions. Each set of assumptions is, forthe most part, incompatible with oth-ers. However, particular pieces ofdiffering worldviews may be similar,like two slightly different circles thatare superimposed. They are quitesimilar, but they are not easily recon-ciled. For example, two people withdiffering worldviews may both bepro-life or pro-choice. They may besimilar in their politics or their moral-ity. However, a significant problemoccurs when major elements of con-flicting worldviews are integrated.The result, eclecticism, is borrowingfrom a variety of worldviews, and iscommon practice in ‘‘Christian’’ coun-seling today.

A biblical anthropology, whichteaches that man is made in the imageand likeness of God, is combined withnaturalistic-evolutionary anthropol-ogy, which views man as merely anevolving biological organism. The re-sulting eclectic integrationism, likepurely secular psychology, calls sinsickness by mixing two antitheticalworldviews. It is an attempt to be trueto both worlds. Plainly, the integra-tion of psychology with Christiantheology by sincere but misguidedbelievers has, in the Christian com-munity, legitimized labeling sin assickness. As a result, the Church hasbecome convinced that the elaboratesystems and theories, based on com-petitive worldviews, are a necessaryaddition and compliment to God’sWord. The Apostle Paul condemnsthe integration of man’s imaginary‘‘wisdom’’ or worldview and God’strue wisdom or worldview:

‘‘... which things we also speak,not in words taught by humanwisdom, but in those taught bythe Spirit, combining spiritualthoughts with spiritual words’’(1 Corinthians 2:13, NAS).

Evangelicals have been habituatedto think and speak psychologically.Biblical words — words taught by the


Spirit — have been replaced byworldly words — words taught byhuman wisdom. God’s true words,which are supposed foolishness, areexchanged for man’s words, whichare supposed wisdom. Words such as‘‘kleptomaniac’’ and ‘‘alcoholic’’(words taught by human wisdom) aremisleading. They are euphemisms forsinful behaviors. The Bible never re-fers to a person as an alcoholic or akleptomaniac. God’s Word refers to aperson who habitually gets intoxi-cated as a drunkard. A person whohabitually steals is called a thief. Inthe sickness model, he needs recoverywhile in God’s model, he needs torepent, put off the sinful habit, renewhis mind, and put on the biblicalalternative. Christians should usewords taught by the Spirit as theyaccurately portray God’s reality. TheApostle Paul wrote:

‘‘See to it that no one takes youcaptive through philosophy andempty deception, according tothe tradition of men, according tothe elementary principles of theworld, rather than according toChrist’’ (Colossians 2:8, NAS).

‘‘Rather than according to Christ’’ isthe pivotal phrase Paul used to de-scribe the system of doctrine (world-view) that had found its way toColossae. It was a philosophy settingup the wisdom of man in oppositionto the wisdom of God. ‘‘Man’s wis-dom,’’ over the centuries, has takenmany different forms, including thepresent-day sin/sickness movement.It has varied with time and culture,but it has always been present in oneguise or another, to displace Christ’ssufficient Word with man’s wisdom.

DECLARING PEOPLE SICK

In the early 1960s ‘‘illness’’ meantphysical illness. The criterion for de-termining a disease was a change,alteration, or abnormality in the struc-ture or function (anatomy or physiol-ogy) of the body as determined byinvasive or non-invasive testing and/or a patient’s history and thoroughphysical examination. According toWebster’s Comprehensive Dictionary,“disease” is defined as ‘‘Disturbed or

abnormal structure or physiologicalaction in the living organism as awhole, or in any of its parts.’’3 Abnor-malities in these findings make itpossible for a physician or pathologistto distinguish between the presenceor absence of a disease. For example,a family physician takes a throatculture and discovers the presence ofinfectious streptococcus. A radiologistreads the result of an MRI indicatingthe presence of a brain tumor. Adermatologist takes a biopsy of amole, sends it to the lab where apathologist discovers no disease orabnormality. By using objective meth-ods (throat culture, MRI, biopsy, etc.)for discovering physical abnormali-ties, physicians can make a diagnosis.Abnormal anatomy or physiology dic-tates the presence or absence of dis-ease.

Dr. Thomas Szasz, a psychiatristand well-known critic of psychiatryand author of hundreds of papers andbooks, says of disease:

‘‘All too often the problem ofdefining disease is debated as ifit were a question of science,medicine, or logic. By doing so,we ignore the fact that defini-tions are made by persons, thatdifferent persons have differentinterests, and hence that differingdefinitions of disease may simplyreflect the divergent interest andneeds of the definers.’’4

Szasz goes on to say:

’’...the decisive initial step I takeis to define illness as the pathologistdefines it — as a structural orfunctional abnormality of cells, tis-sues, organs, or bodies. If the phe-nomena called mental illnessesmanifest themselves as suchstructural or functional abnor-malities, then they are diseases; ifthey do not, they are not.’’5

There are constraints on a physicianwhen he seeks to determine the pres-ence of disease. In the past, a physi-cian was constrained, bound, andlimited to the scientific method. Dis-ease was discovered based on objec-tive tests. Under the new criteria in

vogue today, instead of discoveringdisease by objective measures, a per-son can be declared sick based solelyupon his complaint and the subjectiveopinion of the health care provider.

For example, one complains, ‘‘Doc,I’ve been having headaches for thepast several weeks.’’ The doctor re-plies, ‘‘You have a brain tumor. I needto operate first thing in the morning.’’You ask, ‘‘How do you know I have abrain tumor?’’ The doctor says, ‘‘Yousaid you have headaches.’’ You reply,‘‘But doctor! Couldn’t my headachesbe caused by a sinus infection, lowblood sugar, eye strain, stress, or lackof sleep?’’

Surgery is risky business. Takingmedication for a declared mental con-dition diagnosed by subjective meansis also risky business. When sin iscalled sickness, the boundaries andlimits of good sense are removed andpeople are subjectively declared sick.

Today’s diagnostic criteria say theredoes not have to be a change orabnormality in the structure of thebody for a person to have a disease. Ifa person behaves badly, in a bizarreway, or fails to exercise self-control,he may be declared sick. After all, onewho kills another has to be sick.Normal people do not kill or behavein wicked ways. At the core, there isgood in every man, right? Wrong, seeJeremiah 17:9. The Bible says Cainmurdered Abel and God called it sin.David murdered Uriah and Godcalled that sin. Jesus said, ‘‘For out ofthe heart come evil thoughts, mur-ders, adulteries, fornications, thefts,false witness, slanders’’ (Matthew15:19, NAS). Every one of those sinshas been now declared to be a sick-ness. Jesus did not say out of a sickheart, but out of an evil heart comessin.

The mental health industry hastransformed the common everydaydifficulties and hardships of life intodeclared diseases. A rebellious childhas a conduct disorder. A person whoovereats has an eating disorder. Aperson who is anxious or depressedhas a mood disorder. There is adjust-ment disorder for the man who can-


not seem to cope with his new job.The woman who is boastful andconceited has narcissistic personalitydisorder. The young man who repeat-edly is arrested for destroying prop-erty, harassing others, or stealing issick, too. He has antisocial personalitydisorder. Other conditions that mayrequire clinical attention range fromjob dissatisfaction to religious issuessuch as questioning one’s faith orvalues. People with common experi-ences of life are now damaged,wounded, abused, traumatized, andsick. They are by themselves inca-pable of dealing with their disease. Ittakes an ‘‘expert’’ trained to deducepsychological illnesses, to diagnose,categorize, and label the human expe-rience.

We have allowed psychology toexplain what we say, feel, and do. Itinterprets for us our words, moods,and actions, and what these reallymean on an ‘‘unconscious’’ level.What one person says about an eventof life and its effects are oftentimesinterpreted by the psychologist intoideas which are very different fromwhat is described. The psychologistthen presents his diagnosis as fact,applies it to the person’s situation,while transforming him into a victimand lifelong patient.

The progression of events resemblesthe following:

1) A theory of victimization isconstructed by the psychologist;

2) The theory is applied, using theesoteric language of psychology, tothe person’s situation;

3) The theory converts the person’sexperience into a disorder or disease;

4) Only the psychologist knowshow to help provide relief;

5) Thus, a need for the psychologistis created.

Psychologizing or pathologizing, assome call it, turns routine experiencesand feelings into abnormal conditions.Anxiety, apprehension, fear, sadness,and doubt are typically part of life’sexperience. Some become anxiouswhen they ride an elevator or fly in a

plane; others when they have to speakbefore a large group of people. Somemay become fearful when driving incity traffic; others are fearful of thedark. While all of these may beannoying emotions and disturbingfeelings and may disrupt life, theyare, nevertheless, typical human expe-riences. However, to a psychologist,being anxious means something more.It means ‘‘having anxiety’’ or ‘‘havingan anxiety disorder.’’

The mental health industry takesauthentic victims of accidents, abuse,neglect, etc., and manipulates theminto believing they are damaged andsick people. Traumatic life experienceis turned into an ongoing emotionalproblem. The traumatic cause is oftenfollowed by a pathological effect. Forexample, the man, who after twenty-five years, is laid off from his job (thetraumatic cause or experience) is laterdiagnosed with adjustment disorder(the pathological effect). A parentwhose child dies (the traumatic causeor experience) is diagnosed with PostTraumatic Stress Disorder (the patho-logical effect). A person who wasabused (the traumatic cause or experi-ence) is diagnosed with ParanoidPersonality Disorder (the pathologicaleffect).

A TRAUMATIC CAUSE =A PATHOLOGICAL EFFECT

A traumatic cause leading to apathological effect is accomplished byfocusing on the negative and accentu-ating the trauma. The person nowthinks of himself in terms of thedistress or suffering he experienced.He is told that the experience hasweakened him. To recover he mustface the fact that the event wastraumatic. He must then face it, con-front it, and go through the psycho-logical process which means changinghimself from victim to survivor.

Real victims do not want to bevictims at all. A woman who wasraped would rather have not beenraped. No one wants to be in a carcrash. Pain, suffering, and loss are theconsequences of being a genuine vic-tim. No one wants to be assaulted androbbed. So why do people allow

themselves to be categorized as psy-chological victims? Quite simply,there is an advantage to being made avictim. The psychological victim isgiven permission to live a psycholo-gized life. Once diagnosed, he maystep into another world. Being recog-nized as a victim of some major lifetrauma is the starting point in thejourney where the therapist is viewedas the shepherd who will lead thevictim to the promised land of recov-ery. What makes the future brighterfor the psychologized individual is hisvictim status. The undiagnosed haveto live with their disappointments,failures, regrets, crimes, and sin. Thepsychological victim’s world is freefrom guilt, shame, and responsibility.Whatever the matter may be, anexternal cause is found for the damag-ing effects. The disease has removedthe accountability that has, in turn,removed the guilt. As a corollary, ithas also removed the need for aSavior or for the work of the HolySpirit in sanctifying the believer.

Because Christians have become soindoctrinated with the sicknessmodel, they unconditionally acceptthe diagnosis. Persons who are lazy,irresponsible, bitter, full of self-pity,mean, or immoral are declared to besick. AIDS was discovered to be adisease. Alcoholism was declared adisease. Cancer was discovered to bea disease. Social anxiety disorder andpedophilia are declared to be diseases.When sin is called sickness, behavioris labeled healthy or unhealthy asopposed to righteous or unrighteous.Drunkards are now in the same cat-egory as Alzheimer’s patients. Rebel-lious children are in the same cat-egory as the man with heart disease.A murderer is in the same category asthe cancer sufferer. And the man whogambles away his savings and loseshis home to the mortgage company isin the same category as the little girldiagnosed with a terminal brain tu-mor.

It is not surprising that unbelieverswould call sin sickness. The naturalman does not accept the things ofGod, for they are foolishness to him (1Corinthians 2:14). What is hard to


believe is that the things of God havebecome foolishness to Christians. TheChurch itself has become an accom-plice with the world in helping menjustify their sin. Men suppress thetruth (Romans 1:18) when they callsin sickness. They exchange the truthof God for a lie (Romans 1:25). AsJames teaches, they are carried awayand enticed (James 1:14).

The whole idea of sin has alwaysbeen hated by the world. Since Adamand Eve ran, hid, covered up, andshifted the blame in the Garden ofEden, man has been trying to justifyhimself. Calling sin sickness allowsman to feel better. A healthy self-image is impossible if a man’s heart is‘‘deceitful above all things and des-perately wicked’’ (Jeremiah 17:9, KJV).Or, as Isaiah writes:

‘‘Behold, the nations are like adrop from a bucket, And areregarded as a speck of dust onthe scales; ... All the nations areas nothing before Him, They areregarded by Him as less thannothing and meaningless’’ (Isaiah40:15, 17, NAS).

The solution to these ‘‘destructive’’words is that man rebels against,overrules, and turns upside down theWord of God. Behavior is reduced tochemical imbalances, electrical im-pulses, diseases, or low self-esteem.Personal accountability for thoughtsand behaviors is abdicated.

If there were such a thing as ‘‘cor-porate’’ multiple personality disor-ders, it would seem the Church hasone. Out of one side of the Church’smouth, the Church says man is asinner. Out of the other side of theChurch’s mouth, man is said to besick. Is it possible to deny the doctrineof sin by calling sin sickness and stillbe preaching the Gospel of JesusChrist? Sermons, Bible study litera-ture, and books by beloved Christianauthors are filled with euphemismsfor sin. A fornicator may be called torepentance, but if he is sick then he isno sinner. Instead, he is an addict.

NO SIN, NO GUILT

If man is not a sinner then he is apatient who is suffering. He is a

victim of the cruel and callous treat-ment of others. We are told that wemust learn to be sensitive, tolerant,and compassionate, realizing the verybehaviors we formerly labeled as sin-ful are now evidence of victimizationor illness.

The culture we live in encouragesall sorts of sinful attitudes and behav-iors, but will not tolerate the guilt andother feelings that sin produces. Mandoes not exist in a vacuum. There areconsequences to his actions. Theseconsequences are part of the curseGod put on man as a result of sin.Sinful behaviors and attitudes affectthe way we think and feel. Sin canproduce feelings of personal guilt,depression, anxiety, fear, and so on.For example, Cain’s sinful behaviorsled to depression (Genesis 4:5-7).David experienced depression, anxi-ety, and several physiologic symp-toms as a result of his sinful relation-ship with Bathsheba (Psalm 38). How-ever, to admit responsibility and guiltis unsuited and irreconcilable withtoday’s concept of human dignity andself-esteem. Guilt is therefore viewedas a ‘‘neurosis.’’ It is an abnormalfixation that must be eradicated. De-spite the incessant voice of one’sconscience, the sinful behavior thatcauses us to feel guilty must bedenied.

Sin as sickness has gained such afoothold in our thinking there is nolonger much thought of personal sin.We give a token recognition in ser-mons and conversations to what usedto be a strong and ominous word, butfor the most part, has disappearedalong with the whole notion of of-fending God. Have we ceased sin-ning? No, we are just calling itsomething else. Man, since the Fall,has become an expert at covering uphis sin. Today, however, we are betterequipped with psychological euphe-misms for sin. Something is terriblywrong. By claiming the status of asick person or victim, an individualcan escape the responsibility of every-thing from murder to sloth. All kindsof immoral, perverse, and wickedbehavior are now considered to besymptoms of some psychological dis-ease. No one is responsible for these

acts. People will admit they havevague feelings of personal guilt, anxi-ety, and depression, but no one hascommitted a sin. There are plenty ofpatients, but sinners are hard to find.

Christianity does not make sensewithout sin. The Church teaches,‘‘God demonstrates His own lovetoward us, in that while we were yetsinners, Christ died for us’’ (Romans5:8, NAS). On the other hand, theChurch calls sin sickness. What’s thetruth? Is sin sin? If so, why does theChurch sometimes call it sickness? Ifsin is sickness why does the Churchsometimes call it sin? Is the Churchreally confused or just embarrassed touse the word sin? Has fear of manmade us ashamed of the Gospel? Isthe Church willing to trade biblicalcorrectness for political correctness inorder to be ‘‘seeker-sensitive’’ andbuild staggering attendance numbers?Paul wrote, ‘‘If the trumpet makes anuncertain sound, who will prepare forbattle?” (1 Corinthians 14:8, NKJV).There is definitely an uncertain soundcoming from the pulpits of evangeli-calism today. As a result, evangelism,discipleship, and sanctification all suf-fer.

The Apostle Paul was not ashamedof the Gospel (Romans 1:16). Thereason he was eager to preach inRome was because the Gospel was theway of salvation. The Gospel was notsome new philosophy of life. It is notsome new idea, which can be interest-ing and absorbing to discuss anddebate. No, the Gospel is about deliv-erance from sin. Paul sets the Gospelover and against the Greek culture,which had come to Rome years be-fore. The study of philosophy isinteresting, but it tends to begin andend with ideas of men. It ultimatelyleaves men where they started. Phi-losophy does nothing about sin. Itdoes not save man from the guilt,power, and pollution of sin. It doesnot reconcile man to God.

Paul’s letter to the Romans dealswith fundamentals. With respect tosystematic theology, the book of Ro-mans is the most important book inthe Bible. It has played a moreimportant and more crucial part in


the history of the Church than anyother single book. Some of theChurch’s greatest leaders were con-verted while reading the Epistle to theRomans. For example, Augustine wassaved while reading Romans 13. Au-gustine fought the Pelagian heresyand defeated it by expounding thebook of Romans. While he was still aRoman Catholic and a teacher oftheology at the University of Witten-berg, Martin Luther prepared a seriesof lectures on the book of Romans. Indoing so, his teaching of the doctrineof justification by faith through JesusChrist and apart from works becamea reality. John Bunyan and JohnWesley also were converted to Chris-tianity by means of this remarkablebook.

Paul declared that God provides away of salvation though faith in JesusChrist. The question is why did Goddo that? Why did Jesus Christ leaveheaven, die on a cross, and rise again?The reason may be summed up in thefollowing verse:

‘‘For the wrath of God is re-vealed from heaven against allungodliness and unrighteousnessof men, who suppress the truthin unrighteousness’’ (Romans1:18, NAS).

The most striking aspect of Paul’spresentation of the Gospel is that hebegins with the wrath of God. Wrathrefers to God’s hatred of sin. If onerecognizes the love of God, he mustalso recognize the hatred of God. Allthat is opposed to God is hateful toGod. Paul said that God’s righteous-ness has been revealed (Romans 1:17),making the following verse, ‘‘For thewrath of God is revealed against allungodliness and unrighteousness ofmen’’ (v. 18), quite inevitable.

Therefore, Paul does not begin theGospel presentation with man and hisproblems, but with God, who is angryhaving been offended by sinful men.He does not say he is ready to preachthe Gospel to them because they areliving defeated and troubled lives andthe Gospel will lift them out of theirdepression. He does not say he isready to preach the Gospel because

they are unhappy and the Gospel willmake them happy again. He does notstart with man’s troubles and difficul-ties. He does not start by telling themthat he has had a wonderful experi-ence and wants them to have it, too.Paul starts by talking about the wrathof God against all men because of sin.The wrath of God against sinful manis the motive for evangelism.6

Mixing Christianity and psychologyhas created a climate in which theword “sin” has been diluted of itstrue meaning and has been renderedharmless. If an unbeliever has noconsciousness of sin, he will not beable to see the point of Christianity.To him, Paul’s statement concerningthe wrath of God will not make sense.This is true not only of unbelievers,but also Christians. Many Christianshave lost their consciousness of sin. Itis considered harsh, insensitive, oreven ‘‘un-Christian’’ to speak of prob-lems as being the result of sinfulbehavior. No one wants to hear he isa sinner. There is great comfort inbeing told problems are caused by adisease, disorder, chemical imbalance,addiction, repressed memories, pho-bia, low self-esteem, or a painful past.To many, the problem is how tomarket the Church in a way that willbring it in line with the latest intellec-tual and cultural beliefs while notcompromising biblical integrity. Thegoal is to bring more people underthe preaching of the Gospel. Psychol-ogy, they thought, was one way togive Christianity a ‘‘scientific’’ rel-evance and make it more attractive.Proponents of psychology insist itactually improves Christianity. Sadly,biblical integrity and, therefore, theGospel, have been enormously com-promised. The Church’s fear of irrel-evance in the postmodern world hasled to uncritically accepting man’swisdom and denying God’s.

Meanwhile, the Church has becomeweakened and has experienced a dra-matic decline in conversions over thepast several decades. Church leadersare falling all over one another tryingto do all they can to make the Church‘‘relevant,’’ to give it purpose. Chris-tian leaders speak of the ‘‘assured

results’’ of a seeker-friendly atmo-sphere, contemporary music, and soon. If one of the problems is callingsin sickness, then nothing short of areturn to the language and intent ofthe Bible will rectify the problem.Sinful people need to repent andfollow God’s prescribed plan ratherthan relying on a prescription for amedication to treat their feelings.

The point of Christianity is thatman sinned and Christ died to recon-cile him before a righteous and holyGod. Christians throughout historyhave been motivated to evangelize bytheir conviction that the Gospel ofJesus Christ is true. It has created inthem a sense of urgency to go tellothers. Paul wrote:

‘‘I am under obligation both toGreeks and to barbarians, both tothe wise and to the foolish. Thus,for my part, I am eager to preachthe gospel to you also who are inRome’’ (Romans 1:14-15, NAS).

And:

‘‘For the love of Christ controlsus, having concluded this, thatone died for all, therefore alldied; and He died for all, thatthey who live should no longerlive for themselves, but for Himwho died and rose again on theirbehalf’’ (2 Corinthians 5:14-15,NAS).

It was the love of Christ in Paul,combined with the conviction thatwhat Christ did was complete andnecessary for the redemption of allmen, that produced the urgency moti-vating him to ministry.

How do we begin the task ofcommunicating the Gospel to a soci-ety believing sin is sickness? Tellthem the big story. Begin with thecreation and the first man andwoman. Explain the first act of rebel-lion toward God and the curse thatGod placed on mankind as a result.Continue through the Old Testamentwith Cain, Abel, Abraham, Isaac, Ja-cob, David, and so on. Step by step,establish in them a biblical worldviewwith the intent to introduce them toJesus Christ. Effective evangelism hasalways been accomplished using key


see going on around me and holding back mydisgust for those that I feel are responsible for thelies that my people so easily accept as truth. I seedrug dealers, gang members and other criminalskilling and being killed all the time with no sign offear from these individuals. But we Christians thatare promised life everlasting seem to stand back andlet things get out of control because of our fear andbecause of the Judeo-Christian preachers and thegovernment constantly telling us that these prob-lems will be taken care of. But they never are. Myhateful thoughts toward my enemies sometimesconsume my logic. But I am always mindful of themistake and great wrong it would be to take anykind of action out of hate or ignorance. As amessenger of Yahweh I am always praying thatwhat I have expressed to my people will make themthirst for more knowledge. And that what I havetold them will never escape their minds. As aChristian I don’t need to see what will take place inthe future because Yahweh has told me what willhappen, therefore I know it will be. But knowingwhat the future holds doesn’t make it any easierliving in the present. So, when I’m asked, don’t youget depressed or do you ever feel like giving up, myanswer is ‘yes.’ But it is my faith that sustains meand I start out every morning with the thought thatevery new day means one more day of Satan’s rulebehind me and one day closer to the second coming

of Christ. My wife also reads Psalm 91 everymorning, which I suggest that everyone should readfor spiritual fortification.’’

On some level the words are challenging and wouldresonate with most Christians. The deception, however,is not the words, but the real interpretation given by thespeaker. The one who spoke these words is Charles Lee,Grand Dragon, White Camelia Knights of the Ku KluxKlan. The quote is from Soldiers of God by HowardBushart, John Craig, and Myra Barnes (pp. 171-172).

On the basis of Lee’s words alone, most anyone wouldconsider the speaker a dedicated Christian. However, adiscernment ministry would pick up on all the baggagethat so denies Christ as to nullify Lee’s testimony. Itwould know about the ‘‘seed line’’ theory that gives thewhite supremacist the liberty to persecute Blacks andJews. Remember: The Pharisees were fundamental andbelieved the Old Testament. However, the traditions theyadded made their religious system void in the eyes ofGod (Matthew 15:8-9). Whatever they had right wasnullified by their endless traditions and additions. Areligion may offer the name Christ and even have acorrect Christology, but then offer a plan for salvation byworks. A proper Christology does one no good if Christis put out of reach by a defective doctrine of salvation.One correct doctrine is not enough if another totallyignores the pattern of the Apostles’ teachings (Acts 2:42,2 Timothy 1:13).

The above is almost a no-brainer, but there are othersless obvious and more deceptive. The Word Faithmovement may superficially speak of Christ, but their

EDITORIALS(continued from page 2)

passages and verses that deal withsin, grace, and faith. The point isfound in the death and resurrection ofJesus Christ. It does not matterwhether one is preaching or teachingfrom the Law, the prophets, the his-torical books, the wisdom literature,the Gospels, or the Epistles, they allpoint to the Lord Jesus Christ, whodied for our sins.

The landscape of evangelicalism to-day is very disturbing. Christianshave jettisoned their commitment toGod’s sufficient Word. A psychologi-cal Tower of Babel has been erected.Biblical definitions and categorieshave changed and a new vocabularyhas emerged within the Church. Be-haviors and attitudes once regardedas sinful have undergone a dramaticchange. They have been reappraised.Sin is called sickness. Confessing sin

has been replaced with recoveringfrom sickness. The word ‘‘sin’’ hasnearly disappeared from our vocabu-lary. As such, the impact of theGospel to a non-believer is less pro-nounced and the need for progressivesanctification in the believer is mini-mized. Nevertheless, there is, in theback of our minds, the fact that sin isstill with us — somewhere, every-where. It is a vaguely uneasy feeling.Although we try to make ourselvesfeel better by calling sin by anothername, it is always there. It never fullygoes away.

Endnotes:1. E. Fuller Torrey, M.D., The Death ofPsychiatry. Radnor, Pa.: Chilton Book Co.,1974, pg. 24.2. Garth Wood, The Myth of Neurosis:Overcoming the Illness Excuse. New York:Harper & Row Publishers, 1986, pg. 1.

3. A.H. Marckwardt, F.G. Cassidy, and J.B.McMillan (eds.), Webster ComprehensiveDictionary International Edition. Chicago:J.G. Ferguson Publishing Company, 1992,Vol. 1, “disease,” pg. 365.4. Thomas Szasz quoted in Janet Vice,From Patients to Persons. New York: PeterLang Publishing, 1992, pg. 14.5. Ibid., italics in original.6. Throughout the New Testament thestarting point when declaring the Gospelis the wrath of God. For example, the firstpoint John the Baptist made to the peoplewho came to hear him was they shouldrepent of their sins and ‘‘flee from thewrath to come’’ (Matthew 3:7). Peter, onthe Day of Pentecost, preached concerningmen’s relationship to God. The sermonwould affect them in such a way that theycried out, ‘‘Brethren, what shall we do?’’(Acts 2:37). Paul’s sermons throughout thebook of Acts emphasize man’s relation-ship to God and the judgment that willcome because of sin. (See, for example,chapters 13, 14, 17, and 20.)


WHO IS THIS NEW POPE?On April 19, 2005, German Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger

was elected Pope of the Roman Catholic Church. In hisopening statement, he acknowledged his need for helpfrom Jesus, Mary, and the Saints.

Meyer’s organization indicates that the homes wereoriginally purchased as investments for the ministry.‘‘The increase in property values makes it hard not tosell,’’ Sutherland told the Post-Dispatch.

In a report last April, the Post-Dispatch revealed thatthe ‘‘ministry’s board of trustees, which is led by JoyceMeyer, agreed to pay her a $900,000 annual salary in2002 and 2003. The board agreed to give her husband,Dave Meyer, the board’s vice president, an annual salaryof $450,000 in each of those same two years.’’

As a result of the newspaper’s 2003 reports, Meyer,beginning in 2004, reduced her salary to $250,000, butstill receives additional perks, including a ‘‘portion of the$3 million a year in royalties earned from books andtapes.’’ Weeks after the Post-Dispatch’s initial reportsdivulged her expensive lifestyle, the televangelist toldlisteners at a local St. Louis-area conference that the newsarticles were a ‘‘satanic plot.’’

—MKG

Christology of a born-again Jesus who suffered in hell,denies the Christ of the Bible and is rank heresy. UsingChristian words and defining them in non-Christianways is the essence of deception and cultism.

There are many reasons we need organizations such asPFO. We need to help one another spot deception. Weneed to help one another be more discerning overall.

Pray for PFO — support it with your prayers and gifts.It is a ministry that is desperately needed as the darknessand deception deepens. There are men who want to bethought of as evangelical who sit on the boards of organ-izations of New Age gurus, and who endorse New Ageteachers and a Catholic contemplative web site. Someoneneeds to sound the alarm on the fence-straddling.

‘‘Now I urge you, brethren, note those who causedivisions and offenses, contrary to the doctrinewhich you have learned, and avoid them. For thosewho are such do not serve our Lord Jesus Christ,but their own belly, and by smooth words andflattering speech deceive the hearts of the simple’’(Romans 16:17-18, NKJV).

—GRF

NEWS UPDATES(continued from page 3)

The new pontiff is certainly well known in the Vatican,but not to the general public. Ratzinger, the oldest of thecandidates at 78, became a Cardinal in 1977 and wasappointed guardian of the church’s doctrinal orthodoxyin 1981. He is an old-line Catholic and was a trustedfriend of former Pope John Paul II. John Paul was thevelvet glove, but Ratzinger was the clenched fist inside.He was one of the key men John Paul relied on to silencedissident theologians and reiterate church teaching.There is a reason he is referred to as the Vatican’senforcer and was responsible for the excommunication ofdissidents.

In electing Ratzinger, the College of Cardinals hassignaled to Catholics worldwide that it is business asusual. The new Pope is definitely conservative and atraditionalist. News reports speak of Ratzinger’s inflex-ible reputation. One of the major issues, celibate clergy,will continue to be practiced and debated. Ratzinger hasalways been a tough opponent of practicing homosexualsand the ordination of women. Women’s rights probablywill not be high on his agenda, either. He holds all thedogmas and traditions of Rome with deep committment.

Ratzinger has selected the name Pope Benedict XVl.Benedict XV was the Pope of the First World War,reigning from 1914-1922. He is best known for canoniz-ing Joan of Arc as a Saint. He spoke unrealistically ofglobal peace and reconcilation between nations, but wasmarginalized and ignored by the world powers at thetime. The powers of that day saw him as a nothing but aprovincial potentate. Perhaps Ratzinger wishes to signalthe world that he is a man of peace and for peace amongall nations. Perhaps he wishes to give his papacy an auraof global concern. Perhaps he can be the new Benedictthat the world will heed. The choice of the name iscertainly not arbitrary. It is all about image.

Already, conservatives and liberals within Catholicismare taking sides. Ratzinger most likely will have a stormyand controversial papacy with little internal change forsome years. There is little chance that anything in Romewill tilt back toward Scripture. Ratzinger undoubtedlywill tenaciously uphold dogma, tradtion, and papalinfallibility. Publicly, Ratzinger will speak of Christiansuniting, but in Ratzinger’s mind Christian unity involvesall coming under the papal banner.

As Ratzinger reaffirms Catholic traditions, Bible-believ-ing Christians could benefit. The cafeteria theology ofAmerican Catholics confuses and misleads even them. Asthe differences between Roman Catholicism and ortho-dox Christianity become clearer, witnessing could be-come easier. If Ratzinger makes Catholicism more likepre-Vatican II Catholicism — which he would like to —it surely will prompt more Catholics to questioning theirbeliefs and perhaps make them more receptive to Biblewitness.

—GRF

Editor’s Note: The publications featured in PFO’s Books in Review section are available from Personal Freedom Outreach (P.O. Box 26062, SaintLouis, Missouri 63136). Please add $2.00 to the price listed for shipping and handling. Due to occasional price changes by the publishers, theretail amounts listed are subject to change without notice. These publications are also available to those who help to financially support the workof PFO. Please see our funds appeal flyer for details.

RUNNING AGAINSTTHE WINDby Brian Flynn

Lighthouse Trails Publishing, 206 pages, $12.95

This book’s Foreword calls it ‘‘a personal and transpar-ent account of God’s sovereign grace, delivering a manwho had given himself over to the demonic world of theoccult. After Brian became a born-again Christian, muchto his shock and dismay, he found within the evangelicalchurch the very practices that had characterized his lifein the New Age.’’

Flynn summarizes astrology, Ouija boards, channeling,auras, Transcendental Meditation (TM), reincarnation,monism, yoga, human potential movement, visualization,guided imagery, Reiki (therapeutic touch), witchcraft,goddess worship, crystal healing, Shamanism, labyrinths,contemplative prayer, the emerging church movement,Neale Donald Walsch (Conversations With God), RichardFoster (Celebration of Discipline), Marianne Williamson (ACourse in Miracles), Brennan Manning (The RagamuffinGospel), Thomas Merton, and Tilden Edwards. An indexprovides for quick information retrieval and a briefglossary offers definitions of a few key terms.

Flynn tells how he acquired his spirit guides. Theaccount may seem strange to those unfamiliar orunaware of this practice, but a former astrologer-turned-Christian confirmed its accuracy. She said Flynn’sexperience was similar to hers and standard procedurefor many who attempt to ‘‘pick up’’ spirit guides. Theorigin of this mechanism is widely debated. Some argueit is the product of the human imagination. Others say itis fully demonic. Others see it as a combination of both.It certainly is a real experience to the recipient and usedby Satan to further the kingdom of darkness.

The only negative aspect of the book is that the authorcould have spared readers some detail about someaspects of his former sinful lifestyle.

Also a small correction which needs to be made infuture printings is where contemporary medium andbest-selling author John Edward (of Crossing Over fame)is identified as John Edwards (pg. 115).

Flynn explains the difference between healthy imagina-tion and visualization and guided imagery. The occultform of visualization employs mental pictures of desiredoutcomes in an attempt to bring them into existence andthereby play God. This New Age technique attempts tochange or create reality and manipulate outcomes. It goesfar beyond healthy imagination.

In the chapter titled, ‘‘A Trojan Horse in the Church,’’Flynn targets the contemplative prayer movement, adangerous mystical practice which has gained wideacceptance within even the mainstream of the Church.Flynn warns, ‘‘The similarities between TM and contem-plative prayer are quite remarkable. In both disciplinesthe goal is to achieve silence or that sacred space. WithTM the goal is to silence the thoughts so a oneness withthe universe can be achieved. In other words, get closerto God or the universal energy that connects us all. Thegoal of contemplative prayer is also to get closer to God’’(pg. 162, italic in original). Richard Foster’s brand ofmeditation even moves one into the occult practice ofastral projection or out-of-body meditations.

We can hear Flynn’s deep passion and concern in someof the closing words of his book:

‘‘When I see the church changing before my eyesand following practices that I left behind, I can onlydescribe the feelings as one of deep betrayal. Someof the very Christians who helped me to see mywretched evilness and need for God, who taught methat these New Age Eastern practices were ananathema to God’s teachings, have now opened thedoor and let the world’s ideas breeze in unopposed!How can this be? These are my brothers and sisters.They should be joining me in my opposition, butthey do not. I cannot merely stand at the churchdoor blocking these currents of change. I will runfull force against them’’ (pg. 188).

As the modern Church continues to lose ground in itsability to discern and as it accepts more false teachingand methods, books like this one need to receive a widehearing. Yet, like the prophets of old, gaining thathearing appears to be an insurmountable task. Flynnstates, ‘‘I would rather be running against the wind offalse doctrine than be swept up in the fleeting emotionsbrought by unbiblical practices’’ (pg. 189). The Churchshould desire more such Bereans who are willing to runagainst the wind.

—GRF

Documents

How the Church Has Allowed Sin to Escape