“Dangerous Influences Have [Definitely] Infiltrated the Evangelical Movement”
Dear Guests of IDOTG:
Recently I read an interesting and telling interview given by Phil Johnson at the *Exiled Preacher blog. I appreciated much of it. I’d like to share and comment on one statement from Brother Johnson. Near the conclusion of the interview he stated,
The portion in bold, in particular, is nearly a mirror image of what Peter Masters wrote in his article, The Merger of Calvinism with Worldliness. Dr. Masters wrote,“The greatest problem I see is the ever-broadening boundary of the evangelical movement and (corresponding to that) the increasingly ambiguous definition of evangelicalism. Evangelicals are too concerned with gaining collective clout and publicity and not concerned enough with being evangelical (being faithful to the gospel). Many of evangelicalism’s most visible and popular leaders and institutions—including evangelicalism’s self-styled “house organ,” Christianity Today magazine—have been tearing down evangelical boundaries instead of guarding them. Consequently, a host of dangerous influences have infiltrated the evangelical movement and people in the pews don’t see the danger, because it’s considered impolite to be critical of a fellow ‘evangelical’.”
I’m wondering when men like Phil Johnson and John MacArthur who “see the danger” are going to openly criticize and biblically resist the propagation of the charismatic sign gifts by their fellow T4G “conservative” evangelicals C. J. Mahaney and John Piper. Dr. MacArthur is going to share the platform at T4G (in April) with both of these men. Will MacArthur confront Piper and Mahaney over their “dangerous influences” or as Masters noted will he, “learn to accept every point of view” to be part of T4G?“The new Calvinism is not a resurgence but an entirely novel formula which strips the doctrine of its historic practice, and unites it with the world…. A final sad spectacle reported with enthusiasm in the book (Hansen’s) is the Together for the Gospel conference, running from 2006. A more adult affair convened by respected Calvinists, this nevertheless brings together cessationists and non-cessationists, traditional and contemporary worship exponents, and while maintaining sound preaching, it conditions all who attend to relax on these controversial matters, and learn to accept every point of view. In other words, the ministry of warning is killed off, so that every -error of the new scene may race ahead unchecked. These are tragic days for authentic spiritual faithfulness, worship and piety.”
Of course the danger of ecumenism has infiltrated the evangelical community and NT church with Al Mohler and Ligon Duncan signing the Manhattan Declaration. This is another of the “dangerous influences [that] have infiltrated the evangelical movement and people in the pews….”
John MacArthur, however, is this very week at his Shepherd’s Conference honoring Dr. Al Mohler by giving him a keynote speakers’ role. This is a strange honorarium for a man who is “tearing down the boundaries” and has become a conduit for the “dangerous influences [that] have infiltrated the evangelical movement and people in the pews…”
Finally, how many (Fundamentalist) pastors who claim allegiance to the God-given mandates for biblical separatism, that forbid fellowship or cooperation with “enemies of the cross of Christ” (2 Cor. 6:14; Eph. 5:11; Phil. 3:18) or those disobedient brethren who give them Christian recognition will be attending T4G, Desiring God and/or Shepherd’s? Who among those who claim a heritage of biblical separatism are going to place themselves, and those under their oversight, at the feet of men (Mohler, Duncan, Piper, Mahaney, Driscoll, et. al.) who are bringing “dangerous influences” into the NT church?
We are discussing the propagation of Charismatic theology and/or ecumenical compromise. These are no mere, “matters of judgment” that some men might suggest. What these erring brethren believe and practice in these examples are “matters of fundamental doctrine.”
To fellowship with, to sit under the conference teaching/preaching ministry of men who have compromised the Gospel is a form of “pro-separatism” that is neither biblical nor part of any historic, balanced Fundamentalist heritage.
LM
*Exiled Preacher, Blogging in the Name of the Lord: Phil Johnson
(Thanks to Rachel, of the KnetKnight clan, for providing this link)
Editor’s Note:
After initial publication of this article I’ve expanded the quote from Phil’s interview to provide a fuller context.
In the interest of even more clarity, I will post the whole question and the whole comment:
ReplyDeleteGD: What is the biggest problem facing evangelicalism today and how should we respond?
PJ: The greatest problem I see is the ever-broadening boundary of the evangelical movement and (corresponding to that) the increasingly ambiguous definition of evangelicalism. Evangelicals are too concerned with gaining collective clout and publicity and not concerned enough with being evangelical (being faithful to the gospel). Many of evangelicalism’s most visible and popular leaders and institutions—including evangelicalism’s self-styled “house organ,” Christianity Today magazine—have been tearing down evangelical boundaries instead of guarding them. Consequently, a host of dangerous influences have infiltrated the evangelical movement and people in the pews don’t see the danger, because it’s considered impolite to be critical of a fellow “evangelical.” In an era where everyone from Benny Hinn to Brian McLaren wears the evangelical label, it is sheer folly to be so blithely accepting of everything and everyone who claims to be evangelical. That attitude has already ruined the evangelical testimony and done much to render the evangelical movement spiritually impotent.
How should we respond? We need to recover our love of the truth, our courage in standing for it, and our will to defend it.
Are the CEs starting to see the problem with their approach to unity? Maybe, maybe not. They are seeing a problem, but maybe not the source. Should we applaud or attack the statements made by Phil Johnson? I think applaud. Should we applaud or attack actions made by Al Mohler re: MD et. al. I say attack (in the most gracious and loving manner of Paul to Peter recorded in Galatians) when the Gospel truth is at stake, but misguided accusations should never be used for the purposes of purity. We must gaurd against violation of the truth we claim to seek to preserve (2 Timothy 2:14-26)
For His glory,
Christian Markle
Christian:
ReplyDeleteThanks for these thoughts as you have expressed them. I appreciate your sentiments.
You wrote, “Are the CEs starting to see the problem with their approach to unity? Maybe, maybe not. They are seeing a problem, but maybe not the source.”
The situation as I see it is very clear: The problem is obvious and so is the source of the problem. The source is- willful disobedience to the Scriptures.
The ce camp has a decades long track record of disregarding the biblical commands for separation from unbelievers and from disobedient brethren. Furthermore, I see nothing from the “conservative” evangelicals that indicates any movement toward fidelity to the biblical mandates for separatism. Do you have any examples from among them that would cause me to rethink this?
In fact many of the high profile “conservative” evangelicals are moving further away from the Scriptures on this matter. Al Mohler and Ligon Duncan signing the Manhattan Declaration is irrefutable proof of this lurch away from the Scriptures and toward the “new” New Evangelicalism.
Furthermore, we have men in Fundamentalism, who claim to be separatists, but who are barely able to so much as openly admonish the ce men over any of their doctrinal aberrations, ecumenism, non-cessationism, hobnobbing with enemies of the cross of Christ (Phil. 3:18) or their worldly methods of ministry. There is the occasional faint whisper here and there, but it is rare and typically muted.
Christian, I believe separation from believers who are disobedient is a loving response to their disobedience. Some of our IFB men, however, have abandoned this principle. They seem to prefer fellowship at the expense of ignoring what the Bible calls for when we encounter the disobedient among us.
And to reiterate the ce men are not only rejecting correction from within their own camp, when as it seldom does come, they are also wholly unrepentant. And the men like Phil Johnson and JMac continue to fellowship with and honor ecumenicists and Charismatics in their own fellowship as if nothing at all is amiss. Their concerns such as Phil expressed them can, therefore, hardly be taken seriously.
Too bad that some of our self-professed Fundamentalist, separatists are becoming just as desensitized to what is happening in the NT church as the ce men have already become.
Thanks again,
LM