The Internet Monk Interview: John Hendryx
First in a series of interviews with Christians you need to know
by
Michael Spencer and John Hendryx
I'm going to start
publishing some
extended interviews with people I think have a point of view worth
hearing. Hopefully, you'll enjoy the format, because I am going to try
and ask good questions!
John Hendryx
is the
creator and editor of
Monergism.com, one of the finest reformed
theology sites on the internet. John is a brilliant guy, a first class
debater, and not your usual knuckle-headed, stick-in-the-mud Calvinist.
(The kind that prompted me to write "I Hate
Theology.") John's
presentation of historic reformed theology, and his application of it
in contemporary evangelicalism, is characterized by excellence and
kindness, two qualities missing in a lot of theologians. His emphasis
on "monergism" as a theologically unifying principle has enabled a lot
of us to affirm a common theological home, even when we disagree on
just about everything else! I've let him explain this in detail,
because I think it's very helpful.
I especially appreciate John's
dedication to Monregism.com.
I cannot think of a better
theological site anywhere. He is making a contribution through his
diligent collecting of material, and in his own writing about
evangelical theology. If you want exhaustive, subject driven internet
resources on Biblical and Reformed theology, monergism is a one-stop
library.
I asked John for a biographical
introduction, and then I asked questions about his ministry, his take
on
reformed theology and the state of the church. (The original interview,
unedited, is available by writing me)
BIOGRAPHY:
The LORD often works in ways that you
wouldn't expect. Apparently, without consulting me, He determined
that I was to be conceived during Chinese New Year in early 1966 at a
Grateful Dead concert in San Francisco's Longshoremen's Hall. I was
placed up for adoption from my birth mother in that city later that
same year and went home with my new mom and dad to LA, where I grew up.
As I look at it, that story of my adoption is a microcosm of the
way God worked to bring me to Himself spiritually.
As an only child in a broken home in West L.A,
I was steeped in the existentialism of my father and the humanism of my
mother. There was no exposure to Christianity in any way shape or form
for me. The only "church" I ever set foot in growing up was when my
mother would, on occasion, take me to the Unitarian Universalist Church
just off Wilshire Blvd. in Santa Monica, but now that I look back on
it,
I recall it was more like a DNC meeting than anything resembling
historic Christianity.
I rebelled as a teenager and slipped into some
extreme forms of juvenile delinquency. I passed through high
school
with no small amount of drugs and felony criminal activity, for which I
was arrested; By God's mercy I was not locked up and even was given the
opportunity to attend the University of Colorado, Boulder. There I
became deeply involved in Eastern Mysticism, Tantric Buddhism and the
New Age. I took it so seriously that I accumulated a library of
metaphysical books, a vast array of incense and practiced two hours of
meditation/chanting every morning. Jesus, in my view, was just another
poor soul who finally balanced his karma and transcended the cycle of
re-birth. We would ascend eventually, just as he did.
Since such a belief was open to the
Hebrew/Christian Scriptures just as any others, the LORD impressed upon
me two texts that finally pierced my soul. The LORD illumined the
text of Deuteronomy 18 and Romans 9:16 and opened my spiritual
understanding and eyes of faith in Jesus. The turn away from the
occult was both instantaneous and profound.
A year later I went to China, grew very
attached to it, and ended up living there for ten years. I now speak
fluent Mandarin and have a deep affection for the Chinese people.I met
my wife there in a house church. I worked at the US Embassy and
started a wildly successful Chinese Internet company. I came back to
the
US in late 1999, worked in Silicon Valley, the NASDAQ crashed, and all
the cushy jobs evaporated; started Monergism.com and moved to Oregon
where we live today. I still do Web graphic user interface design
for a living and do seminary at RTS via distance education while I
work. This December I will have been a Christian for 20 years.
1. How did you
begin the
Monergism.com web site? What is your vision for the site?
The LORD began to noticeably work in my heart
around the year 2000 that I should use my skills in building websites
to further the gospel. Not only had He originally implanted
the desire to learn HTML, but in enabling me to see the vast
ruins of the Church in our age also gave me recognition that perhaps
the
greatest challenge of evangelism today is not just unreached people
groups, but the re-evangelization of the Church itself.
When I was on a business trip to China in 2000 I began to realize that there were only a few places on the Internet where you could find sound doctrine in a single place. Unfortunately 90% of the theology out there on the net was, and still is, a cause for serious alarm. So the LORD seemed to be pursuing me to create a theological library pointing to Christ-centered, doctrinally sound essays on just about any text or doctrinal topic imaginable. And what may seem to be counter-intuitive to some, I personally have found that the more I deeply study systematic and biblical theology, the more wonder I have of the God we serve. The more He causes me to learn, the more I recognize how little I know, and so theology has become a devotional activity for me; a discipline that places me in a position of more deeply considering the beauty and perfections of God. While theology provides a framework there are always boundless nuances to explore and ruminate over. If we come to a dead end when studying theology then perhaps we have not correctly apprehended or made use of it.
My vision for Monergism.com is to continue to
equip the Church so teachers and laymen will embrace, and recover the
true Biblical doctrines of the historic faith and be ever reforming our
thoughts about God in a way that is God-honoring & consistent with
the Word of God. I pray its content profoundly impacts the
thinking, direction and devotion of the church of this age.
2. How would
you describe
yourself theologically and denominationally? Explain the significance
of the term "monergism" in your on-line debates and discussions.
Theologically our Lord has led me in the direction of what is called Affectional or Affective Theology. If this term is unfamiliar to you, consider the following: people usually deny God, not because they lack evidence, but because their hearts are rebellious. So the unbelievers' problem is moral/ethical first, and then intellectual. Thus he/she requires a supernatural work of God to understand and apprehend spiritual truth as revealed in Scripture. Those who know facts, therefore, are not the same as those who forsake sin, repent of trusting in their good works, and come to love and trust in Christ. We must, therefore, appeal to the entire person and not merely their intellect.
God is hidden from man because he loves sin and remains in hostile rebellion against God. This antagonism for the gospel is seated in the affections, and is not because we lack data or are not smart enough. So we appeal to the heart of those bound in unbelief (and believers blinded by error) because God is not to be understood as a mechanical precept or an axiom as found in mathematics. To come to faith in Christ one must first have a desire for Christ and spiritual things; we must perceive and take delight in His unmatched beauty and unsurpassed excellency.
But to perceive, we must have the spiritual
faculties to perceive to begin with. Then and only then can we desire
to believe, because to know and understand Him (an impossible
supposition for the unregenerate) is to love Him. Faith will never
"just happen' out of thin air, but actually requires that we desire
Him,
for we only choose that which we most desire. But to be sure, the
Scriptures teach that these holy affections are not produced by our
unregenerate human nature (Rom 8:7; 1 Cor 2:14). And since the root of
faith cannot be indifferent or neutral, a full-orbed gospel is not
merely a list of impersonal propositions for our intellectual assent,
but it is proclaiming the full person of Christ in His love for sinners
shown in His life, death and resurrection. Words are not enough,
however, to persuade those bent on rebellion, because spiritual
knowledge, which is relational, requires a new sense of God's
unsurpassed excellence ... and only the regenerate possesses this.
Paul, when speaking to the Thessalonians makes this clear when he says,
"...for our gospel did not come to you in word only, but also in power
and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction..." (1 Thess 1:5).
This passage shows that God uses means (preaching), but the word
is not enough: the Holy Spirit must come, open and illumine our
understanding, that we might believe with full conviction. Even when
giving the disciples the great commission Luke reads, "Then He opened
their minds to understand the Scriptures" (Lk 24:45). In other
words, we do not understand the spiritual in the Scripture until Christ
opens our minds to it.
I am an Amillennial, Covenantal, five-point Calvinist. Denominationally I am a member of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) and hold strongly to what is taught in the historical Christian creeds from the Apostles Creed through the Counsel of Orange, which is even more fully expressed in the Westminster Confession of Faith. But I also admire and believe we can learn from many other historic traditions.
Why Monergism.com?
I called the Website
monergism.com because
I wanted to focus in on the critical nature of this lost concept in our
day and age. Since many evangelicals, unfortunately, have fallen
away from the Biblical/Reformation teaching on this issue, I wish to
emphasize the beauty and practical importance of understanding it.
The significance of the term monergism is
related specifically to regeneration (or
the new birth). It simply means that unspiritual, unregenerate
persons intrinsically hate (with their affections) the light so will
not come into it (John 3:19). Man will not even cooperate with
God's grace but needs a new sense, a new understanding, in short, he
needs to be born again, given new eyes to see, circumcised ears to
hear, if he would even desire to believe. Monergism means that
regeneration does not come about as the result of something we do but
something God alone sovereignly grants to those He came to save for His
own glorious purposes. It is a redemptive blessing of Christ
purchased for His people (Eph 1:3, John 6:39; 1 Pet 1:3). And it
usually comes about through the preaching of the gospel. The word of
God is the means
the Spirit uses to
germinate new life
within. We outwardly call all men everywhere to repentance but
only those who receive the inward call of God will respond (Acts 13:48,
16:14; 1 Cor 1:23, 24; Rom 8:30).
3. The
resurgence of
Reformed theology in the last twenty years has been fueled by
reprinting older writers at a time when Christian publishers are
putting out more and more new writers. How do you account for the
popularity of writers like Spurgeon, Edwards and the Puritans?
The grace of God is the only explanation I
have. Thirty years ago there were probably only a handful of
naval-gazing Presbyterians left who still held to Calvinism and
Reformed theology. The 20th century was indeed a triumph for
Synergism
(semi-pelagianism, Arminianism and dispensationalism) but now it
appears, like rivulets forming into a great river, there is somewhat
the beginnings of a revival in biblical Calvinism. Why? Because
we all must admit that much of the evangelicalism of the last century
was really an empty shell. Abandoning Reformed theology has, in my
opinion, led to the current sad state of affairs. The pillars of the
faith that you mention made their impacts because of their
God-centeredness, not because they used marketing programs or
psychological manipulation. Will the current market-driven
synergistic theologies leave a lasting spiritual heritage as the
aforementioned did? I doubt it.
4. Those
Calvinists who are not mainline and
denominationally Reformed Christians are often critical of the Reformed
Confessions on the Sacraments and Church government. What is your
opinion of the relationship between "non-Reformed" Calvinists and the
traditionally Reformed denominations?
First of all let me take your question even
further. Many evangelicals (mostly dispensationalists) who call
themselves Calvinists also (inconsistently) tend to reject monergistic
regeneration and definite atonement. It is often the case that such
persons, who call themselves Calvinists, would probably more aptly fall
under what is known as Amyraldianism. When
dispensationalists departed from
traditional Calvinism more than a century ago, they also made some of
their own soteriological innovations, even though there is still a
Calvinistic bent to some of what they teach. With due respect
to my dispensational
brethren, much of their soteriology tends to be filled with
self-contradictions and confusion. I like theological tension and
believe we can hold some things that may seem at odds at first glance,
but when more deeply investigated the tension makes sense. But some
dispensational positions go way beyond this: The tension actually
becomes a contradiction and this is cause for some alarm. Even pure
Arminians may be wrong in several areas, but at least are largely
consistent within their belief system.
The rejection of the Reformed Confessions on the
Sacraments and Church government can probably often be ascribed to
their dispensational, non-covenantal theological views as well as our
American, consumerist and autonomous tendencies. People have largely
reacted against such things, in my view, because they associate it with
the liberalism in many of our mainline denominations. But the
Reformed doctrine of sacraments have personally created a worship
experience at my local church that is more meaningful than I had ever
experienced in a more open style worship. I would not have believed it
myself, but now that I go to a more liturgical community where we
confess our sins and pray together I don't think I could ever go back.
A sense of community is maintained that we don't often get at the
mega-church. But having spent most of my previous life as a Christian
in China, I had never been to a liturgical confessing church until just
a few years ago. The churches I knew were all house churches.
I believe the Reformed Confessions on the
Sacraments and Church government are biblically based and have left the
Church with a rich theological heritage. Many evangelicals are surely
missing out on the beauty of liturgical worship, but I can only use
what persuasion I have to convince people to set aside their
presuppositions about it. I currently have more important things
to do than to be dogmatic about it to those who prefer a less formal
worship. My greater concern is first to point us back to a more
biblical understanding of Sola Gratia, Solus Christus. Perhaps
the rest will follow in time.
5. Who do you
feel is
writing significant and important books today? What books by
contemporary writers are you reading?
Dave Hunt, Rick Warren, Bruce Wilkinson,
Chuck Smith Jr., Tim LaHaye & Benny Hinn - oh sorry I jumped ahead
to question #16 :-)
D.A. Carson, R.C. Sproul, John Piper, John
Frame, N.T Wright, Greg L. Bahnsen (on apologetics), Robert Reymond, J.
I. Packer, Tim Keller, Paul Barnett, Gene Edward Veith, Anthony
Hoekema, Iain Murray, Kim Riddlebarger, Michael Horton, George Eldon
Ladd.
Just finished
reading: Why
the Rest Hates the
West : Meic Pearse; New Flesh, New Earth :
Andrew Sandlin;
Gospel Code :
Ben
Witherington, III; Commentaries on Matt,
Mark and Luke by N.T. Wright; Understanding
Dispensationalists : Vern Poythress;
Resurrection of the Son of God:
N. T. Wright.
6. What is your
philosophy
in debating non-Calvinistic Christians? What is the purpose, and what
is your method?
It has become increasingly clear to me that
people do not necessarily respond positively to airtight arguments.
Again, the problem, even among Christians, is often moral/ethical and
not
only intellectual. We hold on to our various positions due to pride and
faulty presuppositions and need to let go of some of our erroneous
traditions. Therefore I am convinced that about 90% of persuading
a person is subjective and must be accomplished presuppositionally
using the Scripture. 1 Peter 3:15 makes it clear that while
Christ and the Scripture are our greatest presupposition, our positions
should be discussed with the utmost gentleness and respect both toward
unbelievers and brothers who may differ over secondary issues.
And admittedly I do not always live up to this standard.
But at least I have it as an ideal.
My greater purpose in these debates online is
not always so much to turn the person I am debating with -for usually
they have their heels pretty well dug in- but rather for the interest
of the many
visitors who are still exploring and open, or even for those living in
doctrinal confusion and are really unsure what to believe. Those
who are open and willing to learn new things have the best chance of
eventually finding sound doctrine.
7. How much
cooperation
can there be between Calvinists and strongly Arminian evangelicals?
I have worked side-by side with them overseas
in missionary activity for years. It can be done. These are our
brothers and sisters. Some Calvinists who don't think so need to get
out more.
8. My own
interaction with
young Calvinists has made me less enthusiastic for Reformed
Christianity. In my essay "I Hate Theology"
I catalog some of the
negative by-products of what often amounts to an obsession with
theological minutae at the expense of kindness and charity. Am I off
base?
No, I think you are right on the mark,
Michael. I have had my share of battles with many of the type of people
you are describing. However, perhaps you should try to
distinguish those persons who consider themselves "Truly Reformed" from
the average Reformed believer. There are vocal groups out there
that have an "I
am more Reformed than anyone else"
type attitude, but I would argue that such persons constitute a
minority in Reformed circles. Their activism and vocal nature has
made them appear more influential than they are, and many of these
groups also have prolific writers. While I will not mention them
by name I find their arrogance equally as repulsive as you do, Michael,
especially since they claim to represent my brand of theology.
But the existence of such groups, I believe, should not
discourage you from the biblical clarity and rich heritage that
Reformed Theology has brought to the Church. God has truly blessed the
Church with such preachers and theologians as Augustine, John Calvin,
Peter Martyr Vermigli, John Owen, Jonathan Edwards, C.H. Spurgeon,
Herman Witsius,
Thomas Watson, Martyn
Lloyd-Jones, Richard Sibbes and J.C. Ryle. It would be a truly
tragic event if the existence of the "Truly Reformed" troublemakers
would turn people aside from such theological treasure that the Holy
Spirit has given the church.
9. I have a
Lutheran
friend who is very resentful of the way Calvinists portray themselves
as those who best represent the Reformation. Where do Lutherans fit
into the contemporary Reformed community?
I spend so much time trying to reach ordinary
evangelicals and Pentecostals with my ministry that, frankly, Lutherans
have not really been on my radar screen. This is not out of any feeling
one way or another toward them, because admittedly, I haven't known
many committed Lutherans, until very recently. I do very much
appreciate the great wealth of doctrine that Lutherans have contributed
to the Reformation. From Luther's Bondage of the Will to the Law
- Grace distinction, to the theology of glory and theology of the
cross. These are issues that I am just about in full agreement
with Lutherans. But we also have serious disagreements, like the
teaching on the sacraments, monergistic regeneration (prior to faith),
effectual grace (which modern Lutherans reject). Our local PCA
church has close cooperation with a Missouri Synod Lutheran Church and
we get along just fine.
10. What is
your opinion
of the evangelical interest in politics and the identification of many
Christians with the Republican party?
While I believe we should be engaged in our
civic duty to vote and be engaged, it appears to me that many
evangelicals have gone beyond the call of duty and have bought into
dominion theology. Some of us seem to hold the false belief that
if we just changed the laws and made the US political system based on
the Bible then all would be well while not considering the changing of
hearts. My response to this is that the problem is not just OUT
THERE, it is with us. If we lived like we believed the gospel
ourselves, then God would use us to change the culture. While I
can
agree that civil law can be used to restrain evil, we often
bludgeon our secular opponents with it as if they could somehow be
saved through obedience to it. I believe the first table of the
law cannot be legislated. Persons must be persuaded into the
Kingdom by human instruments casting seed with the Spirit germinating
it, so to speak, but not by the sword or by coercive legal
measures.
Contrary to my evangelical and Theonomist brethren, I do
not believe that the civil magistrate has the authority to judge
heresy. A little known historical fact is that the Presbyterian
Church wisely invoked semper reformanda and removed chapter 23(?) on
the Civil Magistrate from the Westminster Confession in the early
1700s. A move for which I am thankful. Instead, we are to take
up our cross and persuade as Jesus did, through meekness, suffering,
joy, helping the poor and loving others above ourselves.
I have no problem with Christians personally
identifying themselves with a party, but I will emphasize that politics
is not the solution to our problems by any stretch of the imagination.
There is entirely too much emphasis placed on it, as if God's plan
could
somehow be thwarted. We should vote and do what we can to eradicate
injustice, poverty and to actively find ways to be involved in mercy
ministries. This might mean entering politics on a local level or just
merely spending time with hurting people. But if the Republicans don't
get elected next term it isn't the end of the world. Maybe a little
discomfort will begin to burn off the dross in our churches. We must
remember that God ordains whatsoever comes to pass. If God wills that
we should live in Babylon, we must serve the it with excellence,
influencing it by being good stewards of the calling God has given each
one of us. Though some may be tempted when things get real bad,
we should never take up arms to further our political agenda.
I have lived in a communist country for 10
years and, I can tell you with certainty, that the gospel is not
chained because of a political system. On the contrary, communism has
been a key factor in raising interest in Christianity in that country
on a massive scale for the first time in their 5000-year history. It
seems that Christians have become so addicted to comfort here that
there is very little awareness of how people are living in the rest of
the world. But we Americans are of very little account in the big
scheme of things.
11. What do you
think
Spurgeon or the Puritans would say about the contemporary Church Growth
movement?
Hasn't there always been a thread of this
kind of teaching throughout Church history? In almost every era
the Church has faced those who erroneously believed that we should
adjust our doctrine to fit the world in order to attract the world. In
the very process of attracting the world, the gospel becomes lost in a
sea of irrelevance. There may be success in numbers but, taking a
lesson from history, Charles Finney wondered at the end of his life why
so many did not persevere in their faith. Psychological manipulation
and entertainment are not means of grace. Instead, God clearly calls
us to faithfully preach the word of God and rightly, and often, deliver
the
sacraments. In what might seem counter-intuitive, He saves people
through the weakness of men and women
in the Church. Thus I
believe Spurgeon and the Puritans would undoubtedly say that the folks
promoting today's market-driven theology were totally delusional and in
serious danger of promoting a false gospel.
Let me make clear that I do not doubt the sincerity of many of the
teachers in these churches. The seeker-friendly, market-driven
fellowships are filled with true Christians. But the sheep will soon go
hungry. If a church does not preach the law and the wrath of God, for
fear of offending someone, then how will anyone realize they need a
savior to begin with? If you're already OK then why are you here?
Unfortunately I think the answer is, "to be entertained".
Therefore, I believe we should be just as vigilant in keeping marketing
and therapeutic self-help techniques out of our churches as we would
Buddhist meditation chants. The later is so overtly religious and
un-Christian that we have no problem keeping it at bay, but marketing
and therapy are as American as hot dogs, so we erroneously integrate
them as useful helps to the gospel. But the gospel doesn't need
our methodology and techniques, does it? God has already shown us the
way, hasn't He? The reason for disinterest in historic Christianity is
not stained glass windows and liturgy, but our unbelief. Replacing one
form of unbelief with another will not help. This fad will pass like
all others.
12. What is
your view of
the "Regulative Principle of Worship?" How do you see it working (or
not working) in churches today?
The Bible should always be our guide in how
we are to worship God. It is, unfortunately, under-utilized in most
churches, but legalistically over-utilized in others. When
striking the proper Scriptural balance, taking into account the whole
counsel of Scripture, this is, perhaps, the most effective and
God-glorifying way to worship and to do true evangelism. Too often our
erroneous American thought-patterns get intermixed with theology and
our worship becomes both consumerist and therapeutic, rather than
God-centered. God has given us ways to honor him, especially in
worship. It is not a time to get overly innovative. Our
problem in attracting unbelievers is because we don't really believe
the gospel ourselves. If we believed it and therefore lived it
out, and made deep friendships with our unbelieving friends, rather
than hiding in our sub-culture and seeing pagans as a project or
target, then there would be profound impact on our culture. A
profound impact. Seeker-friendly churches may draw many persons in the
door, but to what end? If the gospel is not preached then it is
worthless; no, even worse, it is worth less than nothing.
13. Neither
Spurgeon,
Edwards or many of the Puritans were expositional preachers. Yet many
contemporary advocates of preaching- such as Macarthur and Mohler- seem
to be saying that verse by verse exposition is the preferred, even
required, method in an evangelical pulpit. What would be your view?
Expositional preaching, as I see it, has the
unique benefit that we are forced to cover every text of Scripture
rather than only choose topically, which could (potentially) lead to
avoiding some important or controversial text of Scripture. Topical
preaching has the potential to create an unbalanced church which is
always promoting a pet doctrine. Expositional preaching will generally
and most probably lead to a well-rounded theology. For instance, I
would probably leave a church that only preached on
the five points of Calvinism
every week. While there would be great material there it would
not cover the whole counsel of Scripture and thus we would be missing
out on much of what God has to teach us. On the other hand I have
been to churches where the wrath of God was not mentioned once in a
two-year period. Anyone who does not mention God's wrath,
especially for this period of time, is not preaching the God of
Scripture. Many churches would rather be non-controversial and
say, "God is nice" and "Christians are also supposed to be nice." Such
teaching may be pervasive but it does the soul about as much good as
cat vomit. Anytime we begin to speak of God with words like, "I prefer
to think of God like this" then we are on dangerous ground.
14. You've been
a
consistent encourager of my writing, and I appreciate that
encouragement very much. What keeps you going with all the work that
must be part of such a site as Monergism?
What often keeps me going is the constant
increase in traffic and the continual inflow of positive email that
explains how the site has helped people of very diverse traditions and
backgrounds come to a clearer understanding of the grace we have in
Christ. It is frankly amazing how many persons have never really
understood what Christ has accomplished for us as expressed in the
doctrines of grace. As long as the church can make use of it, I would
like to keep the site going, Lord willing. I covet your prayers.
15. What would
you say if
Paul Crouch offered you your own show on TBN?
I am not familiar with Paul Crouch, but I know of TBN. Isn't it that the network with the shallow theology, gold rings, horrific set design and the hairdos? If he would still have me after these comments I suppose I would produce, rather than star in, a show since I am not much of a public speaker. In fact, after I speak publicly I tend to get gastric ulcers because I get too intense. You can pray for me about that.
I would love to see some programming that
taught Christians, in depth, all the various worldviews, with genuine
representatives of each. We need to really understand our neighbors if
we are going to understand and befriend them. It would be good to
include secular beliefs and the study of concepts outside of our own
tradition. Then I wouldn't mind seeing some serious but irenic
theological debate on TV between people of various traditions, as well
as cults. Surely we can come up with Spirit-filled intelligent
Christians who could defend the faith. It might do the church
good and broaden our understanding of what our world is like. Our
ignorance, sometimes, is cause for grief. TV has historically not
been a very good medium for Christianity. Christian TV tends to
cultivate an us-them mentality rather than one of understanding.
Perhaps we need to get a lot more creative before effectively launching
into such things. That means again that we need to be the best we
can be in every area of life including the arts and culture. The
shows produced by Christians today on TV are mostly an embarrassment to
Christianity and should be reconsidered, but it is unfortunate that
enthusiasts and hucksters take in so many unsuspecting Christians that
we, with glassy eyes, send in our checks to support their vast empires.
16. Who do you wish evangelicals would stop reading or listening to?
#1 Church leaders and
teachers who promote synergism and market-driven theology.
#2 It may be healthy to stop
listening to preachers who teach that God is a god who is not in
control of history but, like us, is swept along like us by the tide of
time. This new therapeutic god is really impotent to change things; a
spectator who shape-shifts according to the latest
public-opinion poll. While we should affirm culture and our place in it
we do not worship a God who is shaped by it like a wax nose.
Due to our consumerist
culture, our God is being made more and more like a mediated,
prepackaged commodity that we passively receive like spectators. This
removes us from our communities and our engagement with them. That is
why liturgical worship may ultimately be better for this age, because
it is not about entertainment or therapy and self-love, but about God
and our neighbors. Our new religion is often simply like
something we pay to consume, like a DVD that entertains and
distracts us for a moment. This completely deadens our
participation in other people's lives. We thrive on novelty while we
should be feeding on Christ and encouraging one another. Spirituality
is not about feeling good about yourself.
In other words, I would argue that evangelicals may be guilty of manufacturing a god based on what the masses want, not unlike the bull-god the Israelites made when Moses tarried on the mountain. This is the god of the Nielsen ratings formed by the seething mob in their excitement for the novel. We may create this god in the name of Christ, in order to sanctify it, and make it OK, but it no more looks like Jesus than the latest fad in weight loss or pop-psychology. China overthrew the KMT dictators in 1949 to replace it with the rule of the proletariat. But what really happened is that one dictator was replaced with another and thus the change was only in name. Likewise we are often Christian in name only. We create a god in our own mass-mediated image and usually this is a god who most represents our natural inclinations. We make a god we can understand, who is like us in many ways.
Spiritual success is not to
be judged, therefore, by numbers. If that were the criteria then
the latest blockbuster movie could be used as a standard. Opinions
change overnight, but truth does not change. We don't ask for poll
numbers to determine the truth, as CNN online often does. The
confessions that we hold as truth in understanding Christ are what
actually bind us together as a community. Changing these beliefs are
what will cause our demise and propel us toward a sense of
rootlessness. This, alongside glorifying God, is the
most important reason we should put a high value on theology.
We need to love one another, but in the way God commanded,
not according to our therapeutic pre-misconceptions about what love is.
We have to use discernment. God is not what the unreflective majority determines. He is not meant to be re-cast according to our own pet projects. That is an American god, not the Holy God of Holy Scripture. We must not form a god based on our arbitrary conceptions, but only as God has revealed Himself to us in the Scriptures. By creating god autonomously according to what we want, we often mistakenly fall into the error that we are acceptable to Him by something we do rather than by His grace alone. The Eucharist, particularly, reminds us that our standing before God is in Christ alone. There is nothing He sees on our spiritual resume that recommends us to Him. God saves us and sovereignly determines how we are to worship Him, not the other way around. (When I say worship I am referring to what we do in every action to please God, not merely how we sing to him).
There is indeed room for various cultures to worship God in ways that are unique to that culture. God leaves us room for this multiplicity, but this must be done within the boundaries God has revealed to us in Jesus Christ. We love Him because He loved us first. Likewise we worship Him in ways that please Him because He has first shown us how. As long as we don't see ourselves as broken sinners, then we will boast about something before God and we will undoubtedly think ourselves better in some way than our neighbor who does not believe. Now, are you set apart from unbelievers because of your faith, or because of God's grace? It is by God's grace that you even have faith, lest you boast.
#3 Evangelicals, I believe, would also do well to cast aside teaching and teachers who appear to believe that love is God's only attribute. This kind of tame, sentimental and nice God is, again, not the one we find in Scripture. Modern psychology seems to have been uncritically accepted by evangelicals and it has profoundly influenced our theology for the worse. While the Reformation brought us back to the biblical Trinity, who is sovereign over His creation and needs nothing outside of Himself, the so-called "second great awakening", led by persons such as Charles Finney, left us with an evangelicalism that largely focuses on its benefits for us. This self-focused spirituality is not much different from what I knew in eastern mysticism, since it becomes all about meeting personal spiritual needs. We worship at the idol of self.
When our evangelism begins with "God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life," as found in the CCC tract, I believe we give the wrong impression and are promoting a God that has been taken captive by the culture rather than communicating who He really is and what He requires of us. This god seems to be safe, and perhaps that's why we want to believe Him to be this way, but this is also a god that silences Jesus. This false conception of god comes from both our therapeutic culture and synergistic Arminianism. We seem to have this unending desire to want to contribute something, be it ever so small, to our salvation. This is the seat of the last bastion of pride in ourselves. But salvation is not about our spiritual fulfillment, self-esteem or our incessant narcissism.
No sooner than Luther and
Calvin again revealed the God-centered nature of the Scripture and
helped
clarify the true biblical intent of Christ's grace, there were persons
who
came to muddy the waters. They emphasized what God can do for us, a god
to meet our needs and thus bring us back to the very synergistic error
we were attempting to escape from in medieval Roman Catholicism.
The focus was on the means and not the end (which was God).
Tolerance is the word of the day. If it is arrogant and hateful of missionaries to preach the gospel to an island of people who have never heard it, then it is even more arrogant (since it is hypocritical) for doctors to go and give medicine to those same people who might need it for an incurable disease. The real intolerance is seated in those who demand that we all embrace relativism as a dogma. The Church has abandoned itself to such nonsense and we need to wake up, get out of our stupor and think. This is the greatest stumbling block and danger for the church in our day, not Islam. Do the relativists (postmodern secularists) have a bird's eye view of reality? If not, then why are we letting them establish their philosophy as the religion of the land and even embracing their ideas in the church? Their presuppositions are equally as religious as anyone else's, so they too should be subject to the separation of church and state.
Thanks John. I hope everyone makes Monergism.com a regular part of their study.