These social and cultural changes and this shift within
European Evangelicalism began to take place just as the 'new' theology started
to arrive and wield a greater influence. It has been aggressively promoted and
heavily backed by American money. The effects have been nothing like what is
happening in the United States and frankly seem 'minimal' by comparison.
Mission Eurasia is but one of many such ministries that works
to propagate these ideas.
While the concepts are certainly worthy of criticism and do
not accurately reflect New Testament doctrine or ethics it's hard to wholly
discount the outreach. When one reads such testimonials as this example from
Kyrgyzstan it's difficult to write such persons off. Clearly there are some
positive effects and yet with this agenda comes great concerns.
I continue to try and remain hopeful that Dominionism (practically
speaking) has little traction outside the European or Western context. But
seeds are being planted and these actions warrant the issuance of a warning.
The perpetuators and proponents of the Lausanne movement are
opening doors and exposing these rather vulnerable converts to the Evangelical
Ecumenical movement. The Church is defined as Western Civilisation. D James
Kennedy's well known work, What if Jesus
Had Never Been Born? puts forward this view. For the late Dominionist
pastor, Western Civilisation and all its supposed glories was the manifestation
of God's Kingdom in this age. His revisionist history, lies and whitewashing of
evil has done untold harm to the Church. And though that wolf in sheep's
clothing has been dead almost a decade his legacy lives on.
Since the so-called Christian West is God's Kingdom it is
Secularism that is identified as the great evil. The Lausanne Movement has
worked to bring together Evangelicals, Roman Catholics, Pentecostals and the 'Conservatives'
within the Liberal/Mainline Churches. Increasingly the latter category all but
overlaps with a growing chorus of Evangelicals (or more properly Neo-Evangelicals)
who are inclined toward Barthianism and sometimes theological liberalism... or at least are willing to operate
under its assumptions.
Downplaying doctrine it has opened the door to women
preachers like Anne Graham-Lotz, and has successfully recruited ecumenically
inclined figures like Os Guinness, David Platt and Ravi Zacharias from Conservative
Evangelical circles and even Reformed celebrities such as Tim Keller and John
Piper.
But for this to work the message has to be watered down.
Doctrine cannot be the focus. It will only bring division. The gospel must be
presented in broad and simple terms. It's easier to focus on culture instead.
For so many years Billy Graham was praised because he
preached a simple gospel message. And he was respected because he kept it
plain, pure and didn't stir controversy. He was viewed as unsophisticated but
full of great zeal and worthy of tremendous respect.
Actually Billy Graham is anything but simple and
unsophisticated. His message is simple not because he is incapable of greater
elaboration. It's a basic message because this is in keeping with his
ecumenical bent. Interestingly as his project has attained greater success and
the tent pegs have been widened as it were, the message continued to grow ever
broader and yet increasingly shallow. Eventually he lost it altogether. While
in great error even in the 1950s it can be said that by 1980s or even the 1990s
if one wants to be extra charitable, Graham lost the gospel altogether and
turned his back on it. His statements, though Christ affirming to be sure, lead
to one to seriously question if he's a Christian at all.
If you're of the ecumenical mind you don't dive too deep. The
basis of the Christian relationship is weak and shallow. The profundity of the
relationship is in terms of the cultural war. General principles are agreed
upon but there's no absolute authority and in order to hold the project
together there must be a great deal of leeway.
In addition there is the great push for numbers. In fact they
are critical. A remnant pilgrim Church cannot execute or complete the
Dominionist project. You need vast numbers to build a movement. You have to
build an energy and generate social momentum. You need people who will vote and
just as important people who will tithe and give money to the cause.
The Gospel of the New Testament is offensive and Billy Graham
needed to water it down and make it simple in order to make it effective... in
terms of social and cultural impact. While his older sermons come across as
fairly sound, again with success the need for even greater numbers meant that
the message was slowly compromised.
D James Kennedy emulated this and in many ways took Graham's
vision and transformed it into an international marketing scheme. He worked
diligently to forge relationships between Charismatics and Evangelicals and did
what he could to help Dominionism gain ground in those circles. After all even
the Reformed or Evangelical version of Dominionism is in the end just another (perhaps
less glitzy and tacky) form of the so-called Prosperity Gospel.
Kennedy also famously created Evangelism Explosion a Billy Graham style programme for
evangelisation that packaged the gospel in terms of a manipulative sales pitch.
Getting someone saved became similar to 'closing a deal'. This Easy Believism
or as it sometimes called Decisionism has also been employed by fellow traveler
Bill Bright and his Campus Crusade.
While the Kennedy version perhaps contains a bit more
substance, it's clear his watered down gospel was in the end focused on
numbers, money and the acquisition of political influence.
I have heard salesmen (my father being one of them) who upon
conversion encountered these techniques and were surprised (and certainly
disappointed) to find the very tactics they used to sell products and close
deals are the methods being employed to grow the Church. Many have rightly
criticised the Barna-Willow Creek and Seeker Sensitive models of Church growth
that became some prominent in the 1990s. They were simply building on already
established Evangelical foundations... a Church crafted by the world's means
and ultimately to suit the world.
Did Billy Graham preach a 'basic' gospel? Well then Kennedy
preached one that was little more than Patriotic-Political vignettes peppered
with many a misquoted Bible text. I cannot recall ever hearing much in the way
of depth or substance. His congregation was constantly subjected to one
message. America is God's blessed nation and you had better fight body, wallet
and soul to defend her.
His so-called sermons were simple but nevertheless filled
with lies, heresies and attempts at psychological manipulation. To this day I
am still amazed that this charlatan is still held in high esteem among many
within the Reformed community. D James Kennedy was a fraud and a heretic and he
along with Graham have wrought untold damage to the Church and its testimony.
European Evangelicalism has not been exempted from the influence of his
Evangelism Explosion and its watered down Gospel.
Returning to the Lausanne movement and the Czech theological
school we are introduced to Josiah
Venture, a partner ministry of Mission Eurasia. I immediately wanted to
examine their vision statement.
We find that it is somewhat nebulous. Again there's the sort
of coded language that we so often encounter with such groups. What does
transform mean?
The term can be meant in a good Biblical way speaking of the
Holy Spirit transforming the lives of individuals and delivering them from the
power of sin. But it can also be code for the transformation of culture and I'm
inclined to believe they mean the latter.
As one pokes around the search results associated with them we
find a network of Dominionist businesses including a Wheaton based accounting
firm plugged into a larger network of the Evangelical world. It's clear that
while these are not necessarily Theonomist/Reconstructionists of the Rushdoony
stripe, they are certainly inculcating the vision in how they present, market
and operate their business.
It's very sad this stuff is being pumped into the European
Christian community. You cannot tell me the American Church isn't viewed as the
'leader' of worldwide Evangelicalism. If your vision is based on ministries and
social transformation then money is essential. And no one can compete with the
resources available to the United States. Couple this with diplomatic and
business sector support, the American Evangelical sector wields a great deal of
power and influence.
American Evangelicalism and now Neo-Evangelicalism are
leading the way and demonstrating organisationally and doctrinally how to
transform Europe's Christians into a social and ultimately a political force.
While many theological conservatives are less than thrilled
with the style and certainly some of the packaging, they are willing to look
the other way if serves the greater purpose.
This same ecumenical impulse also drove divisions within
British Evangelicalism, most famously the 1966 split between Martyn Lloyd-Jones
and the John Stott/JI Packer Evangelical wing within the Church of England.
Stott went on to wield great influence in the formation of the Lausanne
Movement in 1974. Packer shocked many when twenty-years later he supported
Charles Colson's Evangelicals and Catholics Together (ECT) in 1994. They hoped
to strengthen Evangelical influence within Anglican circles and help bring
Christian influence to the culture. Their failure cannot be overstated and if
anyone understood the meaning of the split with Lloyd-Jones in 1966 their
subsequent actions and outlook shouldn't have been that much of a surprise.
From Lausanne's website we read the following with regard to
John Stott:
For as long as the Lausanne Movement was
characterized by ‘the spirit of Lausanne’, John Stott sensed it was critically
placed. Humility would always be needful. It was often said of Lausanne that
its fruit ‘grew on other peoples’ trees’ and that it acted most effectively as
a catalyst. It drew, and draws, from across the divides of secondary issues, so
gathers the whole evangelical church. Within that, Lausanne can host smaller
meetings for specialized mission agencies with expert knowledge in their fields
– Christians in the public arenas of government, business, academia – to
shake salt and shine light – believers North and South, rich and poor, in
nominally Christian cultures and as minority groups under oppressive regimes …
Through such consultations, as leaders met face-to-face and got to know one
another as friends, Lausanne would offer a unique means to share freely in the
gifts Christ gives to his church.
This watered-down, generalised and somewhat coded language
describes why Stott, Packer and others affiliated with the movement were more
than happy, indeed felt the need to ally themselves with those who did not even
remotely profess faith in the Christianity presented in the New Testament.
The Theonomic relationship with the Charismatic movement is
the clearest demonstration of this tendency to 'look the other way' within the
United States. Many were baffled to see D James Kennedy a Reformed minister
affiliated with the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) on stage with Trinity
Broadcasting Network's (TBN) Paul and Jan Crouch. To me it made perfect sense. Kennedy
was happy to endure their tacky lunacy and rank error for the sake of the
larger agenda. The money and audience TBN accessed was just too great to pass
up.
This same impulse has long driven Billy Graham to compromise
for the sake of the greater goal.
He forgot the exhortation of Christ in Matthew 16.
24Then
said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny
himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. 25For
whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life
for my sake shall find it. 26For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the
whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for
his soul? 27For
the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then
he shall reward every man according to his works.