| |
|
About
|
Evaluating the Megachurch Movement |
|
|
|
|
Page 4 of 6 Many people today apparently do not know the difference. But there have always been those in the church with insight and discernment who did. In his book, Evangelicalism Divided (Banner of Truth, 2000), Iain Murray quotes Thomas Scott’s The Offense of the Cross Ceasing:Leave out the holy character of God, the holy excellence of His law, the holy condemnation to which transgressors are doomed, the holy loveliness of the Savior’s character, the holy nature of redemption, the holy tendency of Christ’s doctrine, and the holy tempers and conduct of all true believers: then dress up a scheme of religion of this unholy sort: represent mankind as in a pitiable condition, rather through misfortune than by crime: speak much of Christ’s bleeding love to them, of His agonies in the garden and on the cross; without showing the need or the nature of the satisfaction for sin: speak of His present glory, and of His compassion for poor sinners; of the freeness with which He dispenses pardons; of the privileges which believers enjoy here, and of the happiness and glory reserved for them hereafter: clog this with nothing about regeneration and sanctifica-tion, or represent holiness as something else than conformity to the holy character and law of God: and you make up a plausible gospel, calculated to humor the pride, soothe the consciences, engage the hearts, and raise the affections of natural men, who love nobody but themselves. And now no wonder if this gospel (which has nothing in it affronting, offensive, or unpalatable, but is perfectly suited to the carnal unhumbled sinner, and helps him to quiet his conscience, dismiss his fears, and encourage his hopes), incurs no opposition among ignorant persons, who inquire not into the reason of things; meets with a hearty welcome, and makes numbers of supposed converts, who live and die as full as they can hold of joy and confidence, without any fears or conflicts.... What wonder if, when all the offensive part is left out, the gospel gives no offense? What wonder if, when it is made suitable to carnal minds, carnal minds fall in love with it? What wonder if, when it is evidently calculated to fill the unrenewed mind with false confidence and joy, it has this effect? What wonder if, when the true character of God is unknown, and a false character of Him is framed in the fancy, - a God all love and no justice, very fond of such believers, as His favorites, - they have very warm affections towards Him?
...I would not give needless offense. Let this matter be weighed according to its importance. Let the word of God be examined impartially. I cannot but avow my fears that Satan has propagated much of this false religion, among many widely different classes of religious professors; and it shines so brightly in the eyes of numbers, who "take all for gold that glitters," that, unless the fallacy be detected, it bids fair to be the prevailing religion in many places (Thomas Scott, Scott’s Letter and Papers, edited by John Scott, 1824).
More recently, in his book, What Did Jesus Do? The Unbiblical Nature of the Seeker-Centered Message, Ray Comfort says he decided to listen closely to his dentist’s admired minister to see why he loved him so much. He writes: He told his congregation that God loved them. He told them that God valued them. He cared about them. They were special to Him. He approved of them. He wasn't at all mad at them. They were made in His image. They were God's own masterpiece. There is no one like them. God accepted them. He had a plan for them. He would never give up on them. He wasn't concerned about their weaknesses, their faults, or their mistakes. If they messed up, it didn't matter. They needed to simply ask God for forgiveness. They were of great value to Him.
In a thirty-minute sermon, fifteen or twenty times he said that God accepted them. He was like a preaching thesaurus, saying the same thought (that God approved of his hearers) a hundred different ways. Obviously every pastor should regularly speak of God's love to his flock, but something wasn't quite right with this sermon.
Why does any congregation need to be reassured of God's love? Why do they need to be told again and again of God's approval? The answer is clear. They have never seen the love of Calvary's cross.
At the end of his sermon, he said that he never preached without addressing the unsaved. His challenge to them revealed why his congregation were so evidently insecure about God's love. He simply said, "Make Jesus Lord of your life. I'm not talking about religion. I'm talking about life and peace and happiness." During a quick sinner's prayer, he did pray, "I repent of my sins," but there was no mention of the cross. Not even a hint of it. Neither was there any reference to judgment day, no moral law, and no hell (Comfort, What Did Jesus Do?, Genesis Publishing Group, 2005, pre-released portion).
|
|
Last Updated ( Saturday, 06 January 2007 )
|
|
|