Jesus Christ Our Lord Almighty

By Bassam Michael Madany 

One of the main themes of the book of Revelation is the sovereignty and omnipotence of the Lord Jesus Christ. This is a central fact of Christianity and is much needed during our times. The triumph of Christ is confessed in the oldest Christian Creed: "And He shall come again, with glory, to judge the living and the dead, whose kingdom shall have no end" (Nicea AD 325).

Nowadays, this Christian belief is being criticized as triumphalist and exclusivist. Consider this example from the May 2003 issue of The Atlantic Monthly. Bernard Lewis, who has taught Middle East history at both Princeton University and the University of London, contributed an article with this shocking title, ''I'm Right, You're Wrong, Go to Hell: Religions and the Meeting of Civilization."

I was both chagrined and disappointed that this great scholar posited equivalence between Christianity and Islam in their respective outlooks on the world, and more specifically, as they sought, and still seek, to win converts to their specific faiths.

To begin with, Bernard Lewis reminds us in this article that "only two civilizations have been defined by religion. Others have had religions but are identified primarily by region and ethnicity." These two religions are Christianity and Islam, they "are the two religions that define civilizations, and they have much in common, along with some differences."

Having thus set Christianity and Islam apart from the rest of world religions such as Judaism, Buddhism, and Hinduism, Professor Lewis classified the latter three as relativist religions, and the former two as triumphalist religions.

For some religions, just as "civilization" means us, and the rest are barbarians, so "religion" means ours, and the rest are infidels. Other religions, such as Judaism and most of the religions of Asia, concede that human beings may use different religions to speak to God, as they use different languages to speak to one another. God understands them all .... The relativist view was condemned and rejected by both Christians and Muslims, who shared the conviction that there was only one true faith, theirs, which it was their duty to bring to all humankind. The triumphalist view is increasingly under attack in Christendom, and is disavowed by significant numbers of Christian clerics. There is little sign as yet of a parallel development in Islam. 

Professor Lewis regards Islam and Christianity as triumphalist religions. Both faiths consider all "others" as infidels. While, according to him, some Christian leaders are nowadays "disavowing" the triumphalism that has marked Christianity throughout history, there is no such parallel movement among Muslim leaders. In our globalized world, triumphalism (whether Christian or Muslim) is not conducive to world peace. In order to put across his thesis in the clearest way, Lewis sums up his disapproval of triumphalism, both in Islam and in Christianity, with these words:

For those taking the triumphalist approach (classically summed up in the formula, ''I'm right, you're wrong, go to hell"), tolerance is a problem. Because the triumphalist's is the only true and complete religion, all other religions are at best incomplete and more probably false and evil; and since he is the privileged recipient of God's final message to humankind, it is surely his duty to bring it to others rather than keep it selfishly for himself. 

The first point I would like to make is that, great as the scholarship of Bernard Lewis is, his lumping together of the "triumphalism" of the two religions is neither proper nor objective. One has to be careful in categorizing the faith of others. As a Christian, I find the tide of his article very offensive. It is a caricature of Christianity to sum up its attitude to the "other" as being; "I'm right, you're wrong, go to hell."

Throughout history, Christians, beginning with the apostolic age, sought to win converts through preaching and witnessing. It was none other than the risen Lord that gave his church the marching orders:

All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely, I will be with you always, to the very end of the age (Matthew 28:18b-20 NIV). 

The greatest missionary of the first century was the apostle Paul. After his conversion, his life was dedicated entirely to the spread of the faith and the organization of churches in the Mediterranean world. He described his mandate in the opening words of his letter to the Romans: "I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile" (Romans 1:16 NIV).

Paul's message consumed him. He was absolutely convinced that the risen Savior had entrusted him with the message that brings salvation to all kinds of people, regardless of their ethnic or religious background. As to the primary means for converting "others," God had ordained the preaching of the gospel. In 1 Corinthians, Paul wrote, "For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe" (1:21 NIV).

In contrast with this peaceful spread of Christianity, Islam spread primarily through conquest. When studying the history of Islam back in Syria in the late 1940s, my teachers at the Syrian College used to glory in the Futuhat ("conquests") of the Arabs. By AD 732, one century after the death of Muhammad, Islam had conquered territories stretching from Spain in the west to India in the east. While Christians and Jews were allowed to remain in their respective religions, pagans were forced to Islamize. Furthermore, the People of the Book (as Christians and Jews were called) had to submit to some stringent rules that greatly limited their freedoms. They were designated by the Arab invaders as Dhimmis (an Arabic word that means "protected"). Their status is known as Dhimmitude. Originally, the Christians of the Middle East formed the majority population. A few centuries later, they became minorities in such areas as Syria, Palestine, and Egypt. The church disappeared in North Africa.

Professor Lewis should not have posited equivalence between Christianity and Islam as far as the method for gaining converts. As a historian, he should know better than that!

The second point in my criticism of the article of Bernard Lewis is that he fails to see the great contrast between what he calls the "triumphalism" of the two religions. Yes, Christians do believe in the ultimate triumph of the gospel. Their faith is summarized in these great words of Revelation 11:15b, "The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ, and he will reign for ever and ever" (NIV). And in one of the most familiar passages of this New Testament book, we hear the heavenly choir sing these triumphant words: "Hallelujah! For Lord God Almighty reigns" (19:6b NIV).

Islam, throughout its history, has been triumphalist. Notwithstanding its many setbacks, especially after the leader of modern Turkey, Kemal Ataturk, abolished the caliphate in 1924, Muslims have never ceased to believe in the final triumph of their faith. Today, the inevitable triumph of Islam remains the core belief of the radical Islamists. They do not and would not hesitate to use any means to bring about the triumph of Islam, even if that meant total confrontation with the rest of the world.

On the other hand, if Christianity is described as a triumphalist faith, its triumphalism is related to an eschatological event. While the gospel has many implications and applications for the here and now, its complete fulfillment takes place beyond the horizon of this world order. Nowhere is this made plainer than in Romans 8. In that great confession of Paul, he describes the ultimate triumph of the Christian faith:

I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us. The creation waits with eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed. For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God .... For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. For who hopes for what he already has? But if we hope for what we do not yet have, we wait for it patiently (Romans 8:18-21,24,25 NIV). 

Yes, I do believe in the ultimate triumph of my Christian faith. But I know that this triumph will not come because of any military campaign, or through any worldly means. The victory of Christ over the world will become visible and evident to all at his Second Coming. Paul described the triumph of Jesus Christ in these memorable words: "Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of the Father" (Philippians 2:9-11 NIV).

Therefore, there is no equivalence between Christianity and Islam, neither in their core beliefs, nor in the way they conceive of history and its end. Much as I still appreciate the works of Bernard Lewis, I am very, very disappointed with his article because his thesis is flawed, both historically and theologically.

Author 

Rev. Bassam M. Madany has been a contributing editor for Reformation & Revival Journal for many years. He was the Arabic language broadcast minister of "The Back to God Hour," the radio ministry of the Christian Reformed Church, from 1958-94. His broadcasts are still aired daily to the Arabic speaking world (North Africa and the Middle East) over international radio stations. A specialist in Middle Eastern and Islamic studies, he also teaches at the college and seminary level. He is the author of The Bible and Islam, a helpful introduction to the subject. He has contributed to numerous theological publications. The ministry of Rev. Madany, Middle East Resources, can be accessed on the Web at www.Levant.info.

"The Greatest Hymn"

By Bassam M. Madany

It was during my three years at the Reformed Presbyterian Theological Seminary in Pittsburgh (1950-53,) that I discovered Samuel M. Zwemer's book The Cross Above the Crescent. The subtitle, The Validity, Necessity and Urgency of Missions to Muslims, was of special relevance to me, as I was preparing for a lifetime missionary career to Arabic-speaking Muslims.

Soon after I had finished reading the book I wrote a letter to Dr. Zwemer and sent it in care of Zondervan Publishing House in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Before too long, I received a very warm letter from him. At the time, he was in his eighties and was living at the home of his daughter in Alexandria, Virginia. I still remember a paragraph in his letter where he made some pointed references to the great hymns of the church, especially those composed during the nineteenth century, "The Great Century of Missions." In April 1952, Dr. Zwemer went to his eternal reward, a few days before he was to reach 85!

Lately, I have been looking over several of Zwemer's works in my library. I began to reread, Thinking Missions with Christ, published in 1934. Chapter 7 has this title, "The Greatest Hymn." The reference is to Reginald Heber's From Greenland's Icy Mountains. I would like to share with you some gems from this chapter and add a few comments.

Reginald Heber (1783-1826) became immortal through his missionary hymns, written before and after he went out as the second Anglican Bishop of Calcutta. Among his fifty-seven hymns, five are well known in the churches today: "Hosanna to the Living God"; "Brightest and Best of the Sons of the Morning"; "Holy, Holy, Holy"; "The Son of God Goes Forth to War"; and "From Greenland's Icy Mountains." 

Dr. Eugene Stock characterized the last of those mentioned as the greatest of all missionary hymns. It has been very widely used and has been translated into the leading languages of Europe and into many other languages on the mission fields. Is the hymn, as some say, "too old-fashioned and conventional for present-day use"? One meets with strong prejudice against certain of its expressions, but closer study will reveal new elements of power and beauty. (73) 

Dr. Zwemer goes on to mention the many gifts and qualities of Reginald Heber:

In 1815 he delivered the Bampton lectures, was made canon of St. Asaph in 1817 and soon after that was appointed Bishop of Calcutta, as successor to the first Bishop, Dr. Middleton. Bishop Heber is described as a brilliant scholar, a true poet, a devoted parish clergyman, a fascinating personality .... Four years before his consecration as Bishop, he wrote his great missionary hymn under circumstances that are most interesting. 

Mr. Heber, then rector of Hodnet, was visiting Dean Shirley, dean of St. Asaph and vicar of Wrexham, his father-in-law, just before Whit-Sunday, 1819. A royal letter had been issued, calling for missionary offerings in aid of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel, on that particular day. Mr. Heber had gone to hear the dean preach and to take his share of the Sunday evening lectures just established in that church. On the Saturday previous, he was asked to prepare some verses to be sung at the close of the morning service. Sitting at the window of the old vicarage, in a short time he produced this hymn - except the lines, "Waft, waft ye winds, His story," which he wrote later .... This was the first of modern missionary hymns that speaks imperatively to the conscience and at the same time with persuasion and tenderness. It came as a trumpet call to duty. 

A lady residing in Savannah, Georgia, had in some way become possessed of a copy of the words, sent to this country from England. She was arrested by the beauty of the poetry and its possibilities as a hymn .... She had been told of a young clerk in a bank, Lowell Mason by name, just a few doors away, down the street. It was said that he had the gift for making beautiful songs. She sent her son to this genius in music, and in a half-hour's time he returned with this composition. Like the hymn it voices, it was done at a stroke, but has lasted through the years. (74-76) 

It seems that during the 1930s, some criticisms were leveled at Reginald Heber's missionary hymn. Perhaps its language was too harsh, or it belittled people of other lands. Dr. Zwemer came to the defense of the hymn and answered its critics by writing:

No one disputes that its language is chaste, its structure logical (once we grant the premises) and that it conforms in its imagery and rhythm to the laws of good hymnody. The fact is that this hymn offers a concise summary of the modern missionary enterprise as conceived by the men who laid its foundations. The first stanza proclaims the universality of the task; the second its necessity; the third its urgency; the fourth its certainty of accomplishment. One could hardly crowd an argument for the basis, the aim, the motive and the goal of missions into smaller compass than we have in these four verses of eight lines each. 

"Chains of error still bind men and women and little children in Africa and India ...." 

It was not the intention of Bishop Heber to assert that the inhabitants of Ceylon were sinners, vile above other men, but to point out, by one example of conditions in his day, the need for a Saviour from sin in all its terrible forms in all the world and the tragedy of spiritual blindness in the worship of the creature rather than the Creator - whether on the Gold-coast of Chicago or of West Africa, man bows down to wood and stone. (77,78) 

Zwemer adds to his own defense of "From Greenland's Icy Mountains" the words of a British missionary who had spent twenty-one years in India. In a letter dated February 22, 1934, sent to The British Weekly, the retired missionary referred to the new Methodist Hymn Book that had omitted Heber's missionary hymn. He wrote:

Perhaps objection was taken to the final lines: "The heathen in his blindness bows down to wood and stone." No one suggests that he bows down to wood and stone because he is enlightened; for in another hymn we sing, "And soon may the heathen ... cast their idols all away." If it be said that he does not bow down to wood and stone, but to the gods for whom they stand, that will not help; that only makes things worse. (80) 

Dr. Zwemer ended his chapter on "The Greatest Hymn" with these stirring words:

"Can we whose souls are lighted with wisdom from on high" continue to discuss the spiritual values of higher Hinduism and deny to the masses of India the lamp of life? If we no longer feel the urgency of our message it is because we have lost the overwhelming sense of its necessity. He who knows what salvation is for himself must share the good news. 

Salvation! O Salvation! The joyful sound proclaim. Till earth's remotest nation. Has learned Messiah's name. 

There is no substitute for the missionary passion. To revive the spirit of evangelism, to restore the note of immediacy, to convince the world that we have a message sufficient for all men, everywhere and always, we must go back to the Gospel as proclaimed by the apostles: "Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures and rose again." 

Waft, waft, ye winds, His story, And you, ye waters roll, Till like a sea of glory. It spreads from pole to pole. 

This missionary hymn does not need revision. It needs reiteration and revival. Africa and India, and we ourselves still need the old Gospel. (81) 

Seventy-one years have passed since Samuel Zwemer called by his biographer, J. Christy Wilson, "Apostle to Islam," wrote this stirring commentary on Reginald Heber's hymn. As I look over the contents of new and revised editions of several traditional Protestant hymn-books, I discover the hymn is no longer there! I find this a sad and painful phenomenon. Should our children and grandchildren be deprived of the theology, appeal, and challenge of this great missionary hymn by its disappearance at the very time when all other major world religions are reviving and spreading?

Author 

Rev. Bassam M. Madany has been a contributing editor for Reformation & Revival Journal for many years. He was the Arabic language broadcast minister of "The Back to God Hour" the radio ministry of the Christian Reformed Church from 1958-94. His broadcasts are still aired daily to the Arabic speaking world (North Africa and the Middle East) over international radio stations. A specialist in Middle Eastern and Islamic studies, he also teaches at the college and seminary level. He is the author of The Bible and Islam, a helpful introduction to the subject. He has contributed to numerous theological publications. The ministry of Rev. Madany, Middle East Resources, can be accessed on the Web at: www.Levant.info.

HOMOSEXUALITY: A THEOLOGICAL ANALYSIS

By Gerald R. McDermott

On October 7, 1998, Matthew Shepard, an openly gay, twenty-two-year-old University of Wyoming student, left a campus bar with two men, who drove him outside of town, beat him savagely, tied him to a fence, and left him to die.

On September 22, 2000, Ronald Gay, who had vowed to "waste some fags," strode into the Backstreet Cafe, a gay and lesbian bar in Roanoke, Virginia, and opened fire. When the smoke had cleared, one man lay dead, and five others were injured, some quite seriously.

Any Christian who condones or is indifferent to these murders understands neither Jesus nor the gospel.

Some say that the historic Christian attitude toward homosexuality as disordered is responsible. This is questionable on two grounds. First, it is not at all clear that Christian faith precipitated either attack. Second, even if it played some role, it does not necessarily mean that the Christian approach to homosexuality is wrong. Just as allegations that the attack on America by the lunatic fringe of Islam came because of  "American support for Israel" says nothing about whether our support for Israel is right or wrong. [1]

But this of course begs the question: How are we, as Christians, to think about homosexuality? In other words, how are we to think theologically about this compelling issue?

It is important to try to think theologically about these difficult questions. Too many Christians let raw experience serve as their primary or only grid through which they look at these issues. As one homosexual put it, in words repeated all too often, "I know I'm telling the truth about who I am. I know that the people around me are telling the truth. If we're telling the truth, the church's position must be wrong."

This is what I call the Yuri Gagarin method of doing theology. Gagarin was the Soviet cosmonaut who in the early 1960s famously reported from outer space, "I don't see any God, hence there is none." Raw experience, without reflection.

There are better ways of trying to understand life under God. Let me suggest one: that we think first of what it means to be a disciple of Jesus; then of what sexuality means within that framework, and finally what that would mean for homosexuality.

DEFINITIONS 

But even before that, we need to agree on terms. What is a homosexual?

It is important to note that for the biblical authors, there are no homosexuals, only human beings made in God's image and likeness, who are now fallen. All human beings are sinners. In fact, if we consider Jesus' words about lust, we all are sexual deviants. With the exception of Jesus, no one is sexually sinless. All of us stand under God's judgment, and we all are in desperate need of God's grace.

The Bible talks about homosexual acts but not a separate class of human beings as homosexuals. Hence, by its lights, to regard a human person - who is an inconceivable mystery involving body and soul and heart and spirit - as defined by its sexual desires is to reduce the mystery to a hormonal drive. It is to dehumanize the person.

Interestingly, in his magisterial treatment of the history of homosexuality, The Construction of Homosexuality (University of Chicago Press, 1988), sociologist David Greenberg suggests that biblical culture was not alone in resisting such essentialism. He argues that until very recently no culture ever conceived of persons as essentially homosexuals, not even ancient Greece. Instead, they saw homosexuality as a phase in life through which some individuals pass before, after, or even alongside heterosexual marriage and parenting. Not until the end of the nineteenth century in the West did cultures begin to think of homosexuality as a condition into which one is born and then stuck with for the rest of one's life.

Sociologically we can say that homosexuality is less common than is commonly reported. Kinsey's figures are now recognized to have been inflated, partly because his research methods were flawed (25 percent of his subjects were prison inmates), and partly because of inaccurate reporting of his conclusions (he is said to have found 10 percent of the male population to be homosexual, but his more telling claim was that only 4 percent are so inclined throughout their lives). Four surveys conducted by the U.S. National Opinion Research Center between 1970 and 1990 (widely regarded as the most comprehensive sex surveys ever conducted), found that while 6 percent of men have had some homosexual experience, and 1.8 percent in the previous year, only 6-7 percent of the population had adopted a consistently homosexual lifestyle. For men generally in the Western world, fewer than 2 percent are exclusively homosexual in inclination and practice, while the figure for women is less than 1 percent.

CHRISTIAN DISCIPLESHIP 

But theologically, let's look first at what it means to be a disciple of Jesus. Jesus made this very clear, just after Peter confessed that he was the Christ and then blurted that the Messiah would never suffer and die. Jesus rebuked him, told him that Satan was speaking through him, and averred, "If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it" (Matthew 16:24). Jesus here established the ground rules for discipleship: it involves denial of at least some desires, a certain self-forgetfulness, and following in Jesus' path of suffering and (perhaps even) death.

Paul tells us that we will express and experience the kingdom of God by participating in the koinonia of Jesus' sufferings (Philippians 3:10). So the role of the disciple is to obey his call to bear the cross, just as he did. And the promise is that, as we deny ourselves and take up his cross, new life will emerge: "While we live, we are always being given up to death for Jesus' sake, so that the life of Jesus may also be made visible in our mortal flesh" (2 Corinthians 4:11).

This periscope from Matthew's gospel, and Paul's reflection on the topic, shed light on Christian discipleship. It suggests that following Jesus means denying some instinctual ideas and desires (Peter said: "God forbid, Lord! This suffering and death shall never happen to you!" But Jesus said, "Whoever would save his life will lose it"). Personal fulfillment for the disciple of Jesus does not come from fulfilling innate desires but from obeying what we do not yet fully understand. Jesus made it clear that Peter did not understand ("Get behind me, Satan!") but suggested just as clearly that, if Peter obeyed, understanding would come ("whoever loses his life for my sake will [future tense] find it"). This illustrates an ancient Christian tradition that, as Augustine put it, we believe so that we might understand. Or, as the Cambridge Platonists improved on it, "We believe and obey so that we might understand." Only as Peter entered into Jesus' suffering would he come to understand the meaning of Jesus and being his disciple.

It is only because of the triumph of essentialism - the view that terms like homosexuality capture the real essence of a person's very self - that we have been led to believe that acting on our impulses, attractions, and desires is essential to personal wholeness and actualization. [2] To the extent that we have bought into this pagan anthropology, to that extent we have lost touch with real Christian discipleship.

Therefore, Christian discipleship means recognizing that some of our desires and ideas are out of sync with what God wants. We find ourselves with desires radically opposed to God's will revealed in the Scriptures, and as we look back, we don't seem to be able to pinpoint a time when we chose this condition. We seem to have been born into a predisposition not to love our neighbor and God - a predisposition that, if we would surrender to it, will destroy others and us.

So being a disciple of Jesus means recognizing that we have a sinful predisposition that we have not chosen, yet at the same time feeling responsible for the choices we make to strengthen that predisposition. And still, at the same time, we are called by Jesus to resist the predisposition and to follow him, which will involve pain and suffering.

Perhaps you ask: Is the cross all there is to Christian discipleship? Doesn't love also enter the picture? Of course. But, as John Stott points out, love is not the only norm in Christian discipleship, so that all moral law is then abolished. Love needs law to guide it. Jesus said, "If you love me, you will keep my commandments" (John 14:15). Paul wrote that "love is the fulfillment [not the abrogation] of the law" (Romans 13:8). If love were the only test, one could justify polygamy. A man could desert his wife on the grounds that the quality of his love for another woman (or man!) is better. [3] The early church believed that love is concerned for the highest welfare of the beloved, which always means obedience to God's law and purpose, not revolt against them.

Doesn't love mean welcoming and accepting others just as they are? Well, if we would be disciples, we should welcome others as Jesus did. He condemned those who condemned the woman caught in adultery and welcomed her into his fellowship, but he also bade her to sin no more (John 8:53-9:11). Disciples of Jesus welcome others into a fellowship not only of comfort and encouragement but also of transformation and learning and discipline. Stott is helpful here:

God does indeed accept us just as we are ... but his "acceptance" means that he fully and freely forgives all who repent and believe, not that he condones our continuance in sin .... It is true that we must accept one another, but only as fellow penitents and fellow pilgrims, not as fellow sinners who are resolved to persist in our sinning .... [Jesus] welcomes us in order to redeem and transform us, not to leave us alone in our sins. No acceptance, either by God or by the church, is promised to us if we harden our hearts against God's Word and will. Only judgment. [4] 

True Christian discipleship also means having a theology of final redemption. It means realizing that we live in the already (Christ has risen and inaugurated the kingdom!) and not yet (we groan inwardly as we wait for the redemption of our bodies - Romans 8:23). So we presently are situated between the cross and final redemption, the deposit and fulfillment. Now is the time for temptation and struggle as we seek to be faithful until the end. Liberation has not arrived, and will not finally arrive until Jesus comes on the clouds.

CHRISTIAN SEXUALITY 

The early church regarded sexuality as both insignificant and important.

It was insignificant insofar as sex in the Bible is of secondary importance after other matters. Sexual sin is never as grave as sins of the spirit, such as pride and arrogance. Sexuality is never the basis for finding one's identity or meaning or fulfillment. Jesus and Paul never had sexual relations and yet are presented as exemplars for Christian disciples.

Yet at the same time, what one does in the privacy of one's bedroom is never of purely private concern to the disciple of Jesus. [5] Everything we do is to be unto the Lord and affects the whole body of Christ. Paul considered one Corinthian man's sexual life so perilous to the community that he needed to be thrown out of the church for the church to survive (1 Corinthians 5:1-8).

To understand why that would be so is to go, for Paul and especially for Jesus, back to the origin of marriage. This is the only context in which the early church conceived of sexuality - its beginning in, and service to, the divine institution of marriage.

When the Pharisees asked Jesus about divorce, Jesus brought them back to the beginning of the Bible and the beginning of marriage: "Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female ...?" (Matthew 19:4). Jesus was of course referring to Genesis 2, where the biblical author defined the meaning and purpose of both marriage and sexuality.

Here we see a recognition of the deep-seated loneliness that seems to part of the human condition ("it is not good for the human to be alone"), and that a person of the complementary sex is the divine remedy ("I will make him a helping counterpart to him" [Everett Fox]).

We also see a beautiful depiction of the joining of this first man to this first woman in a passage that is clearly intended to depict the meaning of marriage and sexuality.

"Therefore a man [the singular indicates exclusive union between two individuals] leaves his father and mother [in public commitment] and clings to his wife [marriage is a cleaving commitment - heterosexual and permanent], and they become one flesh [marriage is sealed by sexual intercourse, for which there is no shame or embarrassment]" (2:24). [6]

Jesus then endorsed this picture: "The Creator made them male and female, so they are no longer two but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man put asunder" (Matthew 19:4).

As Stott has observed, notice that Jesus is here affirming:

1. Heterosexual gender is a divine creation ("God made them male and female"). 
2. Heterosexual marriage is a divine institution (this is "what God has joined together"). 
3. Heterosexual fidelity is the divine intention ("let not man put asunder"). [7] 

We will address some of the problem passages shortly, but suffice it for now to say that, for the biblical authors and for the early church, a sexual ethic for a disciple of Jesus would involve (1) an ethic of loyalty - loyalty to a current or future spouse requires chastity, and (2) an ethic of principle - the principle that sex is intended for heterosexual marriage. So when unmarried people engage in this life-uniting act without life-uniting intent, they commit fornication. [8]

HOMOSEXUALITY 

What do our reflections on Christian discipleship and Christian sexuality mean for our understanding of homosexuality? I will be succinct.

1. We sometimes hear the following: "If homosexuals cannot help feeling what they feel, especially if the causes are biological or genetic, then the church cannot condemn homosexual activity or the homosexual lifestyle." No matter what the cause of homosexuality - and there is no scientific consensus that gays are all born that way - the condition of gays is not essentially different from the straight population. All of us inherit a set of desires at odds with God's will, and all of us, apart from the grace of Christ, are incapable of getting free from sin (Romans 7).

2. This condition does not, however, render us exempt from responsibility, unless, of course, we all - whether gay or straight - are subhuman robots with no freedom of choice whatsoever. Furthermore, disciples of Jesus are called, by the power of the Holy Spirit, to no longer let "sin therefore reign in [their] mortal bodies, to make [them] obey [their] passions" (Romans 6:12). Hence, "the Bible's anthropology rejects the assumption that only freely chosen acts are morally culpable." [9]

Incidentally, psychologist Stanton Jones adds, there are plenty of median positions between absolutely free choice and utterly determined behavior. Behavioral genetics has produced abundant evidence of genetic influences that clearly do not render human choice irrelevant. For example, there is significant genetic influence on individual differences in children's television-viewing habits. Yet we believe children can be helped to choose against surrendering to these predispositions. [10] So even if there were a gay gene, it would not rule out human choice.

3. The burden of Christian discipleship is not whatever orientation we have but what we do with that orientation.

4. The cross means not only that we are to choose against desires that conflict with God's order, but also that, by the power of union with the cross of Christ, we no longer have to be slaves of sexual habits. "No one in Christ is locked into the past or into psychological or biological determinism." [11]

5. Yet we still are in the "not yet," before the end of this age. There is no sexual salvation now. Christian homosexuals have the power in Christ to refuse to continue in the gay lifestyle, but they may not be able to rid themselves of same-sex desires. At the same time, however, they can be powerful signs to the church, as Richard Hays' friend, Gary, was to him, of "God's power made perfect in weakness" (2 Corinthians 12). [12]

6. It is difficult to sustain the argument that gay partnerships can be just as healthy as straight ones because of the inherently dangerous and destructive nature of homosexual activity. Thomas Schmidt has shown that gays pay a terrible physical price for their love: doctors are trained to look regularly for at least fifteen common afflictions apart from HIV/AIDS, because seven nonviral and four viral infections are transmitted by oral and anal sex. At least 75 percent of gay men are carrying one or more pathogens, although they may not be infectious or feel sick. Thirty percent have had syphilis, 30 percent have anal warts (strongly linked to anal cancer) and in 65 percent the virus is present. Sixty-five percent of homosexual men have hepatitis B or a history of it, while 75 percent have had an STD at least once and 40 percent in any given year (the general population has rates of 16.9 and 1.6 percent, respectively). Gays suffer much higher than average rates of mental disorders and alcohol and drug abuse. So too for depression and suicide, the latter of which is twice as high among females and six times as high among males. As a result of all these problems, gay life expectancy is 25-35 years less than average. [13]

7. We must take off the emperor's clothes in this age of sexual obsession: (a) sexual gratification is not a sacred right, and (b) one can be happy and fulfilled without sexual relations. As Hays puts it, celibacy is not a fate worse than death. The monastic and ascetic traditions have something to teach us here - namely, the testimonies of the thousands who, through the ages, have experienced the joy and indeed sometimes even bliss without ever having known "the joy of sex." The apostle Paul, in fact, said his single, celibate state was better than the married one, and he wished it on others. He claimed that some in the Corinthian church had been involved in homosexual acts but were later washed, sanctified, and justified (1 Corinthians 6). They may not have become married or freed entirely from their desires, but they had apparently been freed from the compulsion to act out on such desires. They had probably learned that one can have intimacy, even with the same sex, without sexual relations and even more importantly; that intimacy with God brings a new kind of wholeness and fulfillment. And if Christian homosexuals are "deprived" of sexual relations, there are an even greater number of Christian heterosexuals who endure the same deprivation because, for various reasons, they too are unable to marry.

THE PROBLEM PASSAGES 

Since good theology is always rooted in the biblical vision, and the texts typically used to discuss this subject are sometimes claimed to support a position opposed to the traditional one, I will treat some of these texts here.

Genesis 19 

It is often claimed today that this passage is about a sin against hospitality and not sex, because, in part, the Hebrew word yada, which traditionalists have interpreted as "know" in the biblical sense, occurs 943 times in the Hebrew Bible but has a sexual meaning in only ten of those instances. Yet six of these ten are in Genesis, and one of these is used of Lot's daughter who had not "known" a man (occurring just three verses after Sodom's men said they wanted to "know" Lot's visitors). While it is true that later Old Testament passages do not refer to sexual sin in Sodom, intertestamental Jewish literature did (Jubilees 16:5-6 and the 12 Patriarchs, both written in the second century B.C., when Jews were alarmed by Hellenistic acceptance of homoeroticism), and Jude's clear reference (v. 7) to the same suggests that New Testament authors understood Sodom's sin in this way.

Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 

These passages are often dismissed because they are found alongside others that are concerned not with moral but rather ritual purity (e.g., as regards the latter, the prohibition of sex during menstruation). Yet the vast majority of the chapters in question (89 of 94 verses in chapters 18 through 20) deal not with ritual purity but moral issues. They command respect for parents and the elderly, concern for the poor, honesty in court, and love for neighbor (including the alien). They condemn child sacrifice, bestiality, adultery, incest, idolatry, theft, deceit, slander, revenge, sorcery, cursing parents, and dishonest business practices. It is therefore likely that the author or editor of these chapters considered homosexual practice to be a moral concern and not a matter of ritual purity.

Besides, in the long list of prohibited practices in these chapters, only one is singled out as to eiba ("abominable") - namely, same-sex intercourse. The ritually "impure" practices in Leviticus (childbirth, seminal emissions, heterosexual intercourse, and menstruation) are not punished but purified by bathing and sacrifice.

Romans 1 

Revisionists often say that in this passage Paul speaks only of pederasty, or those who were perverts and not inverts (i.e., they were straight but "departed from natural relations"), hence he was not aware of lifelong homosexual inclinations or a loving relationship among gays. Yet Paul, using a phrase familiar in Hellenistic Judaism to denounce homosexual acts, says they are para phusin ("against nature") - a disruption of the created order. There is no hint of the exploitation of pederasty or of the condition of the actors. Paul focuses instead on the acts and declares them to be unnatural in themselves. Besides, Paul also discusses lesbians (1:26), who were well known in the ancient world for their extended relationships.

But Paul also says that homosexual acts are one of many consequences of God's wrath, not provocations of divine anger. Therefore, they are not "specially reprehensible sins, no worse in principle than covetousness or gossip" or rebellion toward parents. They will not incur punishment but are their own punishment. Hays suggests Paul reflects what he found in the Wisdom of Solomon: "Therefore those who lived unrighteously, in a life of folly, God tormented through their own abominations." [14]

In Romans 2, Paul goes on to say that all people stand equally condemned under the just judgment of a righteous God. Hence self-righteous judgment of gays is just as sinful as the gay behavior itself.

These biblical passages show that the biblical witness on homosexuality is different from that on women and slavery. While in the latter two, Scripture witnesses against itself (women are treated as property in some OT narratives, but are regarded as equal in Christ in parts of the NT [John 4; Galatians 3:28]; the same can be said for slaves - see Galatians 3:28 and Philemon), the biblical texts on homosexuality are absolutely univocal. Never is homosexuality treated as anything but a disorder.

PASTORS AND CHURCHES 

How should the clergy deal with this issue pastorally?

1. We must confess that the church has often failed to show homosexuals love. If we call on gays to renounce their active lifestyle, we must also repent of our failure to renounce our harsh and unloving treatment of our homosexual brothers and sisters.

2. We should welcome gays into the church, just as we welcome the envious, the gossips, the lustful, and the angry - in other words, ourselves. But we must teach clearly about heterosexual chastity outside marriage, or we will seem to be obsessed with only one kind of sexual sin. We need celibate homosexuals with all their gifts, including pastoring, just as we need the gifts of all repentant heterosexuals.

3. We must remind ourselves of our own sins. Jesus said, "Go and sin no more," but then sent away the woman's accusers by suggesting that they too had serious sins. Rather than saying we hate the sin but love the sinner, we should say that we should look in the mirror before we look out the window.

4. Pastors need to speak from the pulpit about the love of Jesus for homosexuals, and also about the power of Jesus to forgive and change. Because homosexual activity is dangerous, pastors have a moral obligation to let this be known. If they treat homosexuality as an alternative lifestyle without particular danger, they participate in the destruction of bodies and souls.

We are rightly judged to be selective in our focus on homosexuality if we in the church do not also teach and preach against abortion, divorce, and the abuse of children, which in numerical terms are more significant problems to the body of Christ.

AUTHOR 

Gerald R. McDermott, Professor of Religion at Roanoke College, is the co-author of Cancer: A Medical and Spiritual Guide for Patients and their Families (Baker Books), author of three books on Jonathan Edwards, and several other books including: God's Rivals: Why God Allows Different Religions - Insights from the Bible and the Early Church (forthcoming from InterVarsity Press).

NOTES 

1. Stanton L. Jones and Mark A. Yarhouse, Homosexuality: The Use of Scientific Research in the Church's Moral Debate (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2000), 13n. 
2. Jones and Yarhouse, Homosexuality, 155. 
3. John Stott, Same-Sex Partnerships? A Christian Perspective (Grand Rapids: Fleming Revell, 1998), 53-54. 
4. Stott, Same-Sex Partnerships, 59. 
5. Richard B. Hays, The Moral Vision of the New Testament (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1996), 392. 
6. Hays, Moral Vision, 35. 
7. Hays, Moral Vision, 36. 
8. Jones and Yarhouse, Homosexuality, 171-72. 
9. Hays, Moral Vision, 68. 
10. Jones and Yarhouse, Homosexuality, 88. 
11. Hays, Moral Vision, 393. 
12. Hays, Moral Vision, 403. 
13. Thomas E. Schmidt, Straight & Narrow? Compassion and Clarity in the Homosexuality Debate (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1995), 112-30. 
14. Wisdom of Solomon 12:23; cited in Hays, Moral Vision, 388.

The Imago Dei as Rebuttal to Homosexual Advocacy

By Susan Hammond

The practice of homosexuality does not express the imago Dei of Genesis 1:26-27. In fact, homosexual practice attacks the very heart of God's image in humankind.

A convergence of circumstances in my own life, and in the lives of both friends and acquaintances of mine, drew me to three specific chapters in John Stott's book, Decisive Issues Facing Christians Today. [1] A friend and ministry associate's revelation of his homosexual involvement led me to Stott's chapter 16, "Homosexual Partnerships?" The acquaintance was yet another Christian headed for divorce, and so I read Stott's chapter 14, "Marriage and Divorce." Finally, my own struggle with understanding my role as a woman who felt called to minister in the church drew me to chapter 13, "Women, Men and God." Stott brought each of these chapters together under a section entitled, "Sexual Issues." By the time I finished reading, I was profoundly struck by the idea that the answer to the error of homosexual advocacy lay in the church's renewed understanding of the image of God in humankind, as put forth in Genesis 1:26-27 and 5:1-2. [2]

In the chapter titled, "Women, Men and God," Stott reasons that the Hebrew parallelism of Genesis 1:27 is more than poetic, having "a deliberate emphasis here, which we are intended to grasp." [3]

And God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. [4] 

Stott explains: "Twice it is asserted that God created man in His own image, and the third time the reference to the divine image is replaced by the words 'male and female.'" [5]

Stott asks, "Is it too much to say that since God, when he made humanity in his own image, made them male and female, there must be within the being of God himself something which corresponds to the 'feminine' as well as the 'masculine' in humankind?" [6]

"What we should do," says Stott, "... is give full weight to those passages of Scripture which speak of God in feminine - and especially maternal - terms." [7] As one example, Stott refers to Deuteronomy 32:18: "You neglected the Rock who begot you, and forgot the God who gave you birth." [8] And though Stott did not mention Isaiah 46:3-4, it too is an equally "remarkable statement":

Listen to Me, O house of Jacob, and all the remnant of the house of Israel, you who have been borne by Me from birth, and have been carried from the womb; Even to your old age, I shall be the same, and even to your graying years I shall bear you! I have done it, and I shall carry you; and I shall bear you, and I shall deliver you. [9] 

Still further, Stott reminds us that Jesus "used feminine imagery, likening God to a woman who had lost a coin [Luke 15:8-10] ... and likening himself in his anguish over impenitent Jerusalem to a hen [Matthew 23:37] wanting to gather her chicks under her wings." [10]

Genesis 2 tells us that, out of the solitary Adam, God "creatively extracted," so to speak, the woman. Thus, by the hand of God, out of one being, a second being was drawn out - bone of Adam's bone; flesh of Adam's flesh. Immediately God instituted marriage, "for this cause," wherein "a man shall leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and they shall become one flesh." The one being, which became two, again becomes "one flesh" through their heterosexual intercourse in God-ordained marital union. [11] It is only in the sexual union of monogamous, heterosexual marriage that the creation story is dramatically recalled, echoing God's decision to make humankind in his image, male and female. No other sexual union can do that! Their union became the "sign and seal" of a relationship that was to be a visible witness to the highest, fully human expression of the image of God. [12]

Because the one was made into two, neither the man, Adam, nor the woman, Eve, individually bore God's image in human fullness. Both the male and the female were needed to "complete" it in this earthly expression. Thus, two men in sexual union do not express God's image, because the female counterpart is missing. Two women in sexual union do not express God's image either, because the male counterpart is missing.

Advocates of homosexual practice, as well as participants in all sexual activity outside the boundary of heterosexual, monogamous marriage, make the grave mistake of thinking that a sexual relationship is for fulfilling personal desires or happiness rather than for fulfilling God's primary purpose in our original design, which is to express his image in us through that of male and female. The marriage ceremony is intended to cement that expression, as the two become one. Jesus said, "Therefore, what God has joined together, let man not separate." [13] Besides the many other ways that male/female imagery is employed in Scripture to portray God and his creation, it is found even in the picture of Christ as the Bridegroom and his church as the bride, a picture foreshadowed by the male/female marriage relationship.

Those who practice homosexuality have erroneously latched onto the women's liberation issue as that which mirrors their own cries for justice and equality. [14] But this association is completely negated by understanding the imago Dei of Genesis 1:27. Indeed, it is the truth of God's image as male and female, along with Christ's treatment of women in his earthly life, which truly authorizes the liberation of women and begins the restoration to their rightful position on this side of the cross. [15]

A relationship to God, and with God, is the fundamental purpose of our entire human existence. He made us "in his image" for that very reason. And though the fall grossly altered that image in us, it is the Father's goal to now conform us to the image of his Son, Jesus Christ (Romans 8:29). And while monogamous, heterosexual marriage remains a very high expression of God's image in humankind, and Christian marriage higher still, those who remain unmarried, and thus celibate, find full participation in God's image through their membership in the body of Christ, i.e., the church, which consists of male and female, and which has now become the highest human expression of God's image on the earth. The true agape Christian fellowship of men and women, fellowship which respects and values the opposite gender as gifted persons with God-ordained ministry abilities and callings, expresses the reality that it is the blend of male and female that is required in order to faithfully begin to express God's image to each other and to the world. [16] And just as the male and female are "one" in the marriage relationship, so Jesus prayed to the Father with the request that the church would be one too, both within the body of Christ, and with him and the Father. [17]

The reality of the imago Dei in our creation makes it very clear that advocates of homosexual practice cannot truthfully assert that God "created" anyone as homosexual when the image of God in humankind is clearly shown to be fully expressed only in that of male and female together. Indeed, no sexual union outside of heterosexual, monogamous marriage can proclaim the imago Dei of Genesis 1:26-27. Thus, it is impossible for the "image of God" to be expressed in homosexual practice.

Author 

Susan Hammond is a graduate student in church leadership at Vanguard University, Costa Mesa, California, and is currently at work to complete her thesis. Susan has been ministering in song with The Praise Symphony Orchestra for twenty years, and has written articles for online publication at Worship Leader magazine and ASSIST News. She also maintains a website encouraging the church to pray; www.christiansunitedinprayer.org, and another to minister to Vietnam veterans, www.thankyouvet.net. Susan and her husband, Barry, live in Irvine, California, and are the parents of two grown children.

Notes

1. John Stott, Decisive Issues Facing Christians Today (Grand Rapids: Fleming H. Revell, 1990); this is the revised and expanded edition to his earlier work, Issues Facing Christians Today (Basingstoke, UK: Marshall Morgan & Scott,1984). 
2. I am convinced that a dearer understanding of God's image as male and female in humankind will also enrich and strengthen the church, marriages, and, subsequently, society in general. 
3. Stott, Decisive Issues, 258. 
4. This and all subsequent Scripture references herein are from the New American Standard Bible, © Copyright 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977 by The Lockman Foundation, La Habra, Calif. 
5. Stott, Decisive Issues, 258. 
6. Stott, Decisive Issues, 258. 
7. Stott, Decisive Issues, 259. 
8. Stott, Decisive Issues, 259. 
9. Stott also refers to other Scriptures that reveal the "feminine" or "maternal" aspects of God's nature, e.g., Isaiah 49:15; 66:13; and Psalm 131:2. Isaiah 42:14 is yet another such example. 
10. I agree with Stott that the National Council of Churches has gone too far when they advocate calling God "the Father (and Mother)", because both Jesus' example and teaching contradict this. 
11. See Stott's discussion of this on page 346, "Homosexual Partnerships?" 
12. Jesus is, of course, the ultimate expression of the image of God (Colossians 1:15-20; Hebrews 1:1-3ff.). 
13. Matthew 19:6; Mark 10:9. In this teaching context, Jesus referred to the "male and female" of Genesis 1:26-27. 
14. Homosexual practitioners have also claimed that the former slavery issue, especially in Europe and North America, is analogous to their situation; but this is an erroneous assertion. The atrocity of slavery occurred because one group of persons willfully chose to subjugate other persons perceived by them to be less than fully human. All racial and general human relationships, good or bad, are by-products of how the imago Dei is understood to be present in humanity. Only humankind bears any part of God's image. That simple fact mandates that we treat all persons with respect and dignity. In that act, we honor God. Though slavery, per se, is not denounced in the Bible, slave trading is (see 1 Timothy 1:10). Obviously then, slave traders and those who accepted and purchased their suffering human cargoes dosed their eyes, both to the biblical denunciation of slave trading and to the imago Dei in those whom they took by force. The historical rationalization of error by some cannot be used as an excuse or justification for other errors in theology today. The fundamental proposition in the imago Dei is God's image addressed as male and female in relationship together. Modem crimes of slavery often have their roots in the distortion of gender relationships, wherein females (common victims of contemporary slavery) are considered to be "less than" males. This is another instance of denying the imago Dei, specifically with regard to women. 
15. I say, "begins the restoration," because though Christ's work is "finished," there are still practical issues that will not be overcome until his return. Like everything else in creation, there are still negative residual effects from the fall in this earthly sphere (Romans 8:22-23). 
16. We begin in the male/female relationship as established by God in creation. In our post-fall reality, God is now at work through Christ to reestablish and fulfill his image in us (Colossians 3:10; 2 Corinthians 3:18). All forms of sin, not just sexual, work against that end. 
17. See John 17:20-26. As a reminder, see also the Scriptures referencing the gifts and ministries given to each one in the body of Christ for the purpose of strengthening us and working toward unity in him, specifically Romans 12:4-8; 1 Corinthians 12-14:12; and Ephesians 4:11-16. See also 1 Corinthians 14:26, wherein "each one" can make a contribution for the purpose of edifying the whole assembly. 

*I wish to acknowledge my indebtedness to, and thankfulness for, the writings of John Stott.

NEO-LIBERALISM: THE LIBERAL ETHOS IN RICK WARREN'S THE PURPOSE DRIVEN CHURCH

By Chris Accardy

If you are wise, let the world pass, lest you pass away with the world. - ST. AUGUSTINE 

I looked for the church and I found it in the world; I looked for the world and I found it in the church. - HORATIUS BONAR  

Recently I sat in on a discussion among several college students. A student from Kenya was talking with seven students from the United States. This Kenyan student contended that many Western missionaries in Africa were not very successful because they tried to convert Africans to Western culture as well as to Christianity.

"Traditional" missionaries in this Kenyan's community had forbidden the use of drums in worship. The student felt it was a major mistake to fail to use such an important part of African culture for the honor and glory of God. One of the American students, who had done a short-term mission trip in Africa, pointed out that drums were used in animistic worship and should therefore not be included in Christian worship. Another American student asked his colleague a simple question, "What about the piano?" He followed up by pointing out that the piano had been used in American rock and roll culture to promote all sorts of ungodly behavior. On that basis, do we forbid the use of pianos in American worship?

As the discussion concluded, nothing had been resolved. Indeed, understanding the relationship between church and culture is no simple task. However, in listening to this enlightening conversation, I began to see where each student was coming from theologically. At the end of the day, practice and belief could not be separated. Behind each view in the discussion stood a working theology. Often this theology was assumed but not thought out. As evangelicals debate the question of church and culture in America the same sort of things seems to be happening: all sides have a working theology, but most often it is assumed, even if not well thought out.

It seems to me that we can divide evangelicals into two groups: "Confessing Evangelicals" and "Neoliberal Evangelicals." The goal of both groups is to practice the Christian faith as revealed in the New Testament. Confessing Evangelicals look at the early church through the lens of the Protestant Reformation. They tend to hold some substantial statement of faith which is binding on the worship and life of the church. [1] Neoliberal Evangelicals tend to trace their roots back to the early church through the lens of the Second Great Awakening in America. They tend to hold a very minimal statement of faith and emphasize experience and action over doctrine. Religious experience is the binding authority on these churches.

Confessional Evangelicals and Neoliberal Evangelicals approach the Christian faith differently. To see this clearly, compare the life and ministry of John Calvin with Charles Finney. These varied approaches to faith and life are manifesting themselves in a growing split within the evangelical community. Until the evangelical community can come to a greater consensus on major theological issues and approaches they will not be free from the kind of Protestant liberalism that struck in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries in America. Liberalism is alive and well in many evangelical churches. It does not manifest itself as a direct assault on fundamental Christian doctrines. Rather it is a liberalism of practice. This practical liberalism is undermining historic evangelical doctrine. Confessing Evangelicals must deal with Neoliberal Evangelicals because the very heart of the gospel is at stake.

Perhaps the outstanding and refined example of Nebliberalism is the "Church Growth Movement." The Church Growth Movement is tempting to pastors because it offers "surefire" ways of getting people into church. It was tempting for me until I began to realize the fundamental incompatibility with my Reformed theological views. This article is born out of a troubled heart,that is concerned about the future of my Neoliberal friends.

In the midst of the fundamentalist-modernist controversy earlier this century, J. Gresham Machen at the time still at Princeton Theological Seminary, published his devastating critique of Modernism titled Christianity and Liberalism. George Marsden comments on the book's impact:

Even the secular liberal press, the natural ally of the liberal churchmen, was defecting. Within two weeks of the end of 1923 both The Nation and The New Republic published essays arguing that the fundamentalists had logic on their side when they invited the modernists to leave their denominations. [2] 

This challenge to the liberals, who preferred the term "modernist," needed a forceful response. It came in the form of Shailer Mathews' treatise, The Faith of Modernism, released in 1924. Shailer Mathews was the highly respected dean of the University of Chicago Divinity School. His critique of "dogmatic Christianity," of which Machen was a leading representative, argues along the same lines as many in the Church Growth Movement today do in their critique of "traditional Christianity."

Recently, Rick Warren, senior pastor of Saddleback Valley Community Church, Orange County, California, released a landmark popular work in the Church Growth Movement titled The Purpose Driven Church. It has sold more than 270,000 copies according to Saddleback's Web site, which is remarkable for a "niche" market book designed for pastors and church leaders. This in itself makes the number of copies sold quite remarkable.

The goal of this article is to demonstrate that Rick Warren is not saying anything new in his book. Representing American Protestant Liberalism, Shailer Mathews argued in the earlier part of this century along the same lines as Rick Warren. Modern evangelicals are dealing with the early stages of their own fundamentalist-modernist controversy. We will examine why as we take a closer look at Warren's theology as expressed in The Purpose Driven Church. [3] Using Mathews and Warren, I will compare the earlier Protestant liberalism with modern Neoliberalism.

SURFING ON GOD'S WAVES 

What is church growth? For Warren it is "surfing" the wave of God's Spirit. [4] The goal of church leaders is to recognize the moving of the Spirit and ride it like a surfer rides waves, because the "more skilled we become in riding waves of growth, the more God sends!" [5] The church can only participate in what God is doing. But one must ask the question: How do I recognize a "wave" of God's Spirit? Is the wave I am riding one of redemption or one of judgment? How can I tell the difference between the two? Is it possible that some of the waves are waves of Satanic pseudoreligion? How can I tell the difference between true and false religion?

Warren exudes confidence in his own ability to discern God's movement in modern American culture: "In this book, I'll identify some of the principles and processes God is using to reach this generation for Christ. ... I can teach you how to recognize what God is doing, how to cooperate with what God is doing, and how to become more skilled in riding a wave of God's blessing." [6] God is a social scientist, who, through methods revealed by Warren, is reaching the world for Christ.

For Shailer Mathews, modernism "is the use of the methods of modern science to find, state, and use the permanent and central values of inherited orthodoxy in meeting the needs of a modern world." [7] The permanence of inherited orthodoxy is not its doctrines but its "values." Science sets the agenda to which these "values" of orthodoxy must respond. Whatever form the church takes, it must reside within the bounds of the culture of the day.

For Mathews, knowing what God is doing involves cultural analysis. To understand how God works one must study the historic development of culture. Christianity's "very history shows that it is an organized group belief, born of social forces, ministering to needs socially felt, conditioned by social habits, and using social and other patterns to express its fundamental and determining convictions." [8] In other words, Christianity as a religion is born of culture and lives in culture. God may be the father of the church, but culture is her mother. Unfortunately the god of modernism is a polygamist. God is real enough. But he can be found only within culture. To "tap" into culture is to tap into God.

Warren proposes that we "tap" into God. He puts it in terms of riding spiritual waves. But the problem arises in knowing the nature of God's movement within the culture. It is one thing to say that God is moving in our culture. It is quite another thing to interpret His movements. Are we really justified in having such an optimistic view of our ability as humans to interpret culture, especially our own? Warren can assure his readers that he can tell them exactly what God is doing and how he is doing it. But it seems to me that Warren interprets American culture from the viewpoint of his own subculture.

In The Purpose Driven Church Warren describes three responses that he sees to culture. [9] The first is "imitation." These churches seek to "blend" with culture. The culture they blend with is the culture of "radical feminism" and "liberal sexual standards." The second is "isolation." These churches are the "traditionalists" who won't adapt to culture. What is commended is "infiltration," which, by the way, is "the strategy of Jesus." Jesus "walked among people, spoke their language, sang their songs, attended their parties, and used their current events ... to capture attention when he taught." [10] But did Jesus really infiltrate culture as Warren seems to imply? Is Warren simply looking for a "Jesus" in history that looks a lot like him?

Jesus did walk among the people and communicate with them. He was "sinner-sensitive" to put it in Warren's terms. But it seems to me that talk of the "strategy of Jesus" is to simply lend divine authority to Warren's own sub-cultural views. To this subculture radical feminism is blatantly "cultural." Yet the radical feminists would probably accuse Warren of accommodating to a "radical patriarchal" culture. It is so easy to accuse those whose culture is radically different with selling out to culture. It seems much more difficult to recognize our own cultural accommodation.

A great danger in both Liberalism and Neoliberalism is a naive accommodation to culture. Any culture comprised largely of unbelieving men and women will challenge historic orthodoxy. Granting too much to culture jeopardizes orthodoxy. Warren says, "Fulfilling God's purpose must always take priority over preserving tradition." [11] He has already told us that he can see God's purpose in culture clearly. Therefore, I wonder how much tradition Warren is willing to overthrow in order to fulfill God's purposes. Can't tradition be seen as the practical outworking of a community's core doctrinal beliefs? Tradition doesn't happen in a vacuum. People generally have reasons for what they do.

In light of these things, one can argue that a naive accommodation to culture "culturalizes" Christianity. In other words, Christianity in a cultural form is only relevant to the culture it inhabits. Biblical tradition (cf. Titus 1:9, et. al.) serves as an anchor that keeps different cultures together. A Christianity that does not preserve this biblical tradition will, in the end, not be orthodox.

Historic orthodoxy poses a problem for Warren's view of culture. After all, who in present American culture wants to hear the apostolic doctrines of depravity, election, atonement, or perseverance? Who wants to deal with problematic events in redemptive history like Israel's conquest of Canaan? It seems as if Warren's solution to these problems is to narrow the scope of historic orthodoxy. In other words, he keeps his creed to a minimum. We will be exploring this in more detail later. For the time being, we may say his cultural optimism puts tremendous pressure on him to adjust his statement of faith. Some essentials suddenly become nonessentials. As nonessentials, these biblical teachings have no place in a statement of faith. It seems to me that the question is no longer, "Does the Bible teach it?" but "Can someone get to heaven without believing it?" By changing the nature of the question, the interpreter rather than the message becomes sovereign.

THE SOVEREIGNTY OF MAN 

Throughout the history of the church two religions have existed side by side. Both claim to be Christian. They share many of the same beliefs. Yet at heart they are very different. One describes the relationship between God and humanity as that of divine action and human response. The other describes the same relationship as one of human action and divine response. For many evangelicals this might seem like theological hair splitting. But for Christian leaders such as Augustine, Bradwardine, Luther, Calvin, and numerous others, something vital was at stake. That something was the heart of the gospel. We could put difference in the form of a question: Who is ultimately sovereign in salvation? The first religion says God. The second religion says man.

Liberalism rejected biblical doctrines for the sake of cultural acceptance. After all, "religions spring from human needs." [12] We saw earlier that Mathews saw religion as culturally derived. He says further that "just because we are all human we turn for aid to God. We need Him for our support and comfort and guidance. To find Him we turn to that religion into which we have been born or to which we have been attracted." [13] The goal thus becomes making Christianity as attractive as possible to any given culture. The whims of the people decide the shape Christianity will take. Mathews is totally unwilling to concede that modernists are anything other than orthodox, evangelical Christians [14] He says, "Modernists as a class are evangelical Christians." [15] They are simply evangelical Christians "who use modern methods to meet modern needs." [16] Modern needs were an obsession of turn-of-the-century liberals such as Mathews. This sprang from their view of Christianity as a cultural construct derived from human needs.

Warren seems to view things in much the same manner. "A church will never grow beyond its capacity to meet needs." [17] Again the "strategy of Jesus" is invoked when Warren claims that "Jesus often established a beachhead for evangelism by meeting a felt need." [18] The success or failure of a church depends upon its ability to meet felt needs. The measure of success is built upon human response to what a particular church is doing to meet felt needs. Thus the desires of unbelievers drive a church and its presentation of the gospel. But this goes back to the action/response sequence mentioned earlier. In this model, human action elicits God's response. It's like the recent college graduate who takes a job in the mail room "to get a foot in the door." A church must use any "ethical" means possible to get people to put their "foot in the door" of the church in an action that will elicit God's response. Greater things will follow. Warren expresses the sentiment this way: "It doesn't matter why people come to Jesus, what matters is that they come." [19]

This attitude leads to a "science of religion." People must be coaxed into coming to Jesus. With an anthropocentric view of salvation, marketing the church becomes a necessary thing. The church becomes a corporation with salvation as its main product. What we see in the Church Growth Movement is an outworking of its theology. The same thing can be seen in the methods of classic Protestant liberalism.

Shailer Mathews wrote, "Good will needs good social technique." [20] Good will for Mathews is the essence of salvation. "The Christian movement ... has also preached good will as a way to righteousness and the love of God as a basis for hope." [21] He also writes, "only right relations with God can save men into good will." [22] What we have in Mathews is the modernist belief that social techniques need to be used to bring men and women to salvation (i.e., good will). Much of the same attitude can be seen in Warren's approach.

Rick Warren theorizes:

Imagine what would happen to a commercial radio station if it tried to appeal to everyone's taste in music. A station that alternated its format between classical, heavy metal, country, rap, raggae, and southern gospel would end up alienating everyone. No one would listen to that station! ... Successful radio stations select a target audience. [23] 

He thus reasons from commercial enterprise to Christian ministry, "For your church to be most effective in evangelism you must decide on a target." [24] The audience must be surveyed as to their likes and dislikes so that an effective evangelism strategy can be put together. Ultimately, Warren is shaping his church to fit the needs of an audience who "suppress the truth in unrighteousness" (Rom. 1:18), and "who exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator" (Rom. 1:25). Is it a surprise that Warren concludes, "the Bible determines our message, but our target determines when, where, and how we communicate it." [25] In the end the audience is sovereign. Their desires control the gospel.

A loss leader is a popular item sold in a store at a loss to get people into the store. Once in the store the manager hopes the customers will buy other items at a high mark-up. Seeker-sensitive services are the loss leaders of the Church Growth Movement. They are the tools to introduce people to the church hoping they will eventually buy the whole Christian package. Because the audience is sovereign the packaging of the church is most important. Thus demographics become crucial.

Rick Warren's church, Saddleback Valley Community Church, has identified its target as "Saddleback Sam." He is a middle-class, well-educated, materialistic skeptic of organized religion who happens to like contemporary music, health and fitness, and casual dress. [26] His church must then present herself in ways that makes Saddleback Sam feel comfortable: casual and contemporary. Thus the shape of a church's evangelism and worship is determined by sociological strategies discovery through extensive market research. On the surface this seems like "selling out" to culture. But I contend that this is simply a reflection of Warren's theology. "Selling out" to culture is not the intent. Reaching people for Christ is. But is a person's salvation really dependent upon us and our skills of persuasion? To what beliefs about God and man are they being converted? These are key questions to ask Warren and others in the Church Growth Movement.

Here we see Warren's struggle between orthodoxy and liberalism. On the one hand, he wants to preserve historic orthodoxy. On the other hand, there is great pressure to be "palatable" to the culture. Having a minimal creed helps in this respect. But one is still confronted with the biblical witness. As an evangelical, Warren still has a high regard for the reliability and authority of the Bible. How does one justify the cultural approach? The answer is simple. Find it in the Bible. This is exactly what Warren does.

THE CHURCH GROWTH APOSTLES AND THEIR MASTER

Throughout the nineteenth century liberal scholars attempted to write "biographies" of the historical Jesus. As the Enlightenment swept through Europe and America, historical-critical approaches toward the Bible became more popular. These approaches assumed the gospels to be unreliable records of Jesus. Historical-critical scholars attempted to get behind the gospel to find the Jesus of history. [27] In his devastating critique of this approach found in The Quest of the Historical Jesus, Albert Schweitzer concludes:

The Jesus of Nazareth who came forward publicly as the Messiah, who preached the ethic of the kingdom of God, who founded the Kingdom of Heaven upon earth, and died to give His work its final consecration, never had any existence. He is a figure designed by rationalism, endowed with life by liberalism, and clothed by modern theology in an historical garb. [28] 

Schweitzer is saying that the "lives of Jesus" written by liberal scholars in the nineteenth century looked more like the authors than the Jesus of history. One might say that "Jesus" simply becomes a self-portrait of the scholar. Schweitzer is concerned that the Jesus offered to these people by liberal scholarship was "too small, because we had forced Him into conformity with our human standards and human psychology." [29]

Rick Warren seems to have his own "real Jesus." We might call Him the "Church Growth Jesus." This "Church Growth Jesus" has followers known as the "Church Growth Apostles." Because Warren approaches the New Testament in much the same way as earlier scholars one finds that Jesus and the apostles commend everything he does. Thus, his opponents are not only criticizing him but Jesus and the apostles as well. One wonders if he is not creating Jesus and the apostles in his own image.

According to Warren the secret of effective evangelism is to use Jesus' methodology. [30] He says,

When Jesus sent his disciples out on their first evangelistic campaign, he defined the target very specifically: They were to focus on their own countrymen. "These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: 'Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel'" (Matt. 10:5-6) .... There may have been several reasons Jesus narrowed the target, but one thing is certain: He targeted the kind of people the disciples were most likely to reach - people like themselves. Jesus was not being prejudiced, he was being strategic. [31] 

Besides missing the redemptive-historical context of the passage he quotes, Warren seems to have other problems. He interprets this sending of the Twelve in terms of church growth methodology. Examples of this exist throughout his book. Over and over again Warren finds Jesus teaching church growth principles. Over and over again Warren seems to be finding things that haven't been found in passages in the history of the church. We are not talking about application but basic interpretation.

Something else is striking in the above example. The anthropocentric theology of Warren is clearly demonstrated. Jesus must target certain kinds of people and He must be strategic in His outreach plans. If it is true that God responds to human actions this makes sense. After all, one must find the people who are most likely to act if the response of God is the desired result. Here we see the sovereignty of man. The Church Growth Jesus must take into account and plan His strategy according to man's sovereignty. In this way, it appears that the Incarnate Word is no more sovereign than His Father in heaven.

Furthermore, for Warren, this "church growth hermeneutic" is carried on to the apostles. Both Paul and Peter "targeted" their audience. "Paul targeted his ministry to the Gentiles, and Peter targeted his ministry to Jews." [32] Paul and Peter are called upon to support Warren's homogeneous church principle. But did the apostolic church really organize itself this way, or was it more a matter of geography? Did not Paul usually begin his ministry in a new location at the local synagogue (Acts 13:5,14; 14:1; 17:1-2,10; 18:4; et. al.)? Wasn't his title "Apostle to the Gentiles" more one of effect than simply desire (Rom. 9-11)? Wasn't it more the command of God rather than sociological principles that moved the apostles? Didn't Peter first go to the Gentiles at the command of God (Acts 10-11)? These are questions that Warren ought to answer if he claims to be a sound exegete of Scripture.

Because Warren has a high regard for the Bible he must find some justification for his theological opinions in its pages. One cannot help but wonder if his exegesis is not driven more by his theology and view of culture than by sound exegetical principles. It is here that the tension he feels between his historic orthodox doctrine and liberal practice comes to the forefront. In the end, Warren proves Mathews' contention that "Our theological inheritance is not false, but for many persons, outgrown." [33] Warren in many ways has "outgrown" the theological inheritance of the early church and the Reformation. This shows up in the way he exegetes biblical passages. The dangerous consequence of Warren's hermeneutic is a fracturing of the church.

REBUILDING THE WALL 

In reading the New Testament one gets the impression that the church is to break down barriers, not erect them. Philip brought the gospel to the Samaritans (Acts 8). Peter is commanded to go to the Gentiles with the gospel (Acts 10). These are the very two "people groups" Jesus didn't "target" because they were so unlike the disciples culturally and ethnically. Paul tells the Galatians that in Christ "There is neither Jew or Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (3:28). He tells the Ephesians that God has broken "down the barrier of the dividing wall" (2:14) between the Jews and Gentiles. James lectures Christians who made socio-economic distinctions in the church (2:1ff.).

Because of his theology, Warren must divide what the Apostles demonstrated and commanded should be put together. Apparently, Warren believes that someone can't expect to reach people effectively with a "one-size-fits-all" approach. Since Warren has already claimed to know exactly what God's methods are for reaching people for Christ, I suppose one must not critique his methods at this point. He is simply doing things "God's way" (even though "God's way" clearly contradicts His infallible Word).

In the end, Warren rebuilds the dividing wall that the gospel tears down. White folks and black folks, upper-class and lower-class folks, boosters, boomers and busters, due to cultural differences, have no hope of worshiping together. At best they can share a building. At worst they all worship in different places with little or nothing in common. Evangelicalism becomes a religion of subcultures.

THE RELEVANT CONFESSION 

Shailer Mathews wrote, "Reality has grown so vast that the theological deliverances of a pre-scientific, monarcial age are unintelligible." [34] The twentieth century has seen an explosion in the social sciences much like the explosion of the natural sciences in the nineteenth century. We look to psychologists and social engineers to tell us about ourselves and our culture. The social sciences are increasingly becoming a part of our societal fabric, so much so that one could argue that orthodox doctrine is unintelligible to this modern, social scientific world. Doctrines such as the Trinity, human depravity, substitutionary atonement and the like are all unintelligible to a world that thinks itself sophisticated in matters of human nature and culture.

Mathews takes a "God of the gaps" approach to religion. Religion fills in the gaps left by the human needs of each time:

Now most reality is given by science. The world of men and women has needs which must be scientifically understood. Religious convictions must be within the limits of such knowledge; our constructive patterns and organizing concepts will be drawn from those new needs and habits and knowledge which are creative in our day. [35] 

As a modernist, Mathews seeks to conform a church's religious convictions (i.e., confession) to the limits of the scientific knowledge of his day. Therefore, a religious conviction must be intelligible to a society before it can be adopted. When Paul told the Corinthians that the gospel was a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to the Gentiles (1 Cor. 1:23) he was speaking to a prescientific audience. Thus, we ought not think this passage applies in the same way today as it did to its early audience. It was simply Paul's culturally derived expression that was meaningful to people at the time.

What Mathews ultimately argues for is a relevant confession that makes the center of Christianity ethical living not doctrinal truth. Because ethics marks the core of his Christian understanding he is not confessionally oriented by any means. But if one calls a statement of ultimate belief a confession, then Mathews has a very short one. Warren has a very short confession as well. The confessional language has been modified in several key points in an apparent attempt to make it easier for modern culture to understand. Structurally it looks like a statement of faith acceptable to the fundamentalists of the early part of this century. But the changes are very telling and they may be more harmful than Warren realizes.

First, Saddleback Valley Community Church has changed the traditional language defining the Trinity. No longer is it God who has eternally existed in three persons, but God who has "eternally existed in three personalities." [36] This has the ring of a "psychological modalism." Does God have multiple personalities? Doesn't psychology see this as a disorder? Warren doesn't make the case for the Trinity easier to understand by playing with traditional language. In many ways, he is creating more problems than he is solving.

Second, Saddleback's statement of faith has added spiritual to its understanding of man in God's image. Man is in the spiritual image of God. [37] Is this the language of Genesis 1-2? Does limiting man's image to the "spiritual" really explain the image of God? Is there not a hint of gnosticism in that statement?

Third, the statement reduces sin to an attitude. Man is "marred by an attitude of disobedience toward God called sin." [38] Does this make salvation an "attitude adjustment"? Shailer Mathews explained the liberal's understanding of sin in similar terms:

... the Modernist looks upon sin as violation of the immanent divine will to good will and to progress towards that which is more personal, a conscious yielding, because of immediate pleasure, to the backward pull of outgrown needs; a violation of those personal forces both of God and human society which make progress possible. Human nature is not corrupt, but atavistic. [39] 

In other words, sin is a bad attitude toward progress. God wants us to have the right attitude toward progress. Sin is not having the attitude God wants us to have. Both Mathews and Warren take a reductionistic view of sin. If sin is simply an attitude, why don't Christians who have changed their attitude toward God live perfect lives? Scripture aside (the whole weight of Scripture is against this view), is this the reality of the life of any Christian? Once the attitude changes, does the sin really stop?

Ultimately, Warren not only reduces his creed but plays with the language of historic orthodoxy as well. Where does Warren's understanding of culture, anthropocentric soteriology, social scientific approach to missions, and "church growth" hermeneutic lead him? It leads him to adjust his creed in what he probably sees as small and irrelevant ways. But the early church once argued vigorously over one letter in defense of orthodox Christology. [40] Certainly, the distinction did not appear relevant to the lives of many people. But the early church saw the very fabric of faith at stake in the debate. Being relevant wasn't the issue. Being orthodox was. Orthodoxy meant faithfulness to the witness of Scripture.

When I was first married my wife told me, "Don't just tell me you love me, show me you love me." That meant picking up my clothes, doing dishes, and cleaning the bathroom among other things. Our practice inevitably reveals our core beliefs. Our true confession is made plain in our practice. This is why I'm skeptical that Neo-Liberal evangelicals can maintain the tension between orthodox belief and liberal practice. One or the other has to give. If the statement of faith of Saddleback Valley Community Church is any indication of the future of Neo-Liberal churches then one must sadly conclude that orthodox doctrine is in more jeopardy than liberal practice.

CONCLUSION 

Shailer Mathews wrote,

Jesus cannot help men who refuse to take His teaching seriously. It is not enough to believe something about Him. Men must believe Him .... The Jesus of history was not a lawgiver. He was a teacher and poet. For this reason, we cannot treat His words as if they were prescriptions for our daily lives. [41] 

On the one hand, we must believe Jesus. On the other hand, we mustn't take His teaching seriously because He was a "teacher and poet." It doesn't seem to me that Mathews' version of what Jesus taught is too difficult to take seriously: "Now the teachings of Jesus given us by a critical study of the gospels is exceedingly simple: God is love, and love is the only practicable way of life." [42] In the end there is no Trinity, no fall, no atonement and thus, no redemption other than our ability to love in this life. Is this the gospel the apostles thundered with power? Is this really all Jesus had to say to us? Can we really accept Mathews' minimalist creed as the teaching of the Bible? While Warren has by no means gone as far as Mathews, one has to wonder where he, and the movement he is a part of is heading.

Within evangelicalism there are many movements which make finding a precise definition of the beliefs of the movement quite difficult. The line between ancient heresy and ancient orthodoxy is often blurred. Most evangelicals have lost their Reformation heritage. The evangelicals who look toward ancient orthodoxy and a Reformation heritage are often laughed out of court as irrelevant to the needs of modern culture. Evangelicalism is a child of the Enlightenment which grew up in nineteenth-century America. Neo-Liberal Evangelicalism is a conservative form of cultural Protestantism. Therefore, contemporary culture, not historic orthodoxy, sets the agenda for these churches. Underlying this cultural Christianity is a view of religion that makes God respond to human actions. Thus the ministry of the church is to get people to act so that God will respond to them. In the end, human beings become sovereign. Everything must serve them. Adjustments must be made for them, even if the adjustments include abandoning basic truths of the apostolic faith of the church.

I do believe the term Neoliberal is a helpful term to describe most evangelicals in America. Neoliberalism is "not quite liberalism" just as neoorthodoxy was "not quite orthodoxy." Neoliberals want to remain orthodox in doctrine, yet are pulled strongly to the kind of cultural Protestantism seen in classic Protestant liberalism.

I greatly fear that Neoliberal evangelicals such as Warren undermine the very faith they hold so dear. While they may remain orthodox to the end, they are setting the stage for a full-blown evangelical liberalism in later generations. I don't make this charge lightly. I have read much of the material the church growth movement has to offer. I have used Rick Warren's book and others like it in pastoral ministry. Lest anyone think I am the sort of person who takes pleasure in throwing stones, my own brother, whom I dearly love, is Director of Marketing and Programming for Warren's church. Yet, my troubled heart compels me to write hoping that the Christian faith I have staked my eternal soul on will not be hidden in another "Dark Age" that will condemn millions of people to a form of godliness devoid of gospel truth.

Author 

Chris Accardy is a graduate of Plymouth State College, Plymouth, New Hampshire, and Covenant Theological Seminary, St. Louis, Missouri. Previously he worked with the New England Fellowship of Evangelicals and in pastoral ministry in Missouri and Vermont. Currently he is on staff at Gordon College, Wenham, Massachusetts, while preparing for a church planting ministry in New England.

Notes 

1. For instance, the Westminster Confession, Belgic Confession, Augsburg Confession, 39 Articles, Baptist Confession of London (1689), etc. 
2. George Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture (New York: Oxford University Press, 1980), 175.
3. I realize that Warren might not "mean" to say what he said. I can deal only with what appears in print, not his intentions which I have no way of knowing. I also realize that Warren is but one voice in a larger movement. Judging from the sale of his book I consider him a very influential voice. 
4. Rick Warren, The Purpose Driven Church (Grand Rapids: Zondervan 1995), 13-15. ' 
5. Ibid., 15. 
6. Ibid., 15. Emphasis in original. 
7. Shailer Mathews, The Faith of Modernism (New York: Macmillan, 1924), 
8. Ibid., 61. 
9. Ibid., 235-38. 
10. Ibid., 237. Emphasis in original [sic]. 
11. Ibid., 238. 
12. Ibid., 2. 
13. Ibid., 87. 
14. Ibid., 22. 
15. Ibid., 34. 
16. Ibid., 36. 
17. Warren, 221. 
18. Ibid., 219. 
19. Ibid., 219. Emphasis in original. 
20. Mathews, 149. 
21. Ibid., 91. 
22. Ibid., 98. 
23. Warren, 157. 
24. Ibid., 157. 
25. Ibid., 157. 
26. Ibid., 70. 
27. For an outstanding introduction to the "Lives of Jesus" movement see Robert Strimple, The Modern Search for the Real Jesus (Philipsburg: Presbyterian.& reformed, 1995). This book is a "must read" for any pastor ministering in an academic community. 
28. Albert Schweitzer, The Quest of the Historical Jesus, trans. by W. Montgomery (New York: Macmillan, 1948). This work was originally published in German in 1906. 
29. Ibid., 400. 
30. Warren, 186. 
31. Ibid., 187. 
32. Ibid. 158; 
33. Mathews, 108. 
34. Ibid., 107. 
35. Ibid., 88. 
36. "What We Believe," Saddleback Valley Community Church. Taken off the church's internet Web site. 
37. Ibid., 1. 
38. Ibid. 
39. Mathews, 97-98. 
40. At this point it might be helpful if Neo-Liberals study the homoousios/homoiusios debate in the Trinitarian and Christological controversies of the early church. Justo Gonzalez's History of Christian Thought, Volume 1: From the Beginnings to the Council of Chalcedon (Nashville: Abingdon, 1970), provides a readable summary of the debate. 
41. Mathews, 146-47. 
42. Ibid., 47.