THE DECLINE OF THE EVANGELICAL CHURCH IN AMERICA--Part II of III

The Church In The World And Conformed To The World.

In my first installment in this series, I listed 12 foundational distinctives that make Christianity what it's supposed to be. In the 20th and 21st centuries, all of these things have been eroded in the American Evangelical movement. That process has been on an acceleration in the last fifty years or so. When I was young you could see small accommodations slowly infecting the church over the decades. Now there is a new compromise each year. If you doubt me just take a casual trip around all the Christian blogs. The Bible was once the only guide to truth. Just a few minutes ago, I was in a comment thread at a good Christian website. The bloggers there are good brothers. There a man in the comment thread (not one of the site's bloggers) that sees himself as a Christian (and he may be) was arguing that doctrine is not static, but new revelation can come. When I was young, even the Charismatics did not say such things. That kind of talk came only from Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses. Today, it is thought by many in the pews and pulpits in Evangelical circles.

These next four compromises are bound by a common thread. The world's ideas are now coming directly into the church. In fact, these new ideas seem to spread just about as quickly in the church as in the world. It's as though we want to be avant garde.

NUMBER 5. GENDER ROLES. Usually when an orthodox Christian addresses gender roles, you expect a diatribe against feminism and homosexuality. However, I'm going to start in the sixth grade boys locker room. That was the first place I was shocked by the degradation of our culture in regard to gender roles. I didn't even know what a gender role was back then, but I knew something was desperately wrong.

Here is the situation that just devastated me: Being brought up in a very staunch Christian home, one thing was drilled into me both by the preaching of my Dad and by his example. That was the heroic role of the man. Yes, I said "heroic." It was the job of the man to sacrifice whatever was necessary for the sake of his God, his family, and his country if his country was in the right. The mark of a man was responsibility. And the degree to which any particular man carried out his responsibilities was the measure of that man's manhood. Even for non-Christians the number one arena for the man to take responsibility was toward his family. It was the job of the man to defend and provide lovingly and sacrificially for his woman and his kids.

The first time I heard an older boy actually brag about his conquest of a girl, I was shocked like you can't believe. Why wasn't he ashamed? Being in a very small country school that had all grades 1-12, I was exposed to the locker room talk of junior and senior high school boys when I was in sixth grade. Of course that sort of bravado had a very large effect on us younger guys. We all wanted to be like the big guys. I was too much of a coward to speak against it, so, like the others, I went along and laughed and showed outward approval. But inside, I was in severe turmoil.

The role of the male in our culture began to change radically in the 1960's. The Viet Nam War was raging and rock-n-roll was the new Sunday School. It shaped our minds more than God did. And our hearts. And our future. There was a new ethic never before articulated by and for the American male: "Love 'em and leave 'em." That referred to the act of messing around with a girl and then moving out of town when she became pregnant, leaving her to fend for herself and the baby. It was heartless. That was before the government got into child support enforcement and many women simply had their lives turned upside down by the promises of this new type of "man." Young men everywhere were saying this and seeing it as a mark of male achievement, turning the old ethic on its head. Previous generations had their cads, for sure, but actually saying it out loud and with such robust approval was new. For the first time an American male could find widespread approval for selfish abandon, not self sacrifice.

In the generation before mine NO ONE would approve of this publicly, though the more profligate would in private. This sort of treatment of women would mark a man out for ridicule and he would have virtually no friends. He would be an outcast in just about any community. He would not be considered a substantial man. Back then "playboy" was an insult. Both parts of the word were intended to sting. "Play" indicated that the man had not grown up. He was still trying to play. And that made him a "boy." A real man approached life with the idea that everyone in the community expected him to be responsible for his family and his community. He knew they expected him to sacrifice if things came down to that. And even if he didn't like that idea inwardly he knew that his status in the community hung on the perception that he would always be a man when it counted. So he at least pretended.

Even the term "man" meant something different then. If someone said, "He's a real man," that didn't refer to his athletics, his looks, or his muscles. And it CERTAINLY didn't refer to the number of women he'd played. It referred to his integrity, courage, and honor.

No longer.

The New Ethic Of Narcissism began to reshape our thinking about what it meant to be a man. It started with the elevation of the promiscuous male to respectability. Joe Namath was our poster boy. It would end with the degradation of all of society, even the killing of the children, the very first people the man of the past was supposed to be willing to die for. This even effects our financial lives. Today a young man will expect his wife to work so that he can afford the payments on the man-toys he can't possibly be expected to wait and save for let alone do without for the good of the family. As a result, the kids go to day care and later to juvy court and later to hell.

Now to those pesky feminists. Yes, the ladies got way out of line. They, too, bought into the New Ethic Of Narcissism. And just as men dropped their responsibility to care for women, women ran from their responsibility to care for children. But wait. Don't forget what the "men" did. If a man is to have his way with any woman he wants, the old ways would simply not do. Under the old way of thinking a man was to love, provide for, and protect a woman. If a man played with a woman, he knew he was playing with fire. If the community found out, he would be expected to marry her or clean up his act. It was called "making her an honest women." If she became pregnant, all his options came down to three. He could marry her right quick and be embarrassed about it for a good long time. He could leave the community and not return. Or he could stay in the community, not take care of the family he started and face the shame that was rightly his, possibly with severe legal ramifications.

What was the solution for the new male? Easy, make the woman go to work and be independent of the man. Then the man could play around and not expect any sort of obligations on his money or his freedom. Of course, the woman could pop up pregnant. Then what? Roe vs. Wade. The great debate of the early 1970's. Kill the kid so the man can play. As I related earlier, we all knew the debate was as much about men's wrongs as it was about women's rights. But we wanted freedom, not responsibility so we told ourselves the lie.

So there you have it. I have not really laid into the ladies and the feminism movement. The feminism movement drew its strength, not just from the rebellion of the females, but probably more from the irresponsibility of the males. The ladies had some very real reasons to be angry with the men. The men led into the feminist movement, not the women. Yes, the women are at fault, but don't forget to blame the men for making it happen. Women really didn't have much to respect in their new "men."

NUMBER 6. THE EFFICACY OF THE GOSPEL. Why is it so few are being saved in America? Why are the churches empty? Why aren't our neighbors being saved? Why is there this growing gulf between our culture and the church?

I'd like us to consider three possibilities for why so few Americans are being saved. 1. The people of America may not be receptive to the gospel. Think of Jesus' parable of the soils. 2. The gospel doesn't work in this culture. 3. The gospel is not being brought to the people.

1. If the people of America are not receptive to the gospel, then the church is excused. Certainly, America is wealthy and does not feel in need of anything. After events that bring uncertainty, such as 911, we see an upsurge in spiritual interest expressed in church attendance. But for the most part we are fat and sassy. However, in my experience if you really go out and witness the gospel, you'll find fruit.

2. If the gospel doesn't work anymore, then the church is excused to some extent. That, believe it or not, is the excuse used these days. It's never put in those words, but that is, in essence, what's being said. The words used usually are something like "we need to make the gospel relevant to the culture." Interestingly, the Bible doesn't say any such thing. The Great Commission has one command and two promises. Matthew 28:18-20 says, "And having come to them Jesus spoke saying, 'All authority has been given to Me in heaven and upon the earth. Therefore, having gone, make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to keep all the things which I commanded you, and I myself am with you all the days until the end of the age.'"

The two promises are that He has the authority to accomplish anything in heaven or on earth and that He is with us until the end of this age. So we have the stuff to save His elect. The only real command is to "make disciples" of every people group.
In a sense there are three other commands: "go," "baptize," and "teach." However, the grammar makes these participles. Thus they are explanations on just how to do the main idea, "make disciples." First, we have to go. Well, if the target is America, we're here. Of course, we do have to go next door to see the folks we are supposed to disciple. And that implies an aggressive approach. Don't wait. Go. Next is "baptizing." This implies that we are not shy about the demands of the gospel. No, we tell them to repent and be baptized, just like in the New Testament. Last is just a reiteration and explanation of "make disciples." It is "teaching them to keep all that I commanded you." To make disciples is to make these folks be students. A disciple is a student. So to make a disciple, you teach a person.

Now I went through the specifics of the command for a purpose. Notice there is nothing in there about relevance or cultural accommodation. If you want to reach Nigerians, disciple Nigerians and send them out. Guess what. If you want to reach Americans, disciple Americans and send them out. They'll know the culture just fine.

The nitty gritty of the idea that the gospel isn't working in America is the lie that the gospel isn't good enough. We need to make it relevant. God was not hip. The truth of this issue will come next.

3. If the gospel is not being brought to the people in America, it's our fault. I'll make this very short. If you're one of the folks that think the gospel doesn't work without juicing it up a little with cultural relevance, stop now. Name or describe the last six persons you witnessed to in the last two months.

Yeah. I THOUGHT so.

The gospel is not working for the church because the church is not working for the gospel.

Acts 5:41-42 says, "So they went on their way from the presence of the Council, rejoicing that they had been considered worthy to suffer shame for His name. And every day, in the temple and from house to house, they kept right on teaching and preaching Jesus as the Christ."

To paraphrase an advertising slogan from the 1970's, we've come a long way, Baby!

NUMBER 7. SEPARATION FROM THE WORLD. When I was young, the idea of a Christian going to movies was dubious at best. We knew celluloid and popcorn wouldn't defile us. However, the idea was to keep our values and minds biblical and to spend our time and money in a way commensurate with biblical doctrine. We knew there is almost no such thing as entertainment that is spiritually neutral. We knew this world was not our home. I remember when Dad decided that the TV was going to be shut off when he or mom was not present. When I was young, there were no dirty jokes on TV, let alone dirty words. Dad decided to limit our TV because the use of alcohol was romanticized on quite a number of shows.

Now, don't get me wrong. These outward regulations are not biblically stipulated. However, the inward result sought by that generation is. We are to be separated. That's the idea of holiness. Today we hear little of separation from evil in the church. In fact, it seems we are often dead set on making our churches as near the world as possible.

What have we lost by this forfeiture of our separation? Three things. First, we have lost the idea of the untouchably holy. At Mount Sinai, a boundary was required by Yahweh to keep even the priests from coming too close to God. And when they got too close God told Moses to go back down there and get the people to get away so He didn't have to destroy them. When you go to church do you ever feel that you are dealing with Something so high and so holy you dare not look up? We raise our hands. We never get on our bellies. We're never made to feel like that anymore. I was recently in a mega church. It had coffee machines, soda machines, and pinball machines. Entertainment trumped holiness.

Second, we have lost personal holiness. In our insistence to never restrict our Christian freedom, we forgot to deny ourselves. Okay, you have the freedom to go to the movie theater. You don't have the freedom to laugh at raunchy jokes. You have the freedom to listen to any kind of music you want. You don't have the right to think on anything that would embarrass you in front of your Father. Many church goers would NEVER be willing to miss a movie just because it has a sex scene in it. Or because it uses the Lord's Name in vain. Or because it treats women like objects for men's pleasure. Or because it teaches kids to disrespect their parents. Then when we cuss and lust and our kids are awful, why are we surprised? Turn off the TV and get out your Bible. Skip the movie and spend a night with your wife, including a prayer time. Skip the concert and go pass out tracts to folks in line at the theater.

Third, we have lost our sense of corporate holiness. The principle of fellowship requires that we care about our associations individually and as a church. In our circles it is common place to associate with ministries that are in open heresy. Christian radio and TV stations carry Kenneth Copeland and Joyce Meyer. Religious book stores carry Brian McLaren and Tony Campolo. Christians openly patronize these businesses. I'm in the Southern Baptist Convention. In my denomination it is common for us to have Emergent heretics and their books. If you protest, you will be punished.

I recently challenged a group of Christian bloggers for plugging a purposely altered version of the Bible, the TNIV. One said, "Do I smell guilt by association?" (I was too polite to ask him if I smelled theology by slogan.) The assumption was clear, though. You're never guilty by association. I told him he did smell guilt by association. Then I gave him some Scriptures that make the fellowship principle clear. He didn't write anymore on the subject. In our time it is considered okay for churches and Christian groups to work tightly with heretics and unbelievers. In fact, if you want to be black-balled, just raise your voice about it. Read Numbers 19. The red heifer was not to be touched. The corpse was not to be touched. The unclean thing is not to be touched. What was God trying to teach the sons of Jacob if not separation? Did not both Paul and John tell us to shun the false teacher?

NUMBER 8. UPRIGHTNESS IN THE PULPIT. Fifty years ago, no evangelical church would countenance a man in the pulpit who was divorced. Now we allow the newly divorced to stay in the pulpit during the divorce. We once expected to see a man there who was spotless in reputation. He could have been a hellion before his conversion, but scandals were not really heard of during their tenure.

I'm not going to go through the rogues' list. First, they're not necessarily rogue's, though some surely are. Some may be men of God who really messed up. Second, you already know enough to see it's been a problem.

Remember the story of Uzzah and the ark in II Samuel 6? King David was having the ark transported back to Jerusalem. Two things went wrong. First, it was set on a wagon, instead of being carried by priests holding it by the poles. That alone was a violation of God's instructions on its handling. Oh, it was a new wagon. It just wasn't what God wanted. Second, when it tipped, (which wouldn't have happened if it had been transported as God instructed) Uzzah grabbed it to steady it. God killed him. The punished sin was Uzzah's. The ark was never to be touched. But part of the blame belongs to David. The ark was to be moved by the priests on foot, carrying it by the poles. If that procedure had been followed the oxen would not have stumbled and the ark would not have needed steadying.

In this way, at least some of our fallen preachers have been helped along toward their sin by a church that was compromised. Many of the preacher sex scandals have come out of closed door counselling sessions. If we had not incorporated psychological methods and if we had insisted on the biblical practice of women discipling women and men discipling men, a number of these things would not have happened. These preachers are responsible for their sins, but we are responsible for our own compromise as a church. Our laxity has undoubtedly contributed to at least some of their falls. We've let the attitudes and practices of the world come in. Is it any wonder we act like the world?

In Christ,
Phil Perkins. PS--In the final installment we will look at four ways in which the church has lost its heart right in the sanctuary to worldliness. The Church Conformed To The World In The Sanctuary.