CULTURAL FACTORS IN THE WEAKENING
OF CHURCHES
BY DAVID CLOUD
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
October 19, 2017
The following is excerpted from THE DISCIPLING CHURCH: THE CHURCH THAT WILL STAND UNTIL CHRIST COMES.
New for March 2017. This church planting manual aims to establish
churches on a solid biblical foundation of a regenerate church
membership, one mind in doctrine and practice, serious
discipleship, thorough-going discipline, and a large vision for world
evangelism. We examine the New Testament pattern of a discipling church,
and we trace the history of Baptist churches over the past 200 years to
document the apostasy away from the biblical pattern to a mixed
multitude philosophy. We also document the history of “sinner’s prayer”
evangelism which has affected the reality of a regenerate church
membership. The book deals with biblical salvation with evidence, care
in
receiving church members, the church’s essential first love for Christ,
the right kind of church leaders, the right kind of preaching, training
church members to be Bible students, the many facets of church
discipline, building strong families, youth ministry, training
preachers, charity, reproof, educating the church for spiritual
protection, maintaining standards for workers, the church’s prayer life,
the church’s separation, spiritual revival, the church’s music, and
many other things. The
last chapter documents some of the cultural factors that have weakened
churches over the past 100 years, including the theological liberalism,
public school system, materialism and working mothers, the rock &
roll pop culture, pop psychology, the feminist movement, New
Evangelicalism, television, and the Internet. There is also a list of
recommended materials for a discipling church. 513 pages.
__________
Following are some
of the factors that have weakened the character of Bible-believing
churches over the past 70 years and helped create a mixed multitude
philosophy.
Theological Liberalism
Confidence
in the Bible was weakened by theological liberalism and Darwinian
evolution, and this greatly weakened the spiritual power of
churches.
Though
liberalism took many forms, at its heart it was an attack upon the
authority of the Bible and it was an application of the theory of
evolution to Bible history.
The
Northern Baptists became liberal in theology at the beginning of the
20th century. (They were known as the Northern Baptist Convention until
1950, when the name was changed to American Baptist Convention.) For
example, in 1918, Harry Emerson Fosdick, pastor of the influential
Riverside
Church in New York City, published The Manhood of the Master, denying that Jesus Christ is God. In 1926, the Northern Baptist Convention voted by a margin of three to one not to evict Riverside Church from the convention.
Liberalism entered the Southern Baptist Convention in the first half of the 20th century.
By 1902, J.W. Bailey of North Carolina wrote in the Biblical Recorder
that there were a multitude of
“theologies” in the Southern Baptist Convention. He said, “Theologies
change every day. ... [Baptists do not stand for] formulated dogmas.”
A Baptist pastorate that was probably largely unregenerate stopped depending on spiritual weapons
and turned to carnal weapons such as programs and an efficient organization.
There was an emphasis on “efficiency” and “pragmatism” (using whatever works to produce a desired goal).
“Efficiency
consisted not in purity or obedience, but in system, organization, and
rationality in all areas of church activity. ... progressive church
leaders held that the church in the modern age needed a polity based not
on ancient authority but on science, rationality, and system. They
looked to social scientists and efficiency experts such as Frederick
Winslow Taylor, who in this era developed management into a science for
producing efficient organizations” (Restoring Integrity in Baptist Churches, Kindle loc. 2167-2174).
In
the 1920s, the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary appointed Gaines
Dobbins as a “professor of church efficiency.” His 1923 book The Efficient Church
had a wide influence. He claimed that Christ’s ministry in the Gospels
was “the perfection of efficiency” and Paul was the “world’s greatest
efficiency expert in religion.”
The
churches began leaning to the spirit and wisdom of the times instead of
God’s Spirit and God’s Word. Instead of separating from the world and
its unenlightened thinking, they learned from the world.
They
bowed to the American spirit of individualism and consumerism. They
stopped requiring evidence of salvation and practicing discipline so as
not to offend potential members. The churches appeased the people’s
idolatrous, me-centered desire to shop for a church that met their felt
needs. They lowered the spiritual standards, became
entertainment-oriented, borrowed the world’s music to make Christian
music more appealing to the unsaved and carnal, softened the preaching,
created “youth ministries” that encouraged the generation gap and were
merely Christianized versions of the world’s pop culture. By the last
half of the 20th century, this spiritual appeasement produced the
seeker-sensitive, megachurch movement.
The
churches bowed to the influence of the “new morality” and allowed
church members to live worldly lives. Such things as dating, pre-marital
sex, drinking, jazz, rock, divorce, unisex fashions flooded the weak
churches.
The churches bowed to the philosophy of non-judgmentalism and non-dogmatism that permeated society.
The concept of church as pilgrims and strangers in a foreign
country was replaced by Americanism and flag waving.
The
Social Gospel produced an emphasis away from evangelism and church
planting. Building God’s kingdom on earth through social-justice
projects and maintaining good social order
began to replace “saving brands from the burning.”
In
1910, William Poteat, president of Wake Forest College, told the annual
Southern Baptist Convention that Baptists were in the best position to
save civilization.
In
1920, Richard Edmonds wrote, “Upon the Baptists of the South may rest
the salvation of America and of the world from chaos and from sinking
back into the darkness of the middle ages” (The South, America and the World).
The Public School System
Few
things have done more to weaken Bible-believing churches than the
public school system with its anti-God, anti-Bible, evolutionary,
socialistic, globalistic agenda. It is a major tool of the “god of this
world” in these end times. Christian parents have foolishly turned their
children over to the hands of the devil to be brainwashed and
sexualized and converted to the devil’s agenda.
Public
school attendance is a major reason why so few of the young people in
the churches are true disciples of Christ, why, in fact, many of them
become open enemies of Christ.
The
public school system was one of the most negative spiritual and moral
influences in my youth, and that was in a day wherein the schools in
America were not nearly as degenerate as they are today. I entered
grammar school in 1955 and graduated from high school in 1967. As I
recall, we weren’t taught evolution or communism or
multiculturalism or feminism or transsexualism.
In
fact, for much of that time, we still had Bible reading and prayer in
the schools. But even then the secularized environment and the
blossoming rock & roll pop culture and the
godless friends were devastating to my Christian profession.
My
parents took me to church every time the doors were open, but how can a
few hours in a weak church per week overcome 30 and more hours of
immersion in the
world?
By
the time I was in junior high school, the Bible and prayer were kicked
out of the nation’s schools by fiat of the U.S. Supreme Court.
Creationism was replaced by evolution. Biblical morality was replaced
with moral relativism. The
sexual revolution was glorified.
In 2015, I received the following testimony from a public school teacher:
“I
teach math to twelve- to fifteen-year-old children in public school in a
heavily Protestant-churched community in North Carolina. The students
are absolutely addicted to cell phones. Many walk around campus plugged
into their devices. Music and games are the most addictive. Posting of
‘selfies’ on Snapchat is very popular. All the immorality that we
had to work hard to find when we were young is available to children in a
second. Few, if any, are strong enough to resist biting the apple.”
The truth of 1 Corinthians 15:33 guarantees that a church populated by kids educated in the public
school system will be a weak church with weak Christian homes and weak youth. See also Psalm 1:1; Proverbs 19:27; Jeremiah 10:2; 2 Corinthians 6:14-18.
Pastor David Sorenson makes the following wise comment:
“I
know of no greater passage of Scripture dealing with the matter of
Christian education than Psalm 1. There probably is no institution in
this country that more embodies the counsel of the ungodly, the way of
sinners, and the seat of the scornful than
the national public education establishment. With its systemic teaching
of evolution which mocks creation, it certainly occupies the seat of the
scornful. With its institutionalized sex education (that is little more
than sex encouragement), it certainly is in the way of sinners. As it
tacitly ignores the things of God under the guise of separation of
church and state, it certainly is the counsel of the ungodly. The
objective of Psalm 1:1 is to get our families out of the world and to
get the
world out of our families” (Training Your Children to Turn out Right, pp. 92, 93).
Pastor Kerry Allen comments on 1 Samuel 13:19-20:
“Children
are arrows to be sharpened and shot at our enemy, the devil. Are we
foolish enough to believe that if we give our arrows to the enemy, he is
going to sharpen them for us? No, rather he will see to it that they
are dull and useless against him. Wise warriors will never allow the
enemy to tamper with their weapons of warfare”
(How Can I Except Some Man Guide Me?)
I
realize there are situations in which a child must attend public school
for reasons that might be out of the parent’s control. For example,
there are divorced Christians that have to share
custody with an unsaved parent. And in some situations, missionaries
have chosen to send their children to a public school in a foreign
country after weighing all of their options before the Lord. I know of
two cases like this that have turned out right, and those children are
serving the Lord. But I must hasten to add that I personally know of only two!
If
children must attend public school, the key to having them turn out
right for the Lord is intimate, godly involvement by the parents and a
committed relationship with a strong church.
The same thing can be said about secular university. Pastor Mike Sullivant has the following observation:
“Very
few that go off to secular
university go on to serve the Lord. I’ve got one guy that is in
engineering, but he lives with a Christian family off campus and comes
home every weekend. His family is active in the church and during the
summer he comes home to work and is faithful to church and goes to the
activities. Pastor Bob Kelly said that the only way that a saved person
could go to a secular school and turn out right is that he not be just
an ATTENDER of a good church but that he be ACTIVELY INVOLVED in the
church. I’ve
seen some of our young people leave here and go to the university in
Winnipeg and attend a church but they are not active in a church, and it
seems that it is no better for them than if they weren’t going to
church at all. I’ve never seen a non-active one make it without being
scorched big time.”
Materialism and Working Mothers
Another key factor in the weakening of churches over the past 60 years is the breakdown of the home, and one of the chief causes
of this is the frenzied pursuit of wealth and comfort with the accompanying phenomenon of working mothers.
During
World War II, women entered the work force in great numbers because so
many men were fighting overseas. (This phenomenon had
begun in World War I, but it exploded in World War II.) When the war
ended, the trend toward working moms did not stop.
Instead of being content with living on the father’s paycheck while the mothers attended to the essential business
of keeping the home and caring for the children, mothers and fathers both entered the work force.
This
was direct and brazen disobedience to God’s Word, and it was evidence
that many homes and churches were following society rather than
Scripture.
“That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed”
(Titus 2:4-5).
The working mother phenomenon left children without close parental supervision and training, and the devil has filled the void.
Ron
Williams, founder of the Hephzibah House in Winona Lake, Indiana, has
many decades of experience working with troubled children from Christian
homes. He issues the following warning:
“Small
wonder many children and young people forge such strong loyalties to
peers even though they are an adverse influence on them. In the absence
of a full-time mother, a child will naturally seek guidance,
companionship and fulfillment from another source. Loyalties that should
have been cemented with his parents and family are instead farmed out
to evil-charactered
peers readily provided by a satanically-dominated world. Mom, your
children need you, not a surrogate hireling. You cannot be replaced by
another. God has called you to be a ‘keeper at home,’ not to stunt your
creativity or imprison you in an unfulfilling, demeaning role, but
because you have been called to the high and noble office of a
homemaker; a responsibility with unmeasureable rewards, heavy demands,
great fulfillment, and inestimable blessing for you, your husband, and
your
children.”
If
a married woman doesn’t have children or if her children are grown or
if she can work part time without causing any harm to her family, that
is a different situation.
The Rock & Roll Pop Culture
Rock
music is the heart and soul of an ungodly global pop culture. It is the
soundtrack of the modern youth culture. Originating in America and
England, it spread throughout the world.
In
most nations today,
young people share the same philosophy, have the same values, wear the
same fashions, love the same techno gadgets, have the same heroes,
display the same attitude.
Rock music and the pop culture that it began to create in the 1950s
weakened churches almost immediately and it has been weakening them ever since.
Young
people were enticed, addicted, and brainwashed. The Pied Piper of rock
reached into the church in which I was raised and captured the hearts of
all
of the young people. I don’t know of any exceptions.
I
remember how I was affected by early rock & roll records in 1962,
the year I turned 13. I was mesmerized. The feelings produced by the
music were so powerful. Church was boring, but
this new world was amazing! I couldn’t wait to quit
church and live out my rock & roll fantasies, and I did that at age
17 when I graduated from high school and had my own car.
Rock music is enticing and
transformational because it brings the philosophy of self-centeredness, rebellion to authority, and moral license.
The rock culture is not morally neutral. Rebellion against God’s holy laws is not a sideline of rock & roll; it is the
heart and soul.
From
its inception in the 1950s and 1960s, rock has preached rebellion and
moral license. The rock philosophy is the philosophy of “do your own
thing; don’t let anyone tell you what to do.” It’s the me-first
philosophy that
lies at the heart of the self-esteem culture.
Rock
preaches the ancient lie that the devil uttered to Eve: “God’s laws are
restrictive; He is keeping you from enjoying life to the fullest; throw
off His yoke and live as you please; be your
own god.”
“Elvis changed our hairstyles, dress styles, our attitudes toward sex, all the musical taste” (David Brinkley, NBC News, cited by Larry Nager, Memphis Beat, p. 216).
“I’m free to do what I want any old time” (Rolling Stones, 1965).
“It’s my life and I’ll do what I want/ It’s my mind, and I’ll think what I want” (The Animals, 1965).
“You got to go where you
want to go/ do what you want to do” (Mamas and Papas, 1966).
“It’s your thing/ do what you want to do” (Isley Brothers, 1969).
“We don’t need no thought control” (Pink Floyd, “Another Brick in the Wall,” 1979).
“I’m gonna do it my way. ... I want to make my own decision ... I want to be the one in control…” (Janet Jackson, “Control,” 1986).
“Nothing’s forbidden and nothing’s taboo when two are in love” (Prince, “When Two Are in Love,” 1988).
“... the only rules you should live by [are] rules made up by
you” (Pennywise, “Rules,” 1991).
“So what we get drunk/ So what we smoke weed … Living young and wild and free” (“Young, Wild and Free,” Snoop Dog and Wiz Khalifa, 2011).
“We can do what we want; we can live as we choose” (Paul McCartney, “New,” 2013).
“The whole Beatles idea was to do what you want” (John Lennon, cited by David Sheff, The Playboy Interviews with John Lennon and Yoko Ono, p. 61).
Little Richard “freed people from their inhibitions, unleashing their spirit, ENABLING THEM TO DO EXACTLY WHAT THEY FELT LIKE DOING” (Life & Times of Little Richard, p. 66).
At
the
heart of rock music is sexual liberty, which is brazen rebellion against
God’s holy law of marriage. Again we quote the rock and rollers
themselves as evidence for this:
“Everyone takes it for granted that rock and roll is
synonymous with sex” (Chris Stein of the rock group Blondie, People, May 21, 1979).
“Rock music is sex. The big beat matches the body’s rhythms” (Frank Zappa of the Mothers of Invention, Life,
June 28, 1968).
“The sex is definitely in the music, and sex is in all aspects of the music” (Luke Campbell of 2 Live Crew).
“Rock ’n’ roll is synonymous with sex and you can’t take that away from it. It just doesn’t work” (Steven Tyler of Aerosmith, Entertainment Tonight, ABC, Dec. 10, 1987).
“Rock ‘n’ roll is 99% sex” (John Oates of Hall & Oates, Circus, Jan. 31, 1976).
“Pop music revolves around sexuality. I believe that if there is anarchy, let’s make it sexual anarchy rather than political” (Adam Ant, From Rock to Rock, p. 93).
“Perhaps my
music is sexy ... but what music with a big beat isn’t?” (Jimi Hendrix, Henderson, cited from his biography ‘Scuse Me While I Kiss the Sky, p. 117).
“Rock ‘n’ roll is sex. Real rock ‘n’ roll isn’t
based on cerebral thoughts. It’s based on one’s lower nature” (Paul Stanley of KISS, cited from The Role of Rock, p. 44).
“That’s what rock is all about—sex with a 100 megaton bomb, THE BEAT!” (Gene Simmons of
Kiss, Entertainment Tonight, ABC, Dec. 10, 1987).
“Rock ‘n’ roll is all sex. One hundred percent sex” (Debbie Harry of Blondie, cited by Carl Belz, “Television Shows and Rock Music,” The Age of
Communication, Goodyear Publishing Company, 1974, p. 398).
Rock
music represents the world of the sexual revolution: shacking up,
hooking up, the homosexual agenda (LGBT, Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual,
Transsexual), no-fault divorce,
polyamory (multiple marriage partners).
The rock world is a sleazy, filthy world. It is impossible for a Bible-believing Christian to watch the Grammys or to read Rolling Stone
and other rock magazines or even to browse the Walmart
pop music department or the pop music section of the Apple iTunes store
without seeing the continual flaunting of nakedness and fornication.
The lives of popular rock musicians have been filled with profanity, fornication, adultery,
multiple marriages, homosexuality, lesbianism, alcohol abuse, drug abuse, tumult, covetousness, theft, and suicide.
No wonder the rock culture has weakened churches. Very few churches have been strong enough to overcome its pull and its
influence on the people.
Pop Psychology
Pop psychology has also greatly influenced society over the past half century and in turn weakened the churches.
Humanistic
psychology has greatly
undermined biblical morality. It is based on the premise that man is
basically good rather than a fallen sinner. It de-emphasizes personal
responsibility for one’s actions. Man is not a sinner, he is a victim
(of his home life, his society, etc.). It has transformed sins into
diseases (e.g., drunkenness is alcoholism).
At
the heart of pop psychology is self-esteemism, which is exactly what
fallen man wants. He wants to be the center of his universe. He wants to
follow his heart and chase his dreams, and that is exactly what
psychology encourages him to do.
The
doctrine of self-esteem was developed by the fathers of the
psychological counseling movement and has spread throughout that field
and beyond to every level of modern society.
According
to the doctrine of self-esteem, man must pursue his own self-love or
self-confidence for the sake of psychological wholeness, and anything
that damages self-esteem is wrong. The mystical path to the development
of self-esteem is psychological counseling. Since absolute rules produce
guilt in those who don’t live up to them, the pursuit of self-esteem
emphasizes the need for “new rules which will allow us more freedom of
movement and encourage us to accept ourselves just as we are” (E.S.
Williams, The Dark Side of Christian Counselling, p. 116).
Atheist Abraham Maslow emphasized the need for self-esteem in books such as A Theory of Human
Motivation (1943), Motivation and Personality (1954), and Toward a Psychology of Being (1955).
He taught that a lack of self-esteem can lead to “neurotic trends.”
Rejecting the doctrine of the fall, he believed that man is basically
good and there is “a positive, self-actualising force within each person
that is struggling to assert itself” (Williams, The Dark Side, p. 114). If it is “permitted to guide our life, we grow healthy, fruitful, and happy”
(Motivation and Personality, 1970, p. 122).
Dr. Nathaniel Branden has had a massive influence in the promotion of self-esteem through books such as Psychology of Self-Esteem (1969), How to Raise Your Self-Esteem
(1987), and the Six Pillars of Self-Esteem
(1995). He treats self-esteem as a basic human need that is essential
for mental health. He says, “The first love affair we must consummate
successfully in this world is with ourselves; only then are we ready for
a relationship.”
Douglas Groothuis identifies the self-esteem doctrine as New Age in character.
“Maslow’s
past-breaking efforts cleared the way for an exodus from the old
psychological view
of humanity toward a new human that is essentially good and has within
himself unlimited potential for growth. A whole host of thinkers--Erich
Fromm, Rollo May, Carl Rogers and others--sound this call. In humanistic
psychology the self is seen as the radiant heart of health, and
psychotherapy must strive to get the person in touch with that source of
goodness. ... This is the message at the core of New Age teaching” (Unmasking the New Age, 1986, p. 78).
The pursuit of self-esteem puts one into contact with the god of end-times apostasy.
Though
fashioned by God-haters such as Abraham Maslow, self-esteem doctrine
has been promoted far and wide in Christian circles by a slew of
Christian psychologists, with James Dobson leading the way.
Dobson claims that “lack of self-esteem produces more symptoms of psychiatric disorders than any other factor yet identified” (Dr. Dobson Answers Your Questions about Confident Healthy Families, 1987, pp. 73-74). His 1974 book Hide and Seek
was designed “to formulate a well-defined philosophy--and approach to
child rearing--that will contribute to self-esteem from infancy
onwards.” He says, “If I could write
a prescription for the women of the world, I would provide each one of
them with a healthy dose of self-esteem and personal worth (taken three
times a day until the symptoms disappear). I have no doubt that this is
their greatest need” (What Wives Wish Their Husbands Knew about Women,
p. 35). He says, “... lack of self-esteem is a threat to the entire
human family, affecting children, adolescents, the elderly, all
socioeconomic levels of society, and each race and ethic culture”
(What Wives Wish, p. 24).
Dobson believes that lack of self-esteem is the cause of every social ill.
“Thus,
whenever the keys to self-esteem are seemingly out of reach for a large
percentage of the people, as in twentieth-century America, then
widespread mental illness, neuroticism, hatred, alcoholism, drug abuse,
violence, and social disorder will certainly occur. Personal worth is
not something humans are free to take or leave. We must have it, and
when it is unattainable, everybody suffers” (Dr. Dobson Answers Your Questions about Confident, Healthy Families, p. 67).
To
the contrary, the Bible lays the ills of society at the feet of fallen
man and his rebellion against God.
Jesus taught that murder, adultery, fornication, covetousness, deceit,
theft, and such come from man’s wicked heart (Mark 7:21-23).
David Seamands is another pioneer of the Christian self-esteem movement. His hugely popular books
Healing for Damaged Emotions and Healing of Memories
seek to heal the believer of “Satan’s most powerful psychological
weapon” which is “low self-esteem.” He aims to take the client back into
the past to recover and heal memories of events that injured one’s
self-esteem.
Seamands
has been widely recommended by evangelicals, including James Dobson and
George Verwer (Youth With A Mission), who wrote the foreword to Healing for Damaged Emotions.
Seamands’
mystical path toward self-esteem is “healing of memories” through
psychological counseling and New Age techniques. He promotes things as
positive visualization, guided imagery, dream analysis, and venting of
emotions. Through visualization, the individual is taught to imagine
painful past events in perfect detail and to imagine Jesus entering the
scenes to bring healing. This is not only vain fantasy; it is occultic
and it is a recipe for communing with
deceiving spirits masquerading as angels of light.
The self-esteem doctrine downplays and redefines sin.
The
very popular and influential Robert Schuller, who was a pioneer in the
“Christian” self-esteem movement, defined sin as “any act or thought
that robs myself or another human being of his or her self-esteem” (Self-Esteem: The New Reformation,
p. 14). He defined the new birth as “being changed from a negative to a
positive self-image--from inferiority to self-esteem” (p. 68). He even
said that Christ was “self-esteem incarnate” (p. 135). Schuller has been
praised and promoted by a whose-who of evangelicalism, including Billy
Graham, W.A. Criswell, R.C. Sproul, Christianity Today,
National Association of Evangelicals, World Vision, Promise Keepers,
James Dobson, Tony Campolo, Bill Bright, Paul Yonggi Cho, Jack Hayford,
Ralph Reed, Bill Hybels, Paul Crouch, John Wimber, Ravi Zacharias, Lee
Strobel, Chuck Colson, and Rick Warren, to name a few. (See
“Evangelicals and Heretic Robert Schuller” at the Way of Life web site.)
The
self-esteem doctrine promotes an unscriptural view of the conscience.
While acknowledging that the conscience (an “inner voice”) produces
guilt and negative thoughts, the proposed solution is not the biblical
path of regeneration through repentance
and faith followed by a Christian walk of obedience and confession. The
proposed solution, instead, is to lower the standards of morality.
The
atheistic founders of the self-esteem doctrine hated the holy God of
the Bible and His holy
law and sought to destroy His authority over men by denying His
existence and teaching moral relativism and the pursuit of Self.
Christian counsellors who have borrowed the self-esteem doctrine also
tend to downplay the absoluteness of God’s law, the necessity of strict
obedience, and they replace the biblical means of soothing the
conscience with psychological mumbo-jumbo.
Humanistic
psychology has had a major influence on modern society, and it has
caused the thinking of church members to be corrupted away from biblical
thinking. Since most church members were educated in the public school
system and are otherwise influenced by psychology, and since most of
them are not serious students of God’s Word, their thinking is
more secular than biblical.
Most
churches have not been strong enough to resist the onslaught of
humanistic psychology. Most pastors have not properly educated the
people or properly warned them. They have not stood plainly against
heretical psychological principles. They do not want to “offend” the
people and “drive them away.”
The result has been weakened churches and mixed multitudes.
Democracy
Democracy is
another factor that has weakened the discipline of churches.
The
democratic political movement of modern times was birthed in America.
The rule of kings was replaced with the rule of the people. Though
America is not strictly a democracy;
it is a democratic republic, which is a democracy under the rule of law,
the emphasis is still on the rule of the people. The Declaration of
Independence championed “the right of the people,” while the United
States Constitution begins with the words, “We the people.” President
Abraham Lincoln described the U.S. government as one “of the people, by
the people, and for the people.”
Multitudes of people flocked to America in search of people’s rights.
In
a great many ways
democracy has been a great blessing, primarily in the areas of liberty
and economic prosperity. It liberated men from the dictates of
autocratic kings and state churches. It created a climate in which
churches multiplied and world evangelism prospered. It was the search
for liberty and economic prosperity that brought the masses to America’s
shores and that spread American democracy to many nations.
A
danger of this is in transferring the philosophy and attitude of
“people’s power” from the political realm into the church. The church is
not a democracy. It is not “of the people, by the people, and for the
people.” The believer in Christ is spiritually translated into Christ’s
kingdom (Col. 1:13),
and the church is an outpost of
Christ’s coming kingdom, and it is obligated to live under His Headship.
The church is a theocracy ruled by Christ and His Word. Christ appoints
governors, who are called pastors, elders, and bishops, and they have
the rule over the church under Christ (Heb. 13:17;
1 Pe. 5:1-2). They don’t have have legislative power, because the
church’s laws are already settled in the canon of Scripture. Rather they
have executive and judicial powers.
In
the New Testament, we see the congregation participating in decisions,
particularly in the selection of deacons (Acts 6:1-6). But this is not
“people’s power” in that it was done under the direction of and in
coordination with the leaders.
What
has happened in American churches, in particular, and in churches
influenced by them, is the intrusion of the attitude of people’s power.
Too often, an attitude of “we are the people, and we will decide what we
do” has replaced that of “we are the Lord’s people and
we will live strictly by His will.”
This can best be seen by comparing churches today with those of former times.
Consider the following description of church discipline 150 years ago:
“The
oversight
of the members was minute and persistent. Their general conduct, their
domestic life, their business, their connections in civil society, their
recreations, and even their dress, were all deemed legitimate subjects
for the strictest supervision” (J.J. Goadby, Discipline in Early Baptist Churches, 1871).
This
was a perfectly biblical position, and people in that day commonly
submitted to such discipline. The level of democracy and the modern
focus on self had not yet ruined church discipline.
But today the attitude on the part of vast numbers of church members is that these things are not
the business of the church. The attitude is more alongs the line of,
“You can’t tell me what I can or cannot do, how I dress, what music I
listen to, how I conduct my family life and business, whom I associate
with. Who do the pastors think they are?”
This
thinking is evident in the way that so many churches “hire and fire”
preachers, not on the basis of biblical truth and righteousness, but on
the basis of the whims of the people, as if pastors exist to do the
bidding of the people and to please them. I think of a Baptist church in
Tennessee that fired the preacher nearly every
year and got a new one. Typically, it took a new preacher about a year
to offend the main families in the church!
The Feminist Movement
The feminist movement has had a very powerful influence on modern society and on the churches.
It
began in the second half of the 19th century with the push for women’s
suffrage, political equality (an equal voice and place for women in
politics), workplace equality (equal pay for equal work), and female
education. The first gathering devoted to women’s rights was in 1848
with about 100 people in attendance. It was led by Elizabeth Cady
Stanton and Lucretia Mott. Full voting rights were granted to women in
America in
1920.
By
the early 20th century, the feminist movement was pushing for
“reproductive rights,” which refers to birth control and abortion. Many
19th century feminist leaders were opposed to abortion, but by the 20th
century, feminism
was at the forefront of the abortion rights movement which has resulted
in the destruction of millions upon millions of unborn children.
The
feminist movement has become ever more radical. It has pushed for
“non-sexist” or “gender
neutral” language (e.g., chairman becomes chairperson). It has often
been an opponent of traditional marriage and has been at the forefront
of homosexual rights. It has reconstituted goddess theology. Pressure
for accommodation of women in all positions, has resulted in the
lowering of physical standards for police, firefighters, and the
military.
Feminism
created the unisex movement and paved the way for homosexual rights.
The pantsuit was invented in 1966 by homosexual fashion designer Yves
Saint Laurent. Feminist Linda Grant said that the pantsuit “put women on
an equal sartorial footing with men and “is what fashion gave to
feminism” (“Feminism Was Built on the Trouser Suit,” The Guardian,
June 3, 2008).
The breaking down of the created distinction between male and female in
the pop culture has, in turn, greatly encouraged the homosexual
movement.
The
feminist movement has had an influence in Bible-believing churches
because so many
professing Christian women are more influenced by feminist thinking than
by the Bible. They consider feminine characteristics such as “a meek
and quiet spirit” (1 Pe. 3:4) and modesty, shamefacedness, and sobriety
(1 Ti. 2:9) to be outdated. As Don Boys points out, “For us to suggest
that women be modest in apparel, attitude, and actions as Paul commanded
is almost quaint. Moreover, not only do feminists go ballistic but also
many closet feminists in our churches are quick to demand the right to
wear whatever they choose, even if the Apostle Paul or their husbands
disagree” (“Megyn Kelly, Whatever Happened to Modesty?” donboys.cstnews.com, Nov. 17, 2016).
Christian
mothers aren’t content to be keepers at home (Titus 2:5). They
resist the Bible’s command that the wife submit herself to her husband
as unto the Lord. The Scripture’s command that a woman not teach or
usurp authority over the man is thought to be outdated (1 Ti. 2:12).
They want an equal voice with the men in church affairs. They want
their daughters to “follow their hearts,” even if that means playing
male-dominated sports or pursuing something like a career in the
infantry.
They
bob their hair and wear pants (as a product of the feminist-influenced
unisex fashion movement), and woe be to that preacher who tries to
reprove them. It has been a long time since a Baptist preacher published
a book by the title of Bobbed Hair, Bossy Wives, and Women Preachers! (That was the title
of a 1941 pamphlet by Evangelist John R. Rice.)
Rice
wrote, “The pulpit is a place for the strongest men that we have. The
preacher in the pulpit should speak with an authority that is absolutely
forbidden a woman to
exercise.”
Where are those strong men today?
The
feminization effect has resulted in a softening of the preaching and
the militant stance of the church. God is a “man of war,” but very few
preachers are. Christ took on the Pharisees and Sadducees, and Paul took
on every heretic that raised his head, but such zeal is foreign to most
so-called preachers. Martin Luther took on Rome and called the pope the
antichrist and called the pope’s bull “all impiety,
blasphemy, ignorance, impudence, hypocrisy, lying.” Charles Spurgeon
took on the Baptist Union and railed against “soft manners and squeamish
words” in the pulpit, calling for “dinging our pulpits into blads”
[smashing them with forceful preaching]. Gilbert Tennent took on the
Presbyterians of his day, lifting his voice in 1740 in the midst of a
synod (a regional governing body) to warn that many preachers were
unregenerate and calling them “rotten-hearted hypocrites, and utter
strangers to the
saving knowledge of God and of their own hearts” (Joseph Tracy, The Great Awakening, 1842).
This
type of boldness is entirely unknown among convention Baptists, and it
is exceedingly rare among fundamental Baptists. The protest has
long gone out of Protestants, and the “fundamentalism” has largely gone
out of fundamentalists.
I
am convinced that the feminization of society has resulted in a
weakening of even the best churches and a rapidly growing de-emphasis on
biblical militancy (being a soldier in Christ’s army).
The
feminization of the churches can even be seen in a softening of the
hymns. There is less forthrightness in the lyrics and less military
boldness in the music.
New Evangelicalism
New
Evangelicalism has greatly influenced and seriously weakened
Bible-believing churches, even many of those who would say that they are
opposed to New Evangelicalism.
The
weakening came after World War II with the advent of a religious philosophy which its own leaders branded “new evangelicalism.”
During
the first half of the 20th century, evangelicalism in America was
synonymous with fundamentalism. Many
historians make this connection, including George Marsden says, “There
was not a practical distinction between fundamentalist and evangelical:
the words were interchangeable” (Reforming Fundamentalism, p. 48).
When
the National
Association of Evangelicals (NAE) was formed in 1942, for example,
participants included such fundamentalist leaders as Bob Jones, Sr.,
John R. Rice, Charles Woodbridge, Harry Ironside, and David Otis Fuller.
By
the mid-1950s, though, a
clear break between separatist fundamentalists and non-separatist
evangelicals occurred. This was occasioned largely by the ecumenical
evangelism of Billy Graham. Most of the stronger men dropped out of the
National Association of Evangelicals. The terms “evangelicalism” and
“fundamentalism” began “to refer to two different movements” (William
Martin, A Prophet with Honor, p. 224).
The
sons of evangelical-fundamentalist preachers determined to create a
“New Evangelicalism.” They would not be fighters; they would be
diplomats; they would have a positive rather than a militant emphasis;
they would be infiltrators rather than separatists. They refused to be
restricted by “a separatist mentality.”
The
term “New Evangelicalism” defined a new type of evangelicalism to
distinguish it from those who had heretofore borne that label. The term
“new evangelicalism” was probably coined by Harold Ockenga (1905-1985),
one of the most influential evangelical leaders of the
1940s. He was the pastor of Park Street Church (Congregational) in
Boston, founder of the National Association of Evangelicals, co-founder
and one-time president of Fuller Theological Seminary, first president
of the World Evangelical Fellowship, president of Gordon College and
Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, a director of the Billy Graham
Evangelistic Association, and chairman of the board and one-time editor
of Christianity Today. In the foreword to Dr. Harold Lindsell’s book
The Battle for the Bible, Ockenga stated the philosophy of new evangelicalism as follows:
“Neo-evangelicalism
was born in 1948 in connection with a convocation address which I gave
in the Civic Auditorium in Pasadena. While
reaffirming the theological view of fundamentalism, this address
repudiated its ecclesiology and its social theory. The ringing call for a
REPUDIATION OF SEPARATISM and the summons to social involvement
received a hearty response from many evangelicals. ... It differed from
fundamentalism in its repudiation of separatism and its determination to
engage itself in the theological dialogue of the day. It had a new
emphasis upon the application of the gospel to the sociological,
political, and
economic areas of life.”
Ockenga
did not create the movement; he merely labeled and described the new
mood of positivism and non-militancy that was permeating his generation.
Ockenga and the new generation of evangelicals, Billy Graham
figuring most prominently, determined to abandon a strong Bible stance.
Instead, they would pursue dialogue, intellectualism, and appeasement.
They determined to stay within liberal denominations to attempt to
change things from within rather than practice separation.
The
New Evangelical would dialogue with those who teach error rather than
proclaim the Word of God boldly and without compromise and separate from
them. The New Evangelical would meet the haughty liberal on his own
turf with human scholarship rather than follow the humble path of being
counted a fool for Christ’s sake by standing simply upon Scripture. New
Evangelical leaders also determined to start a “rethinking process”
whereby the old paths were to be
continually reassessed in light of new goals, methods, and ideology.
Dr.
Charles Woodbridge, a professor at Fuller Theological Seminary in its
early days, a founding member of the National Association of
Evangelicals, and a personal
friend of men such as Harold Ockenga and Carl Henry, rejected the New
Evangelicalism and spent the rest of his life warning of its dangers. In
his 1969 book, The New Evangelicalism, he traced the downward path of New Evangelical compromise:
“The
New Evangelicalism is a theological and moral compromise of the
deadliest sort. It is an insidious attack upon the Word of God. ... The
New Evangelicalism advocates TOLERATION of error. It is following the
downward path of ACCOMMODATION to error, COOPERATION with error,
CONTAMINATION by error, and ultimate CAPITULATION to error!”
(Woodbridge, The New Evangelicalism, pp. 9, 15).
Each
passing decade has witnessed more plainly to the truth of Dr.
Woodbridge’s observations. Toleration of error leads to accommodation,
cooperation, contamination, and capitulation. This is precisely the path
that evangelical Christianity in general has taken during the past 50
years, as New Evangelicalism has
spread across the world.
The
New Evangelical philosophy has been adopted by such well-known
Christian leaders as Billy Graham, Bill Bright, Harold Lindsell, John
R.W. Stott, Luis Palau, E.V. Hill, Leighton Ford, Charles Stanley, Bill
Hybels, Warren Wiersbe, Chuck Colson, Donald McGavran, Tony Campolo,
Arthur Glasser, D. James Kennedy, David Hocking, Charles Swindoll, Rick
Warren, Bill Hybels, and a host of other men. New Evangelicalism has
been popularized through pleasant personalities and broadcast through
powerful print, radio, and television media. Christianity Today
was founded in 1956 to voice the new philosophy. Through publishing
houses such as InterVarsity Press, Zondervan, Tyndale House Publishers,
Moody
Press, and Thomas Nelson--to name a few--New Evangelical thought was
broadcast internationally. New Evangelicalism became the working
principle of large interdenominational organizations such as the
National Association of Evangelicals, National Religious Broadcasters,
Youth for Christ, Campus Crusade for Christ, Back to the Bible,
Inter-Varsity Christian Fellowship, World Vision, Operation
Mobilization, the Evangelical Foreign Mission Association, World
Evangelical Fellowship, the National
Sunday
School Association, etc. It was spread through educational institutions
such as Fuller Theological Seminary, Wheaton College, Gordon-Conwell,
BIOLA, and Moody Bible Institute.
Because
of the tremendous influence of these men and
organizations, New Evangelical thought has swept the globe. Today,
almost without exception, those who call themselves evangelicals are New
Evangelicals; the terms have become synonymous. Old-line evangelicals,
with rare exceptions, have either aligned with the fundamentalist
movement or have adopted New Evangelicalism.
Evangelicalism’s
compromise is seen in its repudiation of biblical holiness. It has
broken down the walls of ecclesiastical separation as well as the walls
of separation from the world. The old fundamentalism was staunchly
opposed to worldliness. The New Evangelical crowd has modified this. The
result has been incredible to behold. R-rated movies are given positive
reviews in evangelical publications. Evangelical
music groups look and sound exactly like the world. Evangelical Bible
College campuses have the look and feel of secular colleges. The
students wear the same clothes (or lack of clothes) as the world; they
drink the same beer and liquor; they dance to the same music; they
celebrate the same worldly events; they care about the same worldly
concerns.
Richard Quebedeaux documented this more than 35 years ago in his book, The Worldly Evangelicals.
“The
Gallup Poll is correct in asserting that born-again Christians ‘believe
in a strict moral code.’ But that strictness has been considerably
modified during the last few years … the monthly question and answer
column (patterned after ‘Dear Abby’) in Campus Life, Youth for
Christ’s magazine, gives the impression that more born-again high school
age couples are having INTERCOURSE than is generally supposed. Among
evangelical young people, MASTERBATION is now often seen as a gift from
God.
DIVORCE AND REMARRIAGE are becoming more frequent and acceptable among
evangelicals of all ages, even in some of their more conservative
churches. This new tolerant attitude toward divorce has been greatly
facilitated both by the publication of positive articles and books on
the problem by evangelical authors and by the growth of ministry to
singles in evangelical churches. … Some evangelical women are taking
advantage of ABORTION on demand. Many younger evangelicals occasionally
use PROFANITY
in their speech and writing (though they are generally careful to avoid
traditional profanity against the deity). Some of the recent evangelical
sex-technique books assume that their readers peruse and view
PORNOGRAPHY on occasion, and they do. Finally, in 1976 there emerged a
fellowship and information organization for practicing evangelical
LESBIANS AND GAY MEN and their sympathizers. There is probably just as
high a percentage of gays in the evangelical movement as in the wider
society. Some
of them are now coming out of the closet, distributing well-articulated
literature, and demanding to be recognized and affirmed by the
evangelical community at large” (Quebedeaux, The Worldly Evangelicals, 1978, pp. 16, 17).
James
Hunter in the book Evangelicalism the Coming Generation (1987) documents “the evolution of behavioral standards for students” at evangelical colleges:
“What
has happened at Wheaton College, Gordon College, and Westmont College
is
typical of most of the colleges in this subculture. From the time of
their founding to the mid-1960s, the college rules unapologetically
prohibited ‘profaning the Sabbath,’ ‘profane or obscene language or
behavior,’ playing billiards, playing cards and gambling, using
intoxicating liquors or tobacco, theater and movie attendance, and any
form of dancing—both on- and off-campus” (Hunter, p. 169).
Hunter
goes on to observe that these rules have largely been dropped. Further,
the worldliness on evangelical college campuses has increased
significantly in the years since his book was published.
Describing this moral apostasy in The Great Evangelical Disaster, Francis Schaeffer said:
“How
the mindset
of accommodation grows and expands. The last sixty years have given
birth to a moral disaster, and what have we done? Sadly we must say that
the evangelical world has been part of the disaster. ... WITH TEARS WE
MUST SAY THAT ... A LARGE SEGMENT OF THE EVANGELICAL WORLD HAS BECOME
SEDUCED BY THE WORLD SPIRIT OF THIS PRESENT AGE” (Schaeffer, p. 141).
The
apostasy of today’s evangelicalism was described by the Alliance of
Confessing Evangelicals in the Cambridge Declaration. The declaration,
signed by 80 theologians and church leaders, was released on April 20,
1996, at the end of a four-day conference in Cambridge, Massachusetts.
The signers included James Montgomery Boice, J.A.O. Preus III, David
Wells, Albert Mohler,
and Michael Horton, and represented Lutheran, Reformed, Baptist,
Congregational, and Independent denominations.
“Today
the light of Reformation has been significantly dimmed. The consequence
is that THE WORD ‘EVANGELICAL’ HAS BECOME SO
INCLUSIVE AS TO HAVE LOST ITS MEANING. … As Biblical authority has been
abandoned in practice, as its truths have faded from Christian
consciousness, and its doctrines have lost their saliency, THE CHURCH
HAS BEEN INCREASINGLY EMPTIED OF ITS INTEGRITY, MORAL AUTHORITY AND
DIRECTION. … As evangelical faith becomes secularized, its interests
have been blurred with those of the culture. THE RESULT IS A LOSS OF
ABSOLUTE VALUES, PERMISSIVE INDIVIDUALISM, AND A SUBSTITUTION OF
WHOLENESS FOR HOLINESS,
recovery for repentance, intuition for truth, feeling for belief, chance
for providence, and immediate gratification for enduring hope” (The Cambridge Declaration, 1996).
The
Southern Baptist Convention is an example of the
influence of New Evangelicalism. This is the largest “Protestant”
denomination in America and it has a reputation of being staunchly and
traditionally Bible believing, but when one examines the SBC at the
congregational level one typically finds extreme worldliness.
The
vast majority of SBC congregations do not preach separation from the
world, and the teens in the churches commonly love the world’s music,
fashions, entertainment, etc. Like the world, they go almost-naked to
the beaches, dance to rock & roll, wear whatever immodest fashions
are in style, even get excited about occultic entertainment trends such
as Harry Potter.
I
grew up in Southern Baptist churches, and it was in a Southern Baptist
youth group that I first learned to love rock music. The pastor’s son
and the deacons’ sons had all of the latest rock albums, and I listened
to them when I visited their homes. Large numbers of those who attended
the rock dances at my junior and senior high
school were church kids. I don’t recall even one kid in our church that
had a serious relationship with the Lord. We professed Christ with our
lips, but we loved the world with our hearts.
That
which is sadly true of the Southern Baptist
Convention is true of most other denominations today. Even
fundamentalist Bible churches and independent Baptist congregations are
following suit. They do not preach or practice separation from the
world.
Television
Television’s influence on modern society is nearly indescribable.
In
looking back on my childhood growing up in a Baptist church, attending
services at least three times a week, the three major influences that
stole my heart for the world were public school friendships, pop music,
and television, and the three were intimately associated. We got a
television when I was about nine years old (1958), and though
the programs were innocent compared to today, they certainly did not
encourage me spiritually. We got our television a couple of years after
Elvis appeared on the Ed Sullivan Show. By the time I reached
junior high school, I did everything I could to stay home on Sunday
nights, because that was when the most exciting programs were on, such
as the Disney Hour and Ed Sullivan. I don’t remember
if I was home that Sunday night in 1964 when the Beatles appeared on Ed
Sullivan, but I could have been. I was in high school and about that
time my parents were having a lot of problems and had pretty much given
up on trying to keep me in church. I had already started drinking and
carousing with my public school buddies every weekend. There is no doubt
that television and movies fed my carnal imagination and, together with
rock & roll, inflamed me with a passion for the things of the
world.
One of my sisters gives the following testimony:
“As
a little girl, I can remember the television being on constantly. It
was my ‘friend’ and a means of escape from the troubles and
insecurities in my life. As I would watch a certain program, I would
think, ‘If I just had her personality or looks, I would be
happy.’ Later, when I was older and programming became increasingly
wicked, I would stay up late and watch hours of mindless, foolish,
empty sitcoms, totally oblivious to the damage it was
doing to me. Like a drug, it was altering my mind. When I gave my life
to the Lord in 1987, I realized how much of my life had been adversely
affected by the media and television. The Lord cleansed my mind as I
read His Word and replaced the vain, man-centered philosophies with
Truth. We have made the deliberate choice not to have a television in
our home today and have purposed to not set any wicked thing before our
eyes (Psalm 101:3). A child needs to learn how to communicate
with his family, not just sit in a trance in front of a TV.”
Brian Snider had a similar experience growing up. He says,
“I
always tell people that 3-4 hours of church a week can’t hold a candle
to 30-40 hours of television as far as power and influence on a young
kid. Church was boring; television was fun.”
The following testimony describes the addictive power of television and its negative influence on spirituality:
“I
got saved when I was
19 and used to watch television 8-10 hours a day and 26 hours on the
weekends. When I started going to church and then through Bible College,
where there were no televisions, I realized how much it had influenced
the way I thought and perceived life. When we got married we decided not
to have a television and have been thankful for it. It was only on
deputation when we had more access to TV’s and found when we turned them
on that hours would easily be wasted, even just watching FOX
News. Not to mention having to continually turn the commercials
off. It got so annoying you either wanted to just leave it alone and not
turn it off or miss something if you did turn it off. Unfortunately,
leaving it on would win, and being aware of this we solidified in our
minds we would not have a TV in our home, or cable for that matter. Both
the programming and the commercials are written by non-Christians who
are trying to influence others with their pagan humanistic
philosophies and lifestyles. Cheating, illicit sex, drugs,
homosexuality, teens in adult situations, Darwinism, cussing, and all
kinds of things Christians shouldn’t be setting before their eyes.
Numerous times, even on ‘conservative’ FOX News, they had a story on prostitutes and actually showed a video of pole dancers.”
Only the Lord knows how many Christian lives, homes, and churches have been spiritually weakened, even ruined, by television.
A
few
pastors of Independent Baptist churches used to preach against it and
warn the people of its evil influence, but their number has decreased
dramatically over the past 15 or 20 years.
The Internet/Smartphone
The
great power of television has been eclipsed by that of the Internet.
Today you don’t need a television to access moral filth.
It was the Internet (beginning in the 1990s) and the smartphone
(beginning especially in 2007 with the introduction of the iPhone) that
have made the world and apostasy all intrusive. No church today can
escape the effect of this technology, from the cities of wealthy nations
to the villages of Third World
countries.
In
the Internet/smart phone generation, church young people can access the
pop culture at the touch of a finger. Church people can connect with
any song writer and be influenced by his or her music, philosophy, and
lifestyle.
Church women can be influenced by popular evangelical teachers such as Beth Moore.
Conclusion
We
have described theological liberalism, the public school system,
materialism and working mothers, the rock & roll pop culture, pop
psychology, the feminist movement, New Evangelicalism, television, and
the Internet.
These and other cultural and doctrinal factors have combined to create a perfect
storm of end-time apostasy that every church must face.
And the Word of God tells us that this storm will grow stronger as the time of Christ continues to draw near.
“This
know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men
shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud,
blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural
affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce,
despisers of those that
are good, Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than
lovers of God; Having a form of godliness, but denying the power
thereof: from such turn away. ... But evil men and seducers shall wax
worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived” (2 Timothy 3:1-5, 13).
“For
the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after
their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching
ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables” (2 Timothy 4:3-4).
The storm of end-time apostasy is amplified and empowered by the technology of our age.
Spiritual protection is available and victory is possible, but it requires that
church leaders take everything to a higher, stronger level if they want to be standing for the Word of God in the future.
Evangelism
must be more biblical. The door to church membership must be guarded
more carefully. Love for
Christ must be more fervent. Prayer must be taken more seriously. The
church must be more deeply immersed in God’s Word. Holiness must be
pursued more earnestly. Discipleship must be more scriptural. Discipline
and separation must be stricter.
