|
The Cult of Compromise
Revisited
by Hank Hanegraaff
The warnings keep coming. With increasing
frequency over the past few years, I've been cautioned about my vocal
stance against groups ranging from established Sects such as Mormonism
to fraternal organizations such as the Masonic Lodge. On one recent
occasion, I was advised that I risked putting CRI's ministry in
jeopardy if I spoke out publicly against Scientology.
Despite all the warnings concerning cultic and
occult groups, none have been more persistent than those I have
received after speaking against heretical movements within the church.
For several years prominent Faith teachers have been spewing forth
their warnings against those who dared to expose their false
teachings.1 Even credible ministers of the gospel who preach solid,
biblical messages are caving in to the pressures from these wolves in
sheep's clothing (Matt. 7:15ff.: see also Acts 20:29-31). One such
pastor told me that if he did not bow to this pressure, he might as
well get out of Christian television because, "they own the
airwaves."
But the Faith teachers are not alone in
defending error from within the church. We have recently witnessed a
devastating compromise of the gospel by respected Christian leaders in
areas as diverse as Mormonism, spiritual warfare, and theistic
evolution.
Evangelical scholar Craig Blomberg, along with
Mormon scholar Stephen Robinson, set back Christian apologetics to
Mormons 20 years with the publication of How Wide The Divide? (IVP,
1997). In attempting to achieve some basis for common ground, they
overlooked insurmountable differences between biblical Christianity
and Mormonism.2
Neil T. Anderson's unbiblical and harmful
spiritual warfare teachings have entered the mainstream of the church.
It flabbergasts me that many of evangelicalism's most prominent
leaders do not even flinch at his program. Among a plethora of
problematic teachings. Anderson psychologizes the Christian faith by
incorporating an emphasis on self-esteem into the gospel. He also
insists that Christians specifically confess, out loud and in detail,
every sin related to the occult, sex, or unforgiveness they have
committed during their entire lives before they can be free from
Satan's stronghold. Furthermore, he promotes the outlandish view that
spirits known as "incubi" and "succubae:" figments
of ancient pagan and medieval Catholic imagination, can sexually
molest Christians in their sleep.3
Even theistic evolution has recently gained
support among evangelicals. In a nationally televised PBS special,
Fuller Theological Seminary's Nancey Murphy stated. "It's a
terrible misconception to see evolutionary biology and Christian
theology as in competition. Ever since the rise of modern science,
Christians have had to come to terms with some understanding of God
working through natural processes, and God's action in natural
biological processes should not be any exception to that,"4 Of
course, where scientific evidence indicates more precisely the way in
which God is working through natural processes, biblical theology may
agree. Evolutionary biology, however, absolutely contradicts
Scripture's account of creation. Furthermore, as I have demonstrated
in my book, The FACE (Word Publishing), there simply is no valid
scientific reason to justify the biological evolutionary program.
The implications are clear. Eight years after I
warned about "The Cult of Compromise" in the Christian
Research Newsletter (October-November 1990), that very cult not only
continues to thrive – it is becoming mainstream! Many evangelicals
seem to think the church is better off without ministries like CRI, as
evidenced by increasing pressure from radio and television station
managers, bookstore owners, church leaders, and Christians in general
to stop speaking out against these powerful, leaders.
What is the scriptural admonition relevant to
such predicament? Doctrinally sound Christians cannot afford to sell
out by a silence that results in complicity. We dare not undermine the
foundations of the faith and turn our backs on Scripture to survive.
If we do, our silence ends up endorsing the severely distorted view of
God espoused by errant teachers.
The present popularity of such teachers brings
to mind the words the apostle Paul wrote to Timothy: "The time
will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to
suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of
teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn
their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths" (2 Tim.
4:3-4). Paul therefore exhorted Timothy to "keep your head in all
situations, endure hardship...discharge all the duties of your
ministry" (v. 5).
May God sustain all who seek to stand for truth,
rather than yield to convenience. As Dr. Walter Martin once said,
"We are the church, which is Christ's body. Ours is the
responsibility to speak the truth in love, but nevertheless to
speak!"
— Hank Hanegraaff
1 See Hank Hanegraaff, Christianity in Crisis
(Eugene, OR; Harvest House, 1993), 363- 65.
2 See James White, Book Review, Christian
Research Journal, November-December 1997, 48-51.
3 See Elliot Miller's third installment in the
Neil Anderson series in the upcoming January- March 1999 issue of
Christian Research Journal.
4 Nancey Murphy, Faith and Reason, Public
Broadcasting System, 11 September 1998.
|