The influence of the UN, New Age and management theory on us and our churches

This week’s posts have been examining New Age and globalist thinking with regard to Christianity.

There appears to be a two-pronged approach.  One is for the elites, which includes ways to transform and micromanage other people’s behaviour.  The other is on popular thought, to prepare people to accept these new behaviours.  Today, we look at what the elites develop and learn from each other.

Since the end of the Second World War a fusion of United Nations programmes and management theory have been rolled out to international leaders in politics, business and churches.  The end result is to change the way governments control their populations at home, school, work and church.

On the face of it, these look appealing and innovative, until one begins asking questions as to what impact they will have on individual members of society.

What follows is by no means a complete list of transformational change organisations and agents but a few examples to give you an idea of what is happening in our world today and how these plans may affect each of us.

UNESCO

Julian Huxley, a Fabian, was UNESCO’s first Director-General.  In 1947, he explained how this agency would work (emphases in the original):

Unesco [UN Educational, Social and Scientific Organization] also can and should promote the growth of international contacts, international organizations, and actual international achievements, which will offer increasing resistance to the forces making for division and conflict. In particular, it can both on its own and in close relation with other UN agencies such as the FAO [Food & Agriculture Organization] and WHO [World Health Organization], promote the international application of science to human welfare. As the benefits of such world-scale collaboration becomes plain (which will be speedily be the case in relation to the food and health of mankind) it will become increasingly more difficult for any nation to destroy them by resorting to isolationism or to war. Page 14

Unesco must pay special attention to international education – to education as a function of a world society, in addition to its function in relation to national societies, to regional or religious or intellectual groups or to local communities. p. 29-30

Conclusion: …The task before UNESCO… is to help the emergence of a single world culture with its own philosophy and background of ideas and with its own broad purpose. This is opportune, since this the first time in history that the scaffolding and the mechanisms for world unification have become available and also the first time that man has had the means… of laying a world-wide foundation for the minimum physical welfare of the entire human species. And it is necessary, for at the moment, two opposing philosophies of life confront each other from the West and from the East … p. 62

“…society as such embodies no values comparable to those embodied in individuals; but individuals are meaningless except in relation to the community.” p. 62

Here are a few brief points from UNESCO’s Declaration of Principles on Tolerance with notes from Berit Kjos:

“Tolerance is respect, acceptance and appreciation of the rich diversity of our world’s cultures… It is not only a moral duty, it is also a political and legal requirement.” [appreciating lifestyles that clash with our faith?]

“Tolerance… means that one’s views are not to be imposed on others.” [Would this end our freedom to share the gospel with others?]

“Intolerance… is a global threat.”

And here are extracts from UNESCO’s 1994 Declaration on the Role of Religion in the Promotion of a Culture of Peace:

8. Peace entails that we understand that we are all interdependent…. collectively responsible for the common good.

11. We must… cultivate a spirituality which manifests itself in action…

19. Our communities of faith have a responsibility to encourage conduct imbued with wisdom, compassion, sharing, charity, solidarity, and love; inspiring one and all to choose the path of freedom and responsibility. Religions must be a source of helpful energy.

22. We will promote dialogue and harmony between and within religions … respecting the search for truth and wisdom that is outside our religion. We will establish dialogue with all, striving for a sincere fellowship…

WHO

Berit Kjos has researched the World Health Organisation (WHO).  This is what she has discovered:

WHO was officially established as a specialized UN agency in April 1948. By that time, its first Secretary-General, Dr. Brock Chisholm, a Canadian psychiatrist, had already demonstrated his intolerance for Christianity. Two years earlier, he had written a report titled “The Re-Establishment of Peacetime Society.” It was published both in the prestigious magazine Psychiatry and in an international socialist newspaper published by Alger Hiss. Its message was clear: Christianity must be eradicated! Here are some excerpts:

“The responsibility for charting the necessary changes in human behavior rests clearly on the sciences working in that field. Psychologists, psychiatrists, sociologists, economists, and politicians must face this responsibility.

“…it has long been generally accepted that parents have perfect right to impose any…fears, superstitions, prejudices, hates, or faith on their defenseless children. It is, however, only recently that it has become a matter of certain knowledge that these things cause neuroses.

“There is something to be said… for gently putting aside the mistaken old ways of our elders if that is possible. If it cannot be done gently, it may have to be done roughly or even violently’ …

Some years ago, school children were practicing compliance by signing the Healthy Practices Pledge. It sounded innocuous at first — just promise to

– “brush with a fluoride toothpaste,”

– choose “snacks such as fruits and vegetables,” and

– “make our home a smoke-free zone”

– then sign the pledge. But the contract was open-ended. It suggested that other “healthy” behaviors would be added later. What if the next part of the contract added “cooperation with” and “tolerance for” something that conflicted with a child’s faith? What if a refusal to sign the contract would bring ridicule and persecution? Would your child be ready to follow God, even when pressured to embrace contrary values?

General Systems Theory (GST)

A number of management theories have also played their part in bringing about a falsely unified global society.  Berit Kjos brings us this helpful summary from The Issues of Management:

GST was originally proposed by Hungarian biologist Ludwig von Bertalanffy in 1928. He proposed that ‘a system is characterized by the interactions of its components and the nonlinearity of those interactions.’ Kuhn (the originator of the “paradigm shift”) applied the GST to culture and society, and he saw cultures as interlinking subsystems of a broader planetary society. In 1980, cosmologist Stephen Hawking then expanded systems thinking to the global platform by introducing the ‘Chaos Theory’ that claims the ‘interconnectedness of all things’— (i.e. the beating of a butterfly’s wings in Asia creates a breeze in America). As a result, GST becomes very esoteric when taken to its logical conclusions:

“GST is symptomatic of a change in our worldview. No longer do we see the world in a blind play of atoms, but rather a great organization.” (13)

– “According to GST, nothing can be understood in isolation but must be seen as part of a system.” (14)

– If one accepts the theory that the world is an interconnected and interdependent holistic system (and within that system is an infrastructure that is analogous across systems), one must logically conclude that [James Lovelock’s 1979] Gaia Hypothesis is true …

– The Gaia Hypothesis is, in essence, nothing more than ancient worship of the Mother Earth Goddess…

Now note the mention below of Rick Warren’s mentor, the late Peter Drucker:

“…one can conclude that GST is an esoteric belief system based on a merger of Darwinism and eastern mysticism—much like what one would now term ‘New Age’. GST contends that man is moving to the next level of evolution, but in order to reach this plateau, mankind must be ascribe to a common, universal consciousness, or belief system (“old beliefs” must transition to “new beliefs”). Drucker confirmed his adherence to this concept by the development of the ‘3-legged stool’ model. The legs are representative of the corporate system, the state, and the ‘private sector’.  He top of the stool signifies the reaching of that which he terms as ‘community’ or consensus of these three separate sectors (or subsystems) of society. Drucker … spent the last half of his life concentrating on this ‘private sector’ (churches and non-profits) because this segment offers the platform for the dialectical consensus to unite all of humanity to bring about the ‘jump phenomenon’ (16) to the next level of “societal evolution”. According to the GST and the Gaia Hypothesis, the ‘old system’ must break down in order for the “new system” to break through.”

Note this paragraph in particular (emphases mine):

… the non-profit sector –and the Evangelical Church in particular, posed the greatest threat to achieving the synthesis of “community”–or at least it did– until Hybels, Buford, Warren, and Co. began to transition their constituents by the hundreds of thousands to a position that aligned with the whole systems model.”

Networking

This isn’t about social networking — online or offline — but about technology and futurism effecting harmony and health around the world.  Berit Kjos tells us more (emphases mine below):

One of the mantras of the New Age “Aquarian” movement is “think globally, act locally.” … the purpose of networking was to transform the world. It would happen by restructuring the world from the tiny cellular all the way up to global governance.

None of this could be achieved without a computer … The computer is able to collate large amounts of data and oversee the complexity of networking processes. The computer also provides a feedback mechanism for data collection, monitoring, and assessing for compliance …

The cellular hierarchical structure is an emerging structure of global governance transcending the nation-state. The Gaia Peace Atlas (Pan Books, 1988) contains a vivid picture of future governance models on pp 238-9, stating that in the future, “hierarchical, centralized ‘authority’ will give way to a network of interlocking levels of governance.” The title of the book is a reference to James Lovelock’s “Gaia Hypothesis,” in which he refers to the Earth in terms of this Greek goddess, and humanity as both an organism and a deity.

Similar cellular networking diagrams for global governance can be found on pages 126-7 of influential futurist Ervin Laszlo’s A Strategy for the Future: The Systems Approach to World Order (Braziller, 1974). (Note: These diagrams look the same as the models for cell church systems popular within evangelicalism.) Page 150 shows a “Design for a World Homeostat,” i.e., a centralized global government structure. Laszlo insists that the “world model must be hierarchical, with levels ranging from any local system or action and decision, through intermediate levels. To the global level of the world system as a whole” …

Another leader in the move towards systems-based global governance is Robert Muller, former Assistant Secretary-General of the United Nations, who wrote a paper entitled Framework for Preparation for the year 2000: The 21st Century and the Third Millennium (Quinnipiac College Press, 1994) in which he described his vision for the future. By the year 2010 he saw mankind evolving into a new species: …

“The next phase of our evolution will therefore be a cosmic, spiritual age in which the Earth becomes a true showcase in the universe, with human beings in perfect physical, mental, moral, affective and spiritual union with the universe and time.“ (p. 22)

… on September 11, 1984, Donald Keys … a founder of the Luciferian one-world organization Planetary Citizens, delivered an address about “Transformation of Self and Society” at a “Light of the Mountains Forum” symposium called “Toward a Global Society.” Keys said:

“We’re at a stage now of pulling it all together. It’s a new religion called ‘networking.’ . . . When it comes to running a world or taking people into a New Age, . . . don’t anyone think for a moment that you can run a planet without a head. . . . This planet has to be managed . . . . We have meditations at the United Nations a couple of times a week. The meditation leader is Sri Chinmoy, and this is what he said … ‘ . . . The United Nations is the chosen instrument of God … One day, the world will . . . treasure and cherish the soul of the United Nations as its very own with enormous pride, for this soul is all-loving, all-nourishing, and all-fulfilling.'” (p. 131)

Global Spirit

Global Spirit‘s formal name is The World Commission on Global Consciousness & Spirituality.

Two of its co-chairmen are the aforementioned Ervin Laszlo and Robert Muller.  Its objectives include, among other things:

– Create a new notation for global grammar/global perspective.

– Increase awareness of how one’s mentality affects one’s reality.

– Develop global wisdom, ethics & spirituality through deep dialogue.

Its recommended reading list includes:

– A New Earth: Awakening Your Life’s Purpose by Eckhart Tolle.

– The Four Agreements: A Practical Guide to Personal Freedom by Don Miguel Ruiz.

– The Empathic Civilization: The Race to Global Consciousness in a World in Crisis by Jeremy Rifkin.

– Global Shift: How A New Worldview Is Transforming Humanity by Edmund J. Bourne.

The Dalai Lama and Anglican Archbishop Desmond Tutu are two of its World Commission Members.

Global Spirit has 17 Global Councils on everything from religion to science to corporate responsibility to youth leadership to women to the arts.  So, every aspect of a person’s life is covered here.

Global Council participants include Robert Redford, Susan Sarandon, Bono, Barbara Marx Hubbard, Mikhail Gorbachev, Al Gore, Dennis Kucinich and a host of veritable unknowns who must be very powerful people indeed.

Note the use of the word ‘networking’ and the notion of ‘think globally, act locally’:

Since its Inauguration in l998 the World Commission (WC) has taken as one of its highest priorities the importance of forming powerful networks, partnerships and collaborations in the interest of fostering growing circles and forces for creative transformation on a planetary scale …

The Commission has come to realize increasingly that it is vital now to engage in deep systematic networking to help convene, harness and augment further conscious collaboration. We realize that there is already an awesome and growing range of initiatives already proceeding in more localized and scattered ways which are directly aligned with the mission and vision of the Commission. Indeed, it is now clearer than ever that such concerted networking is a moral imperative if the Commission is to have a real impact for mass change in the 21st Century.

… Furthermore, in our ongoing deliberations and retreats over the past three years the Commissioners have identified a number of fundamental areas of concern which have emerged as pressing priorities in fulfilling our collective mission.

These will affect us one way or another.  Have no doubt that what we do in our leisure time, what we think, the way we worship, the way we work are all influenced by means beyond our control.

Tomorrow: Oprah and Rick Warren — vital tools in globalisation efforts

More on diaprax and the postmodern Church

Yesterday, we examined diaprax — dialectic + praxis. Christian author and  researcher Dean Gotcher coined the word diaprax after intensive study of Marxist influences in the church.  Today, we look at other aspects of the church which lend themselves to diaprax.

Cell groups

Rick Warren is fond of the small — or cell — group.  It’s often used for Bible study or prayer.  It works like a workshop in that the leader is the non-judgmental facilitator who wishes to guide the group from thesis through to synthesis.  Smaller Alpha groups work along this model.

I was sorry to read that the traditional, Reformed Anglicans Ablaze appears to support small groups.  Recently, its author, Robin Jordan, featured a ‘message’ from Rick Warren on the importance of this type of ministry:

Here is a message Rick sent to the Saddleback family explaining why small groups are so important to a believer’s spiritual growth. You’re welcome to adapt it for your own congregation —

It’s the classroom for learning how to get along in God’s family.

It’s a lab for practicing unselfish, sympathetic love. You learn to care about others and share the experiences of others: “If one part of the body suffers, all the other parts suffer with it. Or if one part of our body is honored, all the other parts share its honor” (1 Cor. 12:26 NCV). Only in regular contact with ordinary, imperfect believers can we learn real fellowship and experience the connection God intends for us to have (Eph. 4:16, Rom. 12:4–5, Col. 2:19, 1 Cor. 12:25).

REAL fellowship is being as committed to each other as we are to Jesus Christ: “Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers” (1 John 3:16). This is the kind of sacrificial love God expects you to show other believers—loving them in the same way Jesus loves you.

Hmm.  Well, I did try to warn Mr Jordan (but to no avail) about another emergent programme he touted earlier this year, Fresh Expressions.  I tried to contact him privately but his blog only allowed for Google account holders to post comments.

Of small groups, Dr Robert E Klenck in his essay, ‘The 21st Century Church: Part 3’ says:

[Warren] is aware of research by Lyle Schaller, of the Leadership Network, that shows the relationship between the number of friendships that one has in the church, and the percentage chance then of that person leaving.  Close relationships are formed in the small groups, thus, people are required to participate in them.

And this is a concern.  This type of group then becomes psychologically close.  Warren asks members of these groups to ‘confess’ their sins publically to one another, as the Oxford Group (not Oxford Movement) did in the last century.  Warren’s is known as an ‘accountability group’.

Let’s look at what’s left unsaid in Warren’s push for small groups.  It’s about church unity, which will become increasingly important as we move towards a worldwide Christian Church.  It is in small groups where that ‘unity’ can take root and where submission to the accountability group through public confession of sins effects this relationship. It’s all rather … cultish. Instead of focussing on God for salvation through the Holy Spirit and the Word, the small group member (unless he is the leader) looks to the group for affirmation, correction and forgiveness. The horror.

Imagine mentioning in passing during one of these gatherings that you disagreed with an aspect of the service on a Sunday morning.  The small group is there to monitor your behaviour and responses.  Expect to be corrected and brought into line with the received ‘paradigm’ of the small group, and by extension, your church at large.  Church unity is all, even when that church is in error.

Unbelievers and ‘felt needs’

Like his mentor, Robert Schuller, Rick Warren also surveyed potential members of his congregation early in his ministry.  He focused only on the unbelievers and, like Schuller, constructed his church around their ‘felt needs’.  ‘Felt needs’ are highly important to diaprax, which eschews what we would call ‘fundamental’, ‘eternal’ or ‘absolute’ truths.  There is no truth.  What may be true today may not be true tomorrow.  We must change constantly.

Warren’s secular guru, Peter Drucker, may have had an even larger role to play in the church growth movement (CGM) than Schuller.  Dr Klenck notes (emphasis in the original):

He holds a doctorate of theology degree from Fuller Theological Seminary – one of the strongest proponents of the church growth movement.

Organizational management “guru” Peter Drucker, who is very involved in this movement, stated:

“…noncustomers are as important as customers, if not more important:  because they are potential customers. … Yet it is with the noncustomers that changes always start.”[6]

Thus, in this movement, it is imperative that unbelievers are brought into the church; otherwise, the process of continual change cannot begin.  There must be an antithesis (unbelievers) present to oppose the thesis (believers), in order to move towards consensus (compromise), and move the believers away from their moral absolutism (resistance to change).  If all members of the church stand firm on the Word of God, and its final authority in all doctrine and tradition, then the church cannot and will not change.  This is common faith.

The tension must be present, otherwise we cannot move away from orthodox Christianity towards … a man-oriented church unity through a worldwide religious organisation.

Leaving God out of it

Bob Buford, another of Peter Drucker’s followers, started the Leadership Network in 1984, designed to put church leaders in touch with each other.  Note what its mission and values statement reads in part (emphases mine):

The mission of the Leadership Network is to accelerate the emergence of the 21st-century church.  We believe the emerging paradigm of the 21st century church calls for the development of new tools and resources as well as the equipping of a new type of 21st century church leader, both clergy and laity.  This new paradigm is not centered in theology but rather it is focused on structure, organization, and the transition from an institutionally based church to a mission-driven church.  We value innovation that leads to results …

God the Father?  Christ crucified and risen?  The Holy Spirit?  Grace?  Scripture?  Hellooo?

Have a look in Dr Klenck’s essay and scroll halfway down to see that neither God the Father nor His Son appears in the increasingly-used circular ‘core’ diagram.

TQM fine for the secular world

Having spent several years not only working in quality assurance but holding international certification, I can say that there is nothing wrong with Peter Drucker’s TQM for goods and business processes.  If, like Dr Klenck, you think there is, consider the reliability of everyday objects that you use: lightbulbs, cars and — in his case — surgical instruments.

I do agree with him that TQM has no place in the religious world at all.  In that case, yes, ‘total’ would mean ‘totalitarian’, whereas in a manufacturing plant or services company, it ensures that you get repeatable, measurable, reliable results every time.

Peter Drucker’s error

This is where Peter Drucker has gone wrong.  To him, a church (or another religious house of worship) is like a restaurant or shop which relies on what’s known as ‘footfall’, or ‘lots of traffic’.  In reality, some churches are smaller.  Some are larger.  What’s important is that they are pure and follow God’s holy Scripture.  Yet, Drucker said in an interview:

Consider the pastoral megachurches that have been growing so very fast in the U.S. since 1980 and are surely the most important social phenomenon in American society in the last 30 years. There are now some 20,000 of them, and while traditional denominations have steadily declined, the megachurches have exploded. They have done so because they asked, “What is value?” to a nonchurchgoer and came up with answers the older churches had neglected. They have found that value to the consumer of church services is very different from what churches traditionally were supplying. The greatest value to the thousands who now throng the megachurches—both weekdays and Sundays—is a spiritual experience rather than a ritual.

Hmm.  How many orthodox Christians attend church and ask, ‘Did I receive value for money here today?’  Frankly, I don’t think a seeker would either, although he probably goes back because there’s free popcorn, coffee and a pastor who walks the stage and works the audience like a comedian.  A pretty good show.

It’s about the money

I mentioned before that CGM is very much focussed on money.  In time, probably when most of us will be too elderly to blog or the Internet is restricted to the elite, church members’ tithes and financial contributions will go towards providing welfare for the world.  This is what the Council for Foreign Relations (CFR) intends, anyway.

Already, Anglican parishes in England are sending in a proportion of their donations annually to the diocese for various programmes for the disadvantaged.  Whilst there is nothing wrong with that, some objections must be brewing among those in the pews.  A couple of years ago, our church was asked to complete a survey, giving our views on how much we would like for the diocese to have and towards what programmes.  I can imagine that this came as a surprise to many on the parish electoral roll.

Dr Klenck notes:

The Leadership Network recommends numerous materials and research studies to pastors that are geared towards maximizing the amount of tithing, pledging, and giving in the church.  One of the “masters” of “stewardship” is John Maxwell.  Mr. Maxwell is the former pastor of Skyline Community Church, in San Diego, CA, and founded Injoy Ministries, a church consulting firm.

What next for the Church?

Part of the reason money is so important, is that the Church is set to become just another service industry.  Christ’s holy Bride sounds very much like a business when Bob Buford’s Leadership Network describes Her (emphases mine):

Partnerships, alliances and collaboration will become the norm, rather than the exception, and the relationships will be built on new loyalties and a new common mission. … The next movement will grow people, not parking lots. … These same people are in the congregations of the 21st century and they are going to be the “point people” for the partnerships and alliances that will achieve the vision beyond the property line.”

and Buford says:

The Church of the 21st Century is reforming itself into a multi-faceted service operation.

Don’t forget that one of the reasons why many CGM churches have a register of members’ professions and ‘spiritual gifts’ is that the government or the UN might one day require access to that information in order to evaluate how well a church is working with it on secular schemes for food, health clinics or day care.  So, if you start such a registry at the beginning, especially if you wish to encourage people to join personal accountability groups, you’ve laid the groundwork for future record-keeping and inspection. As such, it doesn’t come as a surprise to either the member or the church administration.

Tomorrow: Biblical reasons why you should avoid diaprax and CGM

The postmodern Church and diaprax — explained

A number of orthodox Christian blogs, including this one, have explored the postmodern Church.  We’ve mentioned names, techniques and genres of ‘doing church’ but few have explored what exactly is happening and how it happens.

In short, all these movements — e.g. church growth, emergent — have their roots in a combination of dialectic and praxis, which one Christian, Dean Gotcher, combined as ‘diaprax’.  Diaprax is common not only in the Church but in the world at large.  Its goal is to set all of us on the road to constant compromise and continuous change.  It is designed to promote unity from diversity and to get rid of tradition and ‘divisiveness’.

First, a review of dialectic in a Christian context.  Do keep in mind that every step along the way is designed to inch the believer further away from the inerrancy of the Bible and his confessions of faith.

How diaprax works

Dr Robert Klenck, an orthopaedic surgeon in Los Angeles, contributes to Mr Gotcher’s Institution for Authority Research and, like him, has studied diaprax closely in relation to the trends we see in our churches today.  In ‘The 21st Century Church: Part 3’, he explains (emphases mine throughout):

Briefly, the Hegelian dialectic process works like this:  a diverse group of people (in the CGM, this is a mixture of believers and unbelievers – thesis and antithesis), gather in a facilitated meeting (with a trained facilitator/”teacher”/group leader), using group dynamics (peer pressure), to discuss a social issue (or dialogue the Word of God), and reach a pre-determined outcome (consensus, or compromise).

When the Word of God is dialogued (as opposed to being taught didactically) between believers and unbelievers, and consensus is reached – agreement that all are comfortable with – then the message of the Word of God has been watered down, and the participants have been conditioned to accept (and even celebrate) their compromise.  This [new synthesis] becomes the starting point [thesis] for the next meeting.  The fear of alienation from the group is the pressure that prevents an individual from standing firm for the truth of the Word of God.  The fear of man then overrides the fear of God.

This process is similar to workshops you might have participated in at work.  The principles are identical.  A facilitator leads the group.  He has a set agenda, given to him by a manager (or a pastor, in the case of a church).  However, he asks people what they hope to ‘get’ out of the session, although his questions will help engineer the desired agenda outcome.  Then, as is true with workplace workshops, a number of discussions take place and, inevitably, conflict arises.

People stating their positions or beliefs on an issue is what is known as thesis.  Conflict, roughly speaking, is antithesis (against the thesis, or belief).  The facilitator brings about synthesis by getting everyone to arrive at a common position.  It might not be 100% to everyone’s liking, but it is one that people will largely agree upon. It will also be one that is man-centred, because, as we shall see tomorrow and have seen in my Gramsci posts, nothing is more threatening to the Marxist than faith in God, Christianity and the traditional family under the authority of God and His Son.  Gramsci believed that Christianity fostered the continuance of:

the Western values of individual liberty, private property, and the traditional family, and must be abolished in order for the new communist society to emerge.

Let us say (in an Anglican context) the issue debated is one of bringing a female curate (assistant priest) on board. The church wardens meet to discuss it. Among their number is a traditionalist. The vicar (pastor) introduces the topic then leaves it in the hands of the facilitator, perhaps an expert in conflict resolution paid for by the diocese. A day’s workshop can engineer consensus among the church wardens, as they move from the traditionalist’s thesis — especially that which is expressed in Jesus’s First Cause language, ‘It is written’ — through to conflict (antithesis) and concluding with a postmodern resolution (synthesis) on the part of the traditionalist.

Says the traditionalist at the end of the afternoon, ‘Gosh, I might have been a bit short-sighted on this issue.  I’m sorry.  Yes, if it’s the right woman, I’m sure I could be persuaded.’  Therefore, the door opens just that little bit.  Our traditionalist has started to ‘change with the times’ and puts Scripture slightly off to the side.  The group is happy.  Perhaps they have a glass of sherry afterward.  The traditionalist has gained acceptance — for now.  He is happy to have bonded with his fellow church wardens on this thorny issue.  In finding ‘common ground’, he has pleased man, but perhaps not God.

Yet, although the traditionalist doesn’t realise it, that is only the start.  Dialectic and praxis require continual change in order to meet the times, which are ever-evolving. A few years down the road, he may be further persuaded — again through diaprax — that a new Sunday evening service be started, replacing the traditional Evensong.  The new service would be of an emergent style, to draw in the younger members of the ‘community’, i.e. neighbourhood.  ‘Well, it’s not a big issue, is it?  I understand the youth ministry leader is a very dynamic individual.  We can increase the membership of our church and be seen as a vibrant congregation. It’s all to the good.’  And so, he takes another noticeable step away from orthodoxy and an initial giant step away from traditional liturgy.

Dr Klenck observes that the same method — diaprax — has been used with regard to abortion:

… first, the fact (“what is”) was questioned – what is life?, and does it really begin at conception?  It was decided that as long as the child was not aware of pain, that it was not viable, or really alive.  Now, through incremental change, our society has gotten to the point of tolerating “partial-birth” infanticide.  This would have been unconscionable in the days that Roe v. Wade was decided.

Church buildings and Emergents — for a New Age

And things are always changing.  Think of how church buildings are changing.  Some, like the Crystal Cathedral, are generally recognisable as churches.  Yet others look like big, prefab boxes.  They have no crosses, inside or out.  This is in order that the ‘seeker’ isn’t put off by what he sees.  Many newer churches don’t want people to start thinking about Jesus’ painful death, blood or similar things.  The seeker might then walk away, feeling unsettled.

Dr Gregory Jackson, author of Ichabod, posted on this topic recently.  In ‘Leading Lutheran Moms Astray at The CORE’, he reprinted dialogue among a few women on Facebook who discussed whether they should attend the CORE in Appleton, Wisconsin. The CORE is an emergent church affiliated with WELS.  Here is a brief excerpt — certainly worth a read in full:

Imah: We missed our regular church service this morning … I decided we’d try the Core in Appleton.  It’s an outreach congregation and really cool.  The music is very contemporary– in fact, all songs were songs I hear on 91.9 or the Q, 90.1.  The boys age 9 and 5 were happy to eat popcorn and drink water while listening to the service.  The place was comfortably full and everyone was smiling!!  I highly recommend going to a service.  It was fun!!

Coley22: Personally, I prefer a traditional service and I’ve also heard that The Core isn’t really teaching God’s Word so much. I think it’s a step backwards for the WELS. If a church wants to do something more contemporary, that’s fine, but what good is it if you’re not even teaching God’s Word?

…

JulieMomof5: Coley22, I hope you actually visit the CORE instead of just listening to rumors…
Just because the CORE focuses on theme-based sermons instead of on the lectionary doesn’t mean it’s not true to Scripture …  The truths of God’s Word are emphasized, in terms that unchurched people can more easily understand (I like that Pastor Ski explains church terms when he uses them!).  The fill-in-the-blank folder makes it easier to remember what was said.  The visuals are used to reinforce the message.  Remember, the CORE’s focus is REACHING OUT to the unchurched.  Pastor Ski likes to remind us not to cause unnecessary offense to others before introducing them to Jesus!  Too often, our “traditional” services risk doing just that.

Popcorn, pop music and avoiding ‘unnecessary offence’ — oh, my.  It was a bit too much to take in.  I had to have a cup of tea and a sit-down after reading that.

Caution — discernment required!

Some of you have been spared attending one of these services.  Dr Klenck describes them:

The presentation is informal …  There are distractions, such as numerous video screens, and the pastor often paces back and forth across the stage, which makes the “real” message that is being taught difficult to discern…

The message is ambiguous, sounding reasonable to people who think traditionally, are in transition, or have been trained to think transformationally.  Often, half-truths are used (i.e. Christ’s preeminence as a religious leader, but omitting His deity), or “subliminal” messages utilized.  We heard a tape of one pastor who was teaching against Mormonism, and he was stating how they latch on to a verse in the KJV that is an unfortunate translation.  He then stated how “I can show you numerous errors in the King James.”  The message was against Mormonism, but the subliminal message that people took home with them was that the KJV Bible version is unreliable.  We have very little training in listening to what is not being said, and in the atmosphere of distraction described here, this type of discernment is very difficult, and must be pursued vigorously.  Peter Drucker, who plays a large role in this movement is aware of this fact:

“The most important thing is communication is to hear what isn’t being said.”  Peter Drucker

“The pulpit is the ultimate tool for church growth.”  Rick Warren [7]

A tool is used to manipulate objects.  In the same article, Pastor Warren declares that he first considers the needs, hurts, and interests, and then he goes to the Bible to see what it says about their needs.  Once he examines what the Bible says about the subject, he asks himself:  “What is the most practical way to say this?  What is the most positive way to say this?  What is the most encouraging way to say this?  What is the simplest way to say this?  What is the most personal way to say this?  What is the most interesting way to say this?”  In other words, he puts his “spin” on the Blessed Word of God in order to tickle the itching ears of his audience.

“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 Tim 4:3 (KJV)

If Rick Warren’s technique sounds familiar, it’s what his mentor Robert Schuller used over 40 years ago in California.

Tomorrow: Diaprax, small groups and more

The Methodist Church advocates man-centredness — survey

Hat-tip to Gairney Bridge for this article from the United Methodist Church (UMC) on vitality, growth, worship and church programmes.  Oh, dear.  Gairney Bridge is right — ‘Worship is NOT like going to the mall!’

This kind of thing really frightens me — as much as when Catholics rail against sola Scriptura.

In July 2009, I reported on a UMC survey which found that its members were dying faster than the American population as a whole.  I realise that, as with the Anglican Communion, there is a good and faithful remnant, but they too must shudder when they read about the promotion of church growth, vitality drivers and so forth.

In the UMC’s ‘Keys to building vital congregations’, they champion the following concepts (okay, I’m just using the corporate-speak that they have used):

– a pastor is effective by the third year, by which time he should be contributing to ‘congregational vitality’

– ‘effective pastors are those that develop, coach and mentor laity in leadership roles’

– ‘contemporary services work best when the music echoes what people hear on pop radio’

– ’25 percent to 50 percent of attendees in leadership during the last five years’

Another thing that scares me about this is that the UMC hired a consulting firm, Towers Watson, to conduct this survey.  But, even scarier, a Methodist, Fred Miller, president of The Chatham Group — another consulting firm — is the lead consultant on this vitality project. He had this to say:

The primary responsibility of everybody in all parts of our system — clergy, laity, general agencies, conferences — is to order our ministry around the drivers of vitality … Because if we are a more vital church, we will make more disciples of Jesus Christ.

Well, I worked for a worldwide top-10 consulting firm for 11 years and, until I started immersing myself in Scripture and orthodox Christianity a year and a half ago, I would have said, ‘Yeah, that makes sense.’   Now, I’m no expert in either Scripture or theology, but even at my neophyte stages, I can point out that something is very wrong with this picture.  And, it’s all been said before — ‘Rick Warren’s Purpose-Driven Church and management theory’ — what an eye-opener!

Read again what Mr Miller says (emphases mine):

The primary responsibility … in all parts of our system … is to order our ministry around the drivers of vitality…

Hmm. ‘Primary responsibility’ — shouldn’t that be ‘Jesus commanded us’?  ‘System’ — shouldn’t that be ‘church’?  ‘Drivers of vitality’ — shouldn’t that be ‘Gospel message’? What New Testament verse did that come from?

What did Jesus actually say?  He gave His disciples — and us — the Great Commission (Matt. 28:16-20), specifically:

All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. ¹⁹Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, ²⁰and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.

I lament the absence of anything Christ-oriented or biblical — including a New Testament passage — in that article.  I also abhor the Peter Drucker-Rick Warren orientation of their programme. (The link has a series of my posts exposing the errors in it.)  As Voddie Baucham preached yesterday — our Christian walk is about God’s sovereignty and Christ as the propitiation for our sins. It’s not about us!

The worst sentences in that article — for me — were the following:

– ‘The research also showed pastoral tenure contributes to congregational vitality. Whether a pastor is effective is usually apparent by the third year. If a pastor is effective by then, this success is likely to grow over time with the highest level at 10 or more years.’ So, if your church doesn’t grow by then in terms of numbers, you’re a failure?  Think of the seven churches in Revelation 2 and 3.  Some of them, like the persecuted church in Smyrna, no doubt lost members and remained purer as a result.

– ‘[Contemporary] services can use traditional hymns, but they had better have a backbeat.’

– ‘Churches also have rotating lay leadership with people sharing their gifts in a variety of ways over time. People do not serve year after year in the same position.’ That is very consulting-oriented, and that’s one of the things I enjoyed about working in that industry.  But management consulting has nothing to do with God, Christ and church. So — what will happen?  Something like this: ‘I’m sorry, Mrs Jones, we’ve found you are a great success as head Sunday school teacher.  But, as successful as you are, we’re going to move you off now onto something else.  Mrs Smith will take over starting in September.  In the meantime, you can work out the transition with her.’  Whaaaat??

What the UMC needs are sermons that drive home the importance of detaching ourselves from the world and secular pursuits, including vitality drivers.  The UMC would fill its pews quicker than lightning if only they had preachers like Baptist pastor Voddie Baucham.

Here, he preaches on our man-centred approach to the terrible things which happen in our world and tells us to judge ourselves before we start judging God (hint: if you do the first, you’ll never be tempted to do the second!):

In this next one, he tells us to put our social and racial divisions aside — God’s grace still works through us (abolition of slavery) and reminds us that He created all of us in His image — ‘something secular humanists will never understand’:

I pray along with many traditionally-oriented Methodists that this church growth thing does not go too far.

For anyone who still thinks this is a good thing, please read the experiences of the Lutherans on Dr Gregory Jackson’s Ichabod, the Glory Has Departed.

Rick Warren’s Purpose-Driven Church and management theory

In examining error this Lent, let us not forget the daddy of them all: Rick Warren.  I submit to you, whether you are Catholic or Protestant, your church or diocese is using his methods for a Purpose-Driven Church.

When you read analyses of Pastor Rick Warren’s Purpose-Driven Church, they sound much like management treatises.  Words like ‘growth’, ‘capital’, ‘knowledge’, and ‘assessment’ pop up time and time again.  Low on the scale are words such as ‘Bible’, ‘God’, ‘Jesus’, ‘faith’, ‘sin’ and ‘redemption’.

Two strands dovetail in the Purpose-Driven Church: one from the US Government and the other from management guru Peter Drucker (1909-2005). 

First, the 1997 Welfare Reform Act from the US Government, which explains why there is such a commingling of state, philanthropic and church resources — common purpose, one might say.  A Crossroads Ministries essay, ‘The Pied Pipers of Purpose’, states:

Faith-based organizations, since the Welfare Reform Act of 1997 and subsequent legislation, are nonprofit organizations that have gone to the feeding trough of the State. This includes nonprofits that perform medical care, emergency relief, housing, care of the elderly, training, shelters, homeless, hospices, food pantries, welfare-to-work, job training, refuge services, child care, preschools, etc. Keep in mind that some nonprofits which perform medical care, also perform abortions or refer for abortions.[69] In order to get the faith-based agenda jump-started, philanthropy leaders working in collaboration, offer training to equip private charities with the new result-oriented mode of conducting business. These activities successfully prepare the nonprofits to receive faith-based monies from the State. Faith-based organizations are more complex than simple storefront charities. They “have program competence, but they need core competencies…. Capacity, planning capacity, supervisory capacity, multi-site management, logistics, human resources,” says Dr. Christine Letts of Harvard University.[70] If a faith-based organization restructures to meet the new demands of its donors, it is said to be “value-added.”

Combine this with Rick Warren’s heavy borrowing from Peter Drucker and his acolytes for Saddleback Church and you eventually arrive at the Purpose-Driven Church. 

First, who is Peter Drucker?  If you have worked in quality management or management consulting, as I have, you will have run across his name and probably employed his methods for consistent, demonstrable, successful, results-driven projects which bring in more money to your business.  Drucker was born in Austria to intellectual parents.  They were part of the Vienna Circle, a group of thinkers and government officials who sought to implement new ideas about human and economic potential.  The young Drucker emigrated to England in 1933 then, at the outbreak of the Second World War, went to the United States, where he worked as a management consultant for General Motors.  The author of 39 books and countless essays, he has been called a ‘social ecologist’ and ‘social philosopher’.  He had no interest in religion but was concerned about man’s happiness as a ‘social being’, which he believed could only be realised through communitarianism.   

He devised the concept of ‘management by objectives’: the continuous improvement and evaluation of knowledge and processes which would effect them.  This is a gross oversimplification, but this post is about Rick Warren, not Peter Drucker.  Peter Drucker’s theories work really well for corporations and consulting practices.  However, churches are a different matter altogether.  Yet, although Drucker was not a religious man, he stuck his oar into what he thought churches should be.  He said:

… social sector institutions have a particular kind of purpose [emphasis ours]…. The ‘product’ of a church is a churchgoer whose life is being changed. The task of social-sector organizations is to create human health and well being.

Really?  No, that is not the purpose of church, but it seems to be the purpose of our churches today.

In Drucker’s estimation, a church is no different from a hospital, a food bank or a museum.  It’s part of the identity of a social system and works with the public sector.  And together, in his view, these work to transform our society and change us as individuals for the common good.  The corporate sector (business) can enhance this by passing on its theories and methods for success.  These transform — change — not only the institution involved but those who volunteer for it.  Kinda scary when you take that to its furthest extent.  And human potential is all about change — someone else’s (not God’s) idea of change.  This is why I’m most wary of people being forced to volunteer for their church because ‘it’s what we are called to do’.  Better to perform a quiet act of individual charity independently than to get caught up in this.

Which leads us to Rick Warren’s Purpose-Driven Church.  Warren and Drucker knew each other.  Warren was a guest in his home.  Warren’s website quotes Drucker:

Peter Drucker calls Rick ‘the inventor of perpetual revival’

Rather like Drucker’s theory of Total Quality Management, or TQM. Great for the business world, but let’s not mix it up with God.  So, what are Drucker’s theories about church which Warren finds so attractive?

– Instituting quantifiable — measurable — spiritual standards: beliefs, behaviours, attitudes.  By whose standards?  Man’s!

– Undergoing continuous church restructure every time growth increases by 45%.  Whose standards are these?  Man’s!

– Implementing ‘accountability’ — working like a business in attempting to exceed growth and giving targets, withdrawing central funds if these are unmet.  Whose standards? Man’s!

– State-mandated targets for church schools, e.g. exam results or enrolment growth.  By whose standards?  Man’s!

But, Drucker’s influence goes further.  One of his acolytes, Bob Buford, started the Leadership Network in 1984.  This sounds very churchy, indeed:

a resource broker that supplies information to and connects leaders of innovative churches.

Jesus and St Paul would have approved.  Not.  Its aims are to train and equip pastors for the 21st century church so that we end up with ’emerging young leaders’ with ‘new tools and resources’ via an ‘ongoing peer-coaching network’.  In his network are a number of prominent NewAgers, all of whom seek to transform mankind’s future. Buford was also responsible for FaithWorks (1998), later renamed Halftime. 

Drucker devised the General Systems Theory and the ‘feedback mechanism’ (anyone employed today knows what that is). For churches, Buford has developed a Christian Life Profile.  Warren has created a Purpose-Driven Life Health Assessment for a believer’s spiritual condition.  Criteria in church-based assessments are likely to measure:

– Extent of congregation’s growth in numbers or increase in funds — lack of growth is failure.

– How many church members volunteered time to church or charity? 

– How much time did each spend and how often?    

So, what about those who might not have the intelligence or perceived talent to help transform their local church?  I’m talking about the believing high-school dropout who is a responsible and loving parent or an aged, lifelong church member who is house-bound. And what about those who are unable to volunteer at church because they care for an aging parent and work during the day?  Will there be a place for them in this man-made construct?

Furthermore, why should all of this be quantified and tabulated in a database, which it surely must be? 

But when thou doest thine alms, let not thy left hand know what the right hand doeth. (Matt. 6:3)

Crossroads asks the question (emphases mine):

… did the Purpose-Driven “covenant” idea actually originate in “organizational capital” theories? Has a psycho-social concept been dressed up in biblical language to make it palatable?Interestingly, these church covenants are so vaguely worded and undefined that new meanings could be assigned to the terminology as time goes on. As one critic noted, “The bottom line is this: Once you’ve signed a church membership covenant and boarded the CGM [church growth movement, ed.] train – you’re committed to its destination, even if it changes direction somewhere along the way. This is why Jesus commands us in Matthew 5:33-34 to not make oaths with men because when it’s all said and done we might find ourselves following the wrong god.”

Nowhere in the Bible is there a mandated assessment for belief, quantified acts of charity, attained targets or linking up with government programmes. This is quite insidious and dangerous for any church.  Before you know it, the government will start dictating the church’s terms.  We saw this played out in Europe in the last century.  Let’s not make a return trip.

For more information, see:

‘The Pied Pipers of Purpose’ (Crossroads Ministries)

Tomorrow: The biblical case against the Purpose-Driven Church