That which has been is what will be,
That which is done is what will be done,
And there is nothing new under the sun.
Is there anything of which it may be said, “See, this is new”?
It has already been in ancient times before us.
There is no remembrance of former things,
Nor will there be any remembrance of things that are to come
By those who will come after.

King Solomon’s words in Ecclesiastes 1:9–11 (NKJV) echo through the generations. There is no new thing; we only forget what has come before. For instance, we are born rebels, yet each youthful generation that rebels believes its insurrection is novel. Seeking to set ourselves apart from the majority, to impress the world with our unique style and way of living, is part of our nature. We want to stand apart from the larger group but seek acceptance from a more insular group.

Brett McCracken, a twenty-something journalist, examines these and other tensions in Hipster Christianity: When Church and Cool Collide. The self-described Christian hipster surveys his own “cool Christianity” subculture, questions whether these Christians are obsessed with being different for its own sake, and discusses the impact the quest for cool has on our faith.

The History of “Hip.” McCracken defines the hipster as a young, fashionable, and “independent-minded contrarian.” He embarks on a well-researched exploration that tracks the evolution of hip, from as far back as the Enlightenment to America’s founding to the post-World War II hipster era to 1960s hippiedom to the present-day incarnation of “a commitment to total freedom from labels, norms, and imposed constraints of any kind” (p. 52).

The seeds of Christian hipsterdom were sown in the 1960s, when teenage Baby Boomers became a cultural force. As the culture goes, so goes the Christian church. Youth ministries sprang up, but churches still faced an important question. Given the church’s square and oppressive image, and youth’s countercultural rebellion, how was the church to reach them? McCracken is critical of the church, which at times has bowed to the culture to reach young Christians. Cool, as defined by mainstream culture, collided with the church’s values.

From this flowed the unexpected rise of hipster Christianity in the form of the Jesus People and Christian rock music. Next came the cultural co-option of Christianity as a sort of retail brand. The current form of Christian hipsterism mocks and rebels against this branding. Christian hipsters typically don’t like megachurches, altar calls, the 700 Club, contemporary Christian music, or Christian movies. They like breaking taboos and getting tattoos. They tend to drink and may smoke, and they prefer the term Christ follower to Christian. Generally, they like alternative and independent secular music, movies, and books “well respected by their respective artistic communities—Christian or not.” McCracken offers examples of Christian hipster “figureheads,” such as musician Sufjan Stevens and writer Lauren Winner, author of Real Sex: The Naked Truth about Chastity, and he lists top Christian hipster cities and churches.

The “Cool” Conundrum. What distinguishes the Christian hipster from his secular counterpart? The Christian hipster strives to live a more Christlike life, as befitting a believer, and he’s marked by “significantly less” hedonism, less cynicism, less drug use, and less premarital sex. Nevertheless, McCracken concludes that the pursuits of Christianity and cool are irreconcilable.

“Cool” trails, which include individualism, alienation, and rebellion, are problematic for the Christian, because these things tend to cause self-centeredness, loneliness, and elitism. Rebelliousness, for instance, isn’t always a bad thing. Jesus Himself was a rebel. But an attitude of rebelliousness can easily move from breaking oppressive rules to breaking rules that help us grow in grace.

When is Christian coolness authentic? When it sincerely celebrates what’s good about art and culture apart from trendiness, when it’s centered on Christ and not consumption and image, when it’s different from the world, and when it’s willing to say no to sin.

“We easily forget that our Christian beliefs are actually pretty radical, unheard of, life-changing, world-shaking, and elegant,” McCracken writes (240). Why should we fear unpopularity or being out of touch? The Christian shouldn’t concern himself with outward coolness and being different for its own sake. Our faith sets us apart. We should dare to be different as new creations in Christ.

Though Hipster Christianity adopts a tongue-in-cheek tone at times, it’s appropriate to the material. McCracken attempts to generate a serious discussion about a subculture of believers trying to set themselves apart, like generations before and generations to come. The impulse to stand out, however, is satisfied only in Christ.

—La Shawn Barber

 La Shawn Barber is a freelance writer whose work has appeared in such publications as Christianity Today, Today’s Christian Woman, the Washington Post, and the Washington Examiner. Visit her blog at lashawnbarber.com.

Gene Scott (Ph.D., Stanford) is a very intelligent minister in the Assemblies of God tradition. He gained a reputation as a troubleshooter and fund raiser in the early 1970’s; when Faith Center fell into financial woes, he was called to be its pastor in late 1975. In 1978 the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) launched an investigation into the church’s use of contributions. Scott managed to prevent the FCC from seeing the donors’ list, but was unable to stop them from pulling the plug on Channel 30 in Glendale in 1983. Since then, however, Scott has obtained air time on other stations, and has in fact become even more popular and well-known.

The concerns that Christians have, however, have little to do with the FCC and the church’s use of funds. During the last few years, Scott has become more and more outrageous and offensive. His appearance, increasingly unkempt and outlandish, deliberately offends societal standards of propriety (compare Paul’s lifestyle 1 Corinthians 9:19-23). His language is crude, abusive, and profane, clearly violating God’s standards for Christians (Ephesians 4:29-31; 5:4; Colossians 3:8). Also, there is increasing concern regarding his approach to fund-raising.

On a positive note, Scott does appear to hold to the basic evangelical doctrines of the faith, closely resembling the Assemblies of God tradition. However, he also dabbles in pyramidology and seems to promote a variation of the erroneous Anglo-Israelism doctrine. (CRI has information on both of these aberrational teachings.) In any case, a Christian ministry must be evaluated on the basis of both doctrine and practice; in the area of practice, Scott’s ministry cannot, in our opinion, be considered acceptably Christian.

At this point, our conclusion is to advise Christians not to be involved with Dr. Scott’s ministry and not to go to him for instruction in God’s Word. This does not mean that we make any judgment about his own standing with God.

Born in 1926 to an Iowan family of Dutch descent, Robert Schuller was reared in the Reformed Church in America. He decided to become a minister at the age of five, and after graduating from high school he received the necessary training at Hope College and Western Theological Seminary.

The newly ordained Rev.Schuller entered the pastorate in 1951 at Hope Church in Chicago, which over the next four years grew from 38 to 400 members.

In 1955 his denomination sent him to Orange County, California to establish a new church there. After trying unsuccessfully to rent numerous facilities, the 28-year-old Schuller finally rented the Orange County Drive-In Theater for Sunday mornings. A congregation in cars slowly grew, until by the second year they could afford to build a small chapel. Rev.Schuller (he did not receive his honorary doctorate until many years later) also continued to preach at the drive-in theater, because many people preferred to worship in their cars.

During these first two years, Rev.Schuller went from door to door inviting people to come to his church, and asking them what type of church they would like to attend.

According to his intimate friend Michael Nason,

To his surprise he found that most people didn’t even know the difference between the Old and New Testaments and couldn’t care less …. That’s when he realized that giving Bible studies on Sunday morning during a worship service would turn off most of the unchurched people entirely… Then he asked the people what sort of a church they would want to attend. They wanted light, beauty, tranquility, beautiful music, friendly people, programs that suited their needs, sermons that weren’t boring better yet, sermons that weren’t even sermons! They wanted a place where they could feel comfortable..:. He decided at that point that he would never again use his pulpit as a teaching platform.¹

It was at this time that he began to see his church as a mission, a place where non-Christians would feel comfortable enough to come in and then later accept Jesus. How would he do this? By preaching only positive things! Dr.Schuller credits close friend and fellow Reformed Church in America minister Dr.Norman Vincent Peale “with fine tuning his own positive faith and laying the foundation for his own Possibility Thinking that was to come.” ²

In September of 1959 groundbreaking ceremonies were held at the location of the present church property in Garden Grove, California. The next fall the congregation, with a membership of 700 people, moved into its new church building. Rev.Schuller’s two churches were now combined into one. In July of 1966 construction began, on a 14-story “tower of hope” which was completed the following year. A 90-foot high cross that would light up at night was placed at the top of the 162-foot tower.

In 1970 Dr. Schuller began what has become the most widely watched televised church service in the nation, Hour of Power. In 1975 construction began on a new sanctuary, and on September14,1980, the world famous Crystal Cathedral was officially opened for worship.

All in all, Dr.Schuller’s many accomplishments are remarkable. From preaching to 50 cars from the roof of a drive-in snack bar, he has built up a congregation of over ten thousand members in a church that cost over 20 million dollars. Hour of Power is seen in over 175 cities with an audience of two to four million people. He receives between thirty and forty thousand letters a week and has a mailing list of over one million people. He has authored 19 books, several of them national best sellers. Since 1970 more than twenty thousand church leaders have attended Dr. Schuller’s “Institute for Successful Church Leadership.” Indeed, few people in the church today have had an impact comparable to that of Dr.Schuller.

— Joseph P. Gudel

NOTES

1. Michael Nason and Donna Nason, Robert Schuller: The Inside Story (Waco: Word Books, 1983), p. 21.

2. Ibid., p. 61.

“Why would any Christian write an article criticizing Dr.Schuller? Isn’t this being negative? Isn’t this being unloving?” These and similar questions are raised automatically by many people whenever one Christian criticizes another Christian, especially when the one criticized is as notable and well liked as Dr.Robert Schuller.

I believe the first question raised above will be answered as we examine the content of Dr.Schuller’s theology. To test or criticize someone whose teachings are aberrational is not being negative; in fact the Bible commands us to do this. When the Apostle Paul wrote to the Christians in Thessalonica, he told them to “test all things; hold fast to that which is good” (1Thess.5:21).

The question still remains: “Is this unloving?” The most unloving thing that we could do would be to close our eyes and turn our backs as untold numbers of people are being led astray by false teaching. To critique a Christian who has erred from the truth is the most loving thing we could do for him. The Apostle James wrote: “My brethren, if any among you strays from the truth, and one turns him back, let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death, and will cover a multitude of sins” (James5:19-20).

DR.SCHULLER’S THEOLOGY

Dr.Schuller has stated many times throughout his many years of ministry that his one goal, his main desire, is to reach the masses of unchurched people. When he and his wife first arrived in California, they wondered how they could build a church from scratch.

Who would come to our church?… Looking at some statistics, it was very plain that half the people in the U.S. had no religious affiliation. Our answer then came quickly and clearly. The unchurched thousands¾ this was our opportunity. We would have to impress and win the people who, for one reason or another, had never before been interested in organized religion.¹

So Dr.Schuller believes that his calling is that of a missionary. “My ministry has, for over thirty years, been a mission to the unbelievers.”² And as we are about to see, he does not believe that the way to reach them is by proclaiming the gospel.

How does Dr.Schuller believe we can reach the nonbelievers most effectively? The most important thing is to find out what they want! He did this for several years at the beginning of his California ministry. And what did he discover? He found out that nonbelievers wanted to have their emotional needs met: they did not want to hear about the Bible or about their need for forgiveness of sins and salvation.

As a missionary, I find the hope of respectful contact is based on a “human-need” approach rather than a theological attack …. The non-churched who have no vital belief in a relationship with God will spurn, reject, or simply ignore the theologian, church spokesperson, preacher, or missionary who approaches with Bible in hand, theology on the brain and the lips, and expects nonreligious persons to suspend their doubts and swallow the theocentric assertions as fact.³

POSSIBILITY THINKING VS. NEGATIVE THINKING

Since Dr.Schuller will not preach the gospel from the pulpit, nor teach from the Bible, what then is the message he propagates? Los Angeles Times staff writer Bella Stumbo, after an extended interview with Dr.Schuller, wrote: “In short, Robert Schuller believes that God placed him on this Earth to preach possibility thinking.”⁴

Anyone who is familiar with Dr.Schuller’s writings or who has listened to him speak will realize that this is not an exaggeration.

Throughout his ministry Dr.Schuller has been outspoken in warning his listeners about the dangers of negative thinking. He asks his audience to consider “that dirty ten-letter-word ‘impossible.’ When uttered aloud, this word is devastating in its effect. Thinking stops. Progress is halted.”⁵ Elsewhere he states: “Whatever you do, never verbalize a negative emotion.”⁶

The gospel that he wants to share with his unchurched audience is that they can do anything that they want to, that everything is possible for a “possibility thinker.”

There is no problem or situation that cannot be solved.⁷

… success awaits the man who will “never say never.”⁸

… this is what I think our ministry is all about. Helping people realize they can become more than they ever thought they could be!⁹

To underscore just how vitally important this message is, Dr.Schuller once wrote: “I believe in positive thinking. It is almost as important as the resurrection of Jesus Christ”¹⁰ In addition, the titles to some of his books are revealing: Move Ahead With Possibility Thinking, You Can Become the Person You Want to Be, It’s Possible, and Become a Possibility Thinker Now…

The Gospel of Success

Closely connected with his emphasis on “possibility thinking” is his teaching concerning success. Dr.Schuller believes that God wants us to succeed in whatever we do.

God’s will for you is clear…. God wants you to succeed. He has promised to “crown your efforts with success…” (Prov.3:6)¹¹

Who owns the cattle on a thousand hills, mines of ore that have never been discovered, and is waiting to make millionaires out of simple farm boys? Take Christ as your Partner and give Him a chance to work the miracle He promised: “I am come that you might have life¾ and have it more abundantly.”¹²

If you fail, you do so because you choose to fail!¹³

Although in recent years Dr.Schuller has somewhat tempered this teaching, it is still one of his major tenets.

Self-Esteem: A New Reformation

The prime focus of Dr.Schuller’s ministry today concerns the self-esteem of the individual. This was reflected in most of his earlier books, but was never specifically formulated until 1982, when he wrote Self-Esteem: The New Reformation. Dr.Schuller believes that virtually every problem a person has, every ill that plagues society, all sin and evil in the world, is a result of people having low self-esteem. Therefore, our greatest need is to have our self-esteem increased.

Self-esteem then, or “pride in being a human being,” is the single greatest need facing the human race today.¹⁴

I strongly suggest that self-love is the ultimate will of man¾ that what you really want more than anything else in the world is the awareness that you are a worthy person.¹⁵

Do not fear pride: the easiest job God has is to humble us. God’s almost impossible task is to keep us believing every hour of every day how great we are as his sons and daughters on planet earth.¹⁶

According to Schuller, in order to reach the multitudes of nonbelievers today, a new reformation is needed, a reformation based on building up their self-esteem. This reformation must be anthropocentric, that is, man-centered, not theocentric, or God-centered. Indeed, Dr.Schuller believes that classical theology seriously errs in insisting that all theology be centered around God instead of around man.¹⁷

The Bible

One might legitimately ask why Dr.Schuller believes classical theology errs so gravely. His answer: Luther and Calvin were listening to the wrong person! He asks the following rhetorical question:

Luther and Calvin, we know, looked to the Book of Romans in the Bible for their primary inspiration. Were they, unknowingly, possessed more by the spirit of St.Paul than by the Spirit of Jesus Christ? Are we not on safer grounds if we look to our Lord’s words to launch our reformation?¹⁸

The implication is that what Jesus said in the gospels overrides everything else in the Bible. For Schuller, then, some parts of the Bible (i.e., what Jesus said as recorded in the gospels) have more authority than other areas of the Bible. In other parts of Self-Esteem: The New Reformation, Dr.Schuller is more explicit.

But can anything be above the Scriptures? Yes, the Eternal Word transcends the written Word. Christ is the Word made flesh. Christ is the Lord over the Scriptures; the Scriptures are not Lord over Christ . . . The Bible must not compete with the Lord for the seat of glory. We are “saved by the blood,” not “by the Book.” We believe in the holy Trinity, not a holy Quadrangle.¹⁹

Christ must be, at all times, Lord over the Scriptures.²⁰

Sin and Man’s Nature

For Dr.Schuller, sin, a subject he does not like to discuss, has a definition very different from the one most Christians give.

I am convinced that the deepest of all human needs is salvation from sin and hell …. We come now to the problem of semantics. What do I mean by sin? Answer: Any human condition or act that robs God of glory by stripping one of his children of their right to divine dignity. I could offer another complementing answer, “Sin is that deep lack of trust that separates me from God and leaves me with a sense of shame and unworthiness.” I can offer still another answer: “Sin is any act or thought that robs myself or another human being of his or her self-esteem.”²¹

Any analysis of “sin” or “evil”… that fails to see the lack of self-dignity as the core of the problem will prove to be too shallow.²² Classical Reformed Theology declares that we are conceived and born rebellious sinners. But that answer is too shallow.

It ignores the tough question: Why should love-needing persons resist, rebel against, and reject beautiful love? The answer? We are born nontrusting. Deep down we feel we are not good enough to approach a holy God.²³

By implication then, man is basically good according to Dr.Schuller. His only problem is that he was born with a disability: this disability, or original sin, is a low self-esteem or lack of trust.²⁴

If only we could love ourselves enough to dare approach God …. But we feel too unworthy. So one layer of negative behavior is laid upon another until we emerge as rebellious sinners. But our rebellion is a reaction, not our nature. By nature we are fearful, not bad. Original sin is not a mean streak; it is a nontrusting inclination …. do not say that the central core of the human soul is wickedness. If this were so, then truly, the human being is totally depraved. But positive Christianity does not hold to human depravity, but to human inability.²⁵

Dr.Schuller does not believe or teach that we are ultimately responsible for our sins. He attempts to distinguish between what he calls “Adam’s Sin” and “Original Sin.” Adam, created sinless, knew better. Only he deserved a sermon on sin, because he alone had a choice. Adam “… made a choice, he chose. He knew better. His children, however, were born with a disadvantage. They didn’t have that choice.”²⁶

Because we are basically fearful, but not bad, and because we need to have our self-esteem lifted, Jesus never criticized people or called them sinners, according to Dr.Schuller. Instead, he always tried to uplift them.

He never did call them “sinners.” He saw great possibilities in each of these men. How He tried to give them the sense of self-worth and dignity that they deserved! After all, they were human beings, descendants of God.²⁷

Christ always tried to give man’s self-image a boost. When he met immoral people He never called them sinners. Never!²⁸

He believed in the dignity of the individual. So He never called a person a sinner. He always saw the individual as a saint.²⁹

So Dr.Schuller believes that if Jesus never called people sinners, then he won’t either.

Man and Glory

The end result that Dr.Schuller hopes to accomplish is to show everyone that they are all children of God because they are all made in His image. “The Fatherhood of God is built into our subconscious,”³⁰ all we really need is enough self-esteem to accept this fact. But it does not stop there. Because “we were created to be princes and princesses,”³¹ we have an innate “thirst for glory.”³² Dr.Schuller believes that “what we need is a theology of salvation that begins and ends with a recognition of every person’s hunger for glory.”³³ “The Christian faith and life is a gospel designed to glorify human beings for the greater glory of God.”³⁴ The final goal is that “we can pray, ‘Our Father in heaven, honorable is our name.’”³⁵

Salvation and the Gospel

In concluding our examination of Dr.Schuller’s theology we must see what he has to say about salvation and the gospel. First of all, he stresses that people will not respond to the gospel until they recognize that they are worthy of God. “The unsaved person cannot perceive himself as worthy of ‘divine grace’ and hence rejects it.”³⁶ In fact, Dr.Schuller believes that the ultimate sin is in feeling unworthy about yourself: “the most serious sin is the one that causes me to say, ‘I am unworthy. I may have no claim to divine sonship if you examine me at my worst.’”³⁷

Dr.Schuller believes, then, that God wants to build up man’s self-esteem and restore the lost glory that is our inherent right as children of God, as people “created to be princes and princesses.”³⁸ “God’s ultimate objective is to turn you and me into self-confident persons.”³⁹

In accord with this, Dr.Schuller believes that any proclamation of the gospel that puts “a person down before it attempts to lift him up” is dangerous.⁴⁰ He goes on to state that “you are not preaching the Gospel unless you make people happy, because the Gospel is good news.”⁴¹

Finally, what is salvation in Schuller’s opinion? What does it mean to be “born again”?

What does it mean to be saved? It means to be permanently lifted from sin (psychological self-abuse with all of its consequences as seen above) and shame to self-esteem and its God glorifying human need-meeting, constructive, and creative consequences.⁴²

Salvation is defined as rescue from shame to glory.⁴³

To be born again means that we must be changed from a negative to a positive self-image¾ from inferiority to self-esteem, from fear to love, from doubt to trust.⁴⁴

And what is the real effect of being saved? “Glory restored is the real fruit of salvation.”⁴⁵

A BIBLICAL CRITIQUE

A Faulty Foundation

A building is only as strong as its foundation, and every argument stands or falls on its premises. In Dr.Schuller’s case we can readily see that his entire ministry is based upon a defective premise. What is it? He has knowingly based and structured his theology on what people wanted to hear! It began with him going from door to door, asking people what type of church they would like to attend.⁴⁶ It has continued to this day, albeit more sophisticatedly, with Dr.Schuller hiring firms like the Gallup Poll to conduct surveys on such pertinent topics as self-esteem of the American people.⁴⁷ Instead of asking himself what the people needed, he asked what they wanted. Sometimes these two are in agreement, but more often they are not. Instead of listening to the people, or even to himself, he should have asked God what the people needed and how he could help them obtain it!

Imagine someone like the prophet Jonah going to Nineveh and telling the people only the good things that they wanted to hear. After all, he could have reasoned, they would never listen to some foreigner preaching negative sermons. Why, none of the Ninevites even believed in the Jewish Scriptures. The result of this type of approach would have meant the destruction of Nineveh and all of its inhabitants.

A theology based upon opinion polls rather upon God’s Word is a direct fulfillment of what the Apostle Paul warned against: “For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires.” (2Tim.4:3).

Possibility Thinking

The teaching advanced by Dr.Schuller is clear. You can be whatever you want to be, all you have to do is believe in yourself. Any and every problem you encounter can be overcome, just never quit. “Set your goal, define your role, and pay your toll.”⁴⁸ “What you can conceive, you can achieve.”⁴⁹ And above all, never verbalize a negative thought or admit that something is impossible.

As we have seen, the teaching of “possibility thinking” is a cornerstone of Dr.Schuller’s theology. And in and of itself, there is nothing wrong with this. After all, there are many biblical verses which affirm this. For example:

For nothing will be impossible with God (Luke1:37).

And Jesus said to him, “‘If you can.’ All things are possible to him who believes” (Mark9:23).

There are several problems, however, with how Dr.Schuller presents this. First of all, his emphasis is virtually indistinguishable from the same type of teachings given in secular circles (e.g., Dale Carnegie’s How to Win Friends and Influence People). The only difference is that Dr.Schuller builds his message within a theistic framework. The problem lies in the fact that the biblical promises of God’s help apply only to those people who have a living relationship with God; that is, people who have accepted Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. But Dr.Schuller admits that the main group of people he is trying to reach is non-Christians! Therefore, his “possibility thinking” teachings from the Bible really would not apply to them.

Second, in teaching that we can do anything that we can dream of, Dr.Schuller totally ignores the fact that we do have limitations. All of us are limited by our own natural abilities and by outside influences over which we have no control.

A final flaw in this type of teaching is that there are times when we must say unpleasant things or “verbalize negative emotions.” According to Dr.Schuller, the Apostle Peter would probably be one of the world’s greatest possibility thinkers. Why? Remember when Jesus began to tell his disciples that He had to go to Jerusalem and suffer many things and be killed (cf. Matt.16:21f)? What was Peter’s reaction? He took Jesus aside and lectured Him on the dangers of negative thinking.

And Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him, saying, “God forbid it, Lord! This shall never happen to You” (Matt.16:22).

We all know the rest of the story, Jesus rebuked Peter for not setting his “mind on God’s interests, but man’s.” Elsewhere, Jesus actually commands us, under certain conditions, to verbalize negative emotions. “Be on your guard. If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him” (Luke17:3).

The danger of Dr.Schuller’s teaching on “possibility thinking” is that he only shows one side of the coin and thus distorts God’s message.

The Gospel of Success

In attempting to marshal together biblical evidence to back his claims that God wants us to succeed in whatever we do, Dr.Schuller has taken one verse after another out of context. For example: “God’s will for you is clear …. God wants you to succeed. He has promised to ‘crown your efforts with success!”‘ (Prov.3:6).⁵⁰

It is no accident that Dr.Schuller quotes Proverbs 3:6 from The Living Bible, which is a paraphrase, not a translation. Proverbs3:6, according to the Hebrew Masoretic text, reads: “In all thy ways acknowledge Him. And he will direct thy paths.”⁵¹ The Hebrew word for “direct” is “yashar,” meaning “To go straight or direct in the way” or “to make (a way) straight”⁵² Thus God is promising to guide us as we walk with Him, not to make us succeed in everything we do.

Many examples could be cited to show Dr.Schuller’s frequent distortion of scriptural passages in order to justify his theological positions. For instance, what does Dr.Schuller say Jesus really meant when He taught His disciples to pray for their “daily bread” (Matt.6:11)?

“Give us our daily bread.” What does the word “bread” mean? Bread refers to life’s basic needs. God doesn’t promise that we will get the dessert, but he does promise that we will have the crust…. What is the crust that God offers? We call it possibility thinking.⁵³

“Give us this day our daily bread.” God will give us what we need. And what is that? It is creative, inspiring, possibility-pregnant ideas.⁵⁴

Dr.Schuller is guilty of even more blatant distortion when he equates the “rivers of living water” Jesus referred to in John7:38 with self-esteem.

And I can feel the self-esteem rising all around me and within me. “Rivers of living water shall flow from the inmost being of anyone who believes in me” (John7:38, TLB). I’ll really feel good about myself.⁵⁵

Did Jesus really equate “rivers of living water” with “self-esteem”? The Apostle John (who I think was in a better position to tell us what Jesus meant than Dr.Schuller is) tells us exactly what Jesus was saying: “But this He spoke of the Spirit, whom those who believed in Him were to receive: for the Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified” (John7:39).

More examples could be cited showing how Dr.Schuller takes verses out of context and/or distorts their meaning, but these will suffice.

One of the most lamentable aspects of Dr.Schuller’s “Gospel of Success” is in the effect it can have on people who genuinely try but fail. For people like this I cannot think of anything more pernicious than to tell them that “if you fail, you do so because you choose to fail.”⁵⁶ William Kirk Kilpatrick, associate professor of educational psychology at Boston College, makes the following observation:

If you lead people to believe that by the power of their mind they can become rich and change their life, and if in fact that doesn’t happen, not only are they going to feel frustration but also more guilt for not having enough faith.⁵⁷

Christians may oftentimes be successful in their earthly endeavors, but God has not promised this to us. In fact, many of the greatest men and women of faith were total failures in the world’s eyes (cf.Heb.11:35-40). Worldly success may be a byproduct of obedience to God, but it should never be our primary goal.

Self-Esteem: A New Reformation?

We must first address the question, is it wrong to have high self-esteem? The biblical answer is no! In the book of Genesis we are told that man was created in God’s own image (Gen.1:26-27). In other places the Scriptures state that “we are the temple of the living God” (2Cor.6:16), and that we are “sons and daughters” of God (2Cor.6:18). In Eph.2:10, we are told that “we are His workmanship.” The word “workmanship” comes from the Greek word “poiema” from which we get our English word “poem”. Just as a poem is an artistic expression of the poet, so we are artistic expressions of God. How unique and special is each person? When a baby is conceived,

it will be a combination of the genetic content of one of the mother’s 400 ova with those of one of, say, 360 million spermatozoa released at the same time. The child you conceived might have been any one of about 144 billion distinct human beings, assuming that all of the spermatozoa really had an equal chance to fertilize that ovum. The slightest difference in the timing of the sex act would have tipped the odds in favor of a different spermatozoon¾ and resulted in a different child. No other couple could produce a child identical to yours.⁵⁸

Truly King David was right when he proclaimed: “I will give thanks to Thee, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made” (Ps.139:14).

There must be a proper balance in our evaluation of man. We need to see ourselves as God sees us. How does God view man? He sees us as beings of tremendous value and worth. In John3:16 the word “so” is often overlooked: God loved us so much that He sent Jesus to die for our sins, that we could be reconciled with him.

Once again, however, there is a flip side to the coin. God sees us as His creations (not as His peers) who have willingly rebelled against Him. Dr.Schuller rejects this fact in his evaluation. He believes that the greatest need of man is having his self-esteem built up,⁵⁹ therefore we should never say anything derogatory about man. Man’s main goal, he believes, should be seeking to have his self-esteem built up high enough that he can respond to God’s love. The only reason people do not accept God is because they have a low self-esteem and thus fear Him.⁶⁰

The main question is, “Is Dr.Schuller’s analysis of man’s problem correct?” We will consider the scriptural answer to this in the following sections dealing with “Man’s Nature” and “Jesus and Sinners.” Right now, though, I believe that simply by looking at the evidence before us we can see that Dr.Schuller’s logic is faulty.

Lewis Smedes, a professor at Fuller Seminary and the author of Love within Limits, makes the following cogent observation:

I have seen a hit man of the Mafia who says “I feel very good about myself.” I have talked to prostitutes who have felt very good about themselves, and I’m not judging them, but I have talked to saints who felt very badly about themselves. The crux in this whole business is not whether we feel good about ourselves, though that is important, but what is the truth about ourselves?⁶¹

If Dr.Schuller is correct, if the only reason we run from God is because we have a low self-esteem and fear Him, then people who have a high self-esteem should all become Christians and also should not sin anymore! But we know from practical experience that this is not the case.

William Kirk Kilpatrick states that a high self-esteem often inhibits people from coming to God:

Like the rich man who will have such a hard time getting into heaven, his riches protect him from the knowledge of how utterly dependent on God he is. In the same way the man who is brimful of self-esteem is unable to see how utterly broken he is, how we all are.⁶²

It is both interesting and significant that recent psychological studies have confirmed what the Bible has always taught: man’s problem is not low self-esteem but rather pride. While at times this is expressed in low self-esteem it is also very often manifested as an inflated self-image. Dr.David Myers, a professor of psychology at Dr.Schuller’s alma mater, Hope College, comments on this in his article, “The Inflated Self.”

[W]hat an intriguing irony it is that so many Christian writers are now echoing the old prophets of humanistic psychology at the very time that research psychologists are amassing new data concerning the pervasiveness of pride. Indeed it is the orthodox theologians, not the humanistic psychologists, who seem closest to the truth that is glimpsed by social psychology.⁶³

Church history also refutes Dr.Schuller’s teaching on self-esteem. He believes that we are entering a “new age of church growth” and that the only way the Church can succeed is to build up people’s allegedly low self-esteem.⁶⁴ Dr.Schuller must answer a significant question: why didn’t the early Church preach a theology of self-esteem? They were virtually surrounded by nonbelievers, people whose greatest need, according to Dr.Schuller, was to have their self-esteem lifted. However, the early Church followed the example of Paul, and preached “Christ and Him crucified” not any gospel of self-esteem (e.g., 1Cor.2:2;1:18,23; Rom.3:10-18). We find no examples in the preaching of the apostles that man’s basic problem was a low self-esteem. Instead we find that it is a need for forgiveness of his sins.

An Anthropocentric Theology?

As we have seen, Dr.Schuller believes that the Reformers seriously erred in centering their theology around God instead of around man. The verse people like Dr.Schuller usually cite to support that teaching is Mark12:31, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” Their argument is that we must first learn to love ourselves, to have our own self-esteem built up, and only then can we love others.

But what is the context of this verse? A scribe came up to Jesus and asked Him what was the greatest commandment.

Jesus answered, “The foremost is, ‘Hear, O Israel! The Lord our God is one Lord; and you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.’ ‘The second is this, You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these” (Mark12:29-31).

Two things stand out from Jesus’ words. The first is that, according to Jesus, our theology must be primarily God-centered, not man-centered, because the first commandment was to love God with everything we have. The second thing that stands out is that we were not commanded to love ourselves. We are commanded to love our neighbor just as we love ourselves. This agrees with what the Apostle Paul wrote: “For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it” (Eph.5:29).

In truth, a theology that is centered around man inescapably becomes a not-so-subtle attempt at self-worship. A theology that is based on self-esteem is really only a new narcissism. In Beyond Personality which was first published at the same time Dr.Schuller was an undergraduate at Hope College, C.S.Lewis succinctly critiqued and destroyed any attempt at a theology based on man’s self-esteem.

Christ will indeed give you a real personality: but you must not go to Him for the sake of that. As long as your own personality is what you are bothering about you are not going to Him at all. The very first step is to try to forget about the self altogether. Your real, new self (which is Christ’s and also yours, and yours just because it is His) will not come as long as you are looking for it. It will come when you are looking for Him …. Look for yourself, and you will find in the long run only hatred, loneliness, despair, rage, and decay. But look for Christ and you will find Him, and with Him everything else thrown in.⁶⁵

Pride

Along with telling us that our greatest need is a high self-esteem and that our theology must be man-centered, Dr.Schuller has also said that we do not have to worry about pride.

Do not fear pride: the easiest job God has is to humble us.⁶⁶

But the Bible warns believers against pride and exhorts Christians to practice humility as a safeguard against pride:

Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before stumbling (Prov.16:18).

… and all of you, clothe yourselves with humility toward one another, for God is opposed to the proud, but gives grace to the humble (1Pet.5:5).

In the book of Isaiah we find that Lucifer, the “star of the morning,” was cast down from his eminent position because of the great pride that he possessed (Isa.14:10-14). His end result was to be “thrust down to Sheol, to the recesses of the pit” (v.15).

The Bible

One of the reasons Dr.Schuller has drawn so much criticism is that his theology and teachings are not based on the Bible. In fact, as we have just seen, they are oftentimes diametrically opposed to what the Bible says in context. He believes that Jesus’ words are the only safe basis within which we can build any theological framework.⁶⁷ In one place in Self-Esteem: The New Reformation he writes:

A simple and very wise man once said: “If you really want to know a person’s deepest desire and most conscientious concern, study, if you can, his unvarnished prayers. Stealthily approach him in his intimate closet and try to overhear what he is really praying about passionately.”⁶⁸

I think that this is excellent advice. To find out what our view of the Bible should be, we will look at what Jesus said about Scripture, and we will begin by looking at one of the most passionate prayers Jesus ever uttered, His prayer to His Father, just before His passion and death.

In John 17 Jesus is praying for His disciples, whom He will soon be leaving. He asks His Father to “Sanctify them in the truth; Thy word is truth” (John17:17).

Jesus evidently believed that all of God’s word is truth, not just part of it! Just before this, Jesus stated that He had guarded His disciples and that none of them had perished except Judas, “the son of perdition, that the Scripture might be fulfilled” (verse 12). Again, Jesus plainly believed that whatever the Scriptures said would take place, would.

In John10:35 Jesus stated that “the Scripture cannot be broken.” In Matthew5:18 He said “until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the Law, until all is accomplished.”

Dr.Schuller’s grave error is that he attempts to make a dichotomy between Jesus’ words and the rest of the Bible. He claims to base his teachings and his hope for “new reformation” on what Jesus said. In reality, he simply accepts the sayings of Jesus that he agrees with and ignores the rest!

Sin

Perhaps the most insidious aspect of Dr.Schuller’s teaching method is the way he redefines biblical terms at will. A prime example of this is how he redefines sin. According to Dr.Schuller, sin is anything that robs us of our “divine dignity” or, sin is a “deep lack of trust.”⁶⁹ According to the Bible, though, sin is rebellion and lawlessness on man’s part.

… sin is the transgression of the law (1John3:4).

All unrighteousness is sin (1John5:17).

Jesus gave another definition of sin. He said that when the Holy Spirit came, He would convict the world “concerning sin, because they do not believe in Me” (John16:9). Thus sin is defined as any refusal to believe in Jesus.

Dr.Schuller believes that we should never discuss people’s sins, because to do so would be an insult to their dignity. R.C.Sproul addresses this type of attitude in his book In Search of Dignity:

There is a road to redemption where every human being has dignity. Many reject this road because they think Christianity destroys self-esteem, disparaging human value with woeful denunciations of the evil of man. Preachers rail against corruption, calling man a wretched sinner. Did not David cry out, “I am a worm and not a man” and Job grovel in the dust moaning, “I hate myself”?

These grim statements make it seem that Christianity has a low view of human dignity. But the point often overlooked is that the character of sinfulness in no way diminishes the worth of persons. It is because humanity is so valuable that God takes sin seriously . . . .

By taking sin seriously we take man seriously. Evil may mar the divine image and cloud its brilliance, but it cannot destroy it. The image can be defaced, but it can never be erased. The most obscene symbol in human history is the cross: yet in its ugliness it remains the most eloquent testimony to human dignity.⁷⁰

If we Christians, especially the leaders who are shepherds in the Church, are ever going to help anyone, we must start by being honest. This means that we do not close our eyes to mankind’s true condition. We need to have the courage to speak “the truth in love” (Eph.4:15).

Man’s Nature

What is man’s true condition? Dr.Schuller believes that man is basically good. “By nature we are fearful, not bad.”⁷¹ What does the Bible say?

The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it? (Jer.17:9).

There is none righteous, not even one; there is none who understands, there is none who seeks for God; all have turned aside, together they have become useless: there is none who does good, there is not even one (Rom.3:10-12).

For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh (Rom.7:18).

Jesus and Sinners

Perhaps one of the most incredible statements Dr.Schuller has ever made is that Jesus never called anyone a sinner. He reasons that if Jesus never called people sinners, then neither should he. This is a perfect example of how Dr.Schuller picks and chooses from among the words of Jesus, accepting only what he likes and leaving the rest. Did Jesus ever call people sinners? Yes, many times.

I said therefore to you, that you shall die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am He, you shall die in your sins (John8:24).

He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her (John8:7).

And hearing this, Jesus said to them, “It is not those who are healthy who need a physician, but those who are sick; I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners” (Mark2:17).

Jesus knew what type of a heart each person had (cf. John2:24-25). If they were genuinely repentant for their sins, He would forgive them and then lift them up. But if they were hardhearted and antagonistic, Jesus would speak very harshly to them. Dr.Schuller does not believe this: “Jesus, when he confronted secular unbelievers as well as conspicuous sinners, still refrained from insulting or embarrassing them. He left their dignity intact.”⁷²

Once again Dr.Schuller purposely ignores the parts of the Bible that he finds distasteful.

You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. . . (John8:44)

Woe to you, blind guides . . . Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites. For you are like whitewashed tombs which on the outside appear beautiful, but inside they are full of dead men’s bones and all uncleanness (Matt.23:16, 27)

Dr.KarlMenninger, a renowned psychiatrist and the head of the Menninger Clinic, wrote a book over ten years ago entitled Whatever Became of Sin? His thesis was that the reason so many people are confused and lost is because people no longer think of themselves as sinners. He concluded that if we really want to help people, then we should “tell it like it is,” we should point out their sin to them so they can turn from it and be healed.

Some clergymen prefer pastoral counseling of individuals to the pulpit function. But the latter is a greater opportunity to both heal and prevent. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, indeed, and there is much prevention to be done for large numbers of people who hunger and thirst after direction toward righteousness. Clergymen have a golden opportunity to prevent some of the accumulated misapprehensions, guilt, aggressive action, and other roots of later mental suffering and mental disease.

How? Preach! Tell it like it is. Say it from the pulpit. Cry it from the housetops.⁷³

Man’s greatest need is not to have his self-esteem built up or to have his “lost glory” restored. His greatest need is to have his sins forgiven and thus be reconciled to God! The joy of forgiveness and of restored fellowship with our Creator is the greatest joy man can experience. The person whose sins have been forgiven can then sing out with King David:

Happy is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is pardoned. Happy is the man unto whom the Lord counteth not iniquity, and in whose spirit there is no guile (Ps.32:1-2).

To avoid mentioning sin is to preach a distorted gospel. R.C.Sproul eloquently summarizes this as follows:

The preacher who smiles benignly from his pulpit, assuring us that “God accepts you just the way you are” tells a monstrous lie. He sugarcoats the gospel of love with saccharine grace. God does not accept the arrogant; He turns His back to the impenitent. He maintains love toward His fallen creatures, inviting them back to restored fellowship, but strings are securely attached as we must come on bended knee.⁷⁴

Man and Glory

Many times throughout his writings Dr.Schuller asserts that we are all children of God. Is that what the Bible teaches? No, the Bible teaches that we are God’s creation, it does not state that we are His children by nature. Because we have rebelled willingly against God, we are “by nature children of wrath” (Eph.2:3). Only by asking Jesus into our lives do we become adopted children of God: “But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name” (John1:12; also cf. Rom.8:15, 23; Gal.4:5).

There are some Scriptures referring to the glory believers will possess (e.g., Col.3:4; Rom.9:23; John17:22). However, any “glory” ascribed to believers is glory derived from Jesus Christ and is a reflection of the divine glory.

Because of his misunderstanding of man’s nature and man’s greatest need, Dr.Schuller has developed a doctrine that teaches the glorification of the human being.

Christianity with its doctrine of salvation is a faith designed by God for the glory of the human being for the greater glory of God.⁷⁵ Because of this we can pray, “O God, I am great.”⁷⁶

It is no coincidence that Dr.Schuller rarely cites Scripture passages to buttress his teachings. The reason is twofold: he does not believe in the total authority of the Bible, and (as this article demonstrates) the Bible often contradicts what he teaches! What do the Scriptures tell us about glory? Is it something we deserve because “we were created to be princes and princesses?”⁷⁷ Or is it something that only God deserves? The Bible is explicit on this.

For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be the glory forever. Amen (Rom.11:36).

Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among men with whom He is pleased (Luke2:14).

I am the Lord, that is My name; I will not give My glory to another (Isa.42:8).

What can we boast of, then? What can we glory in? The Bible tells us to “glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh” (Phil.3:3). Elsewhere the Bible states “But he who boasts, let him boast in the Lord” (2Cor. 10:17; also cf. Gal.6:14; Acts12:23; Jer.9:23-24).

It is at this point that Dr.Schuller crosses the line from harmful teaching to blasphemy. He states: “And we can pray, ‘Our Father in heaven, honorable is our name.’“⁷⁸ He has gone to the extreme. He has attempted to lift man up to the level of God!

The highest pinnacle of pride and deception is to attempt to deify oneself. This is what Lucifer did; he said “I will make myself like the Most High” (Isa.14:14). We cannot place ourselves on the same level as the Creator of the universe. We can never place our name on the same level as God’s name!

This is not the only time Dr.Schuller has done this. At other times he has attempted to lower God to man’s level. He writes: “God’s need for glory compels him to redeem his children from shame to glory.”⁷⁹

God does not “need” glory; as the Creator of the universe He already possesses all glory! And God is not “compelled” to do anything. Whatever He does it is because He has chosen to do it, not because He is compelled to do it. As the God-man, Jesus Christ is intrinsically worthy of all honor and glory (Rev.5:12). However, on the Phil Donahue show Dr.Schuller attempted to portray Jesus as being an egotist.

But the cross sanctifies the ego trip. That’s very significant. In other words, Jesus had an ego. He said, “I, if I be lifted up, will draw all men unto me.” Wow, what an ego trip He was on.⁸⁰

This type of teaching is indefensible blasphemy. Jesus “humbled Himself” by His Incarnation (Phil.2:8). We are told that “though He was rich, yet for your sake He became poor, that you through His poverty might become rich” (2Cor.8:9). To talk of Jesus, the eternal God made flesh, as being on an ego trip is heresy!

Is Man Worthy?

Dr.Schuller teaches that nonbelievers do not respond to God because they do not feel worthy of Him. His goal is to tell people that they are worthy of God: “The most serious sin is the one that causes me to say, ‘I am unworthy. I may have no claim to divine sonship if you examine me at my worst.’“⁸¹

The truth of the matter is that even at our very best we are still unworthy of God. Jesus said: “So you too, when you do all the things which are commanded you, say, ‘We are unworthy slaves; we have done only that which we ought to have done’”(Luke17:10).

A story from Jesus’ life also illustrates this. A Roman centurion came to Jesus and asked Him to heal his servant. Jesus agreed to go with him and heal his servant, but the centurion replied: “Lord, I do not deserve to have you come under my roof. But just say the word, and my servant will be healed” (Matt.8:8).

What was Jesus’ reaction? Did He say “Don’t you know it’s a sin to feel unworthy? Why of course you’re worthy of Me, after all you were born to be a prince! Don’t have such low self-esteem.” No. Jesus replied, “I tell you the truth, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith” (Matt.8:10).

God accepts us only because of one thing: what Jesus did on the cross of Calvary (Rom.5:9; 1John1:7). He does not accept us because of our self-worth, or because of any works that we do (Eph.2:8-9; Isa.64:6).

The Gospel

In proclaiming the Gospel, Dr.Schuller believes you must never put another person down. “In fact, you are not preaching the Gospel unless you make people happy, because the Gospel is good news.”⁸²

The mistake Dr.Schuller makes is assuming that everyone who hears the Gospel has an open and receptive heart. If they do, then they will likely respond to it happily. But many people have no desire at all to change their lives.

What was the reaction when Peter and John preached the Gospel before the Sanhedrin? The Jewish leaders were “cut to the heart” (Acts5:33). How did the Jewish leaders respond when Stephen proclaimed the Gospel? Likewise, they were “cut to the heart” and began “gnashing their teeth at him” (Acts 7:54). When Paul preached the Gospel in Jerusalem, a riot broke out (Acts22).

These responses were not because Peter and John and Stephen and Paul were preaching “possibility thinking.” The people were not “cut to the heart” because they were told that they were children of God and deserved to have their lost glory restored. Why were all of these people offended? Because of the “offense of the cross” (Gal.5:11).

The Apostle Paul proclaimed: “For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified” (1Cor.2:2). To the Jews this was “a stumbling block.” To the Gentiles it was “foolishness” (1Cor.1:23), and to Dr.Schuller it would be insulting (if he is consistent with his own teachings) because it reminds people of their sins!

There are many times when we have to point out something negative to people before we can help them. Alcoholics Anonymous has had tremendous success in helping alcoholics quit drinking because they have used a biblical principle: before they can help an individual quit drinking, he must first admit that he has a problem. Only after he admits that he is an alcoholic can he be helped.

It is much the same with the Gospel: there are many negative aspects to it. First of all, you are a sinner. Second, there is nothing that you can do to help yourself. And finally, if you are not helped, you are going to hell. If these things are not pointed out to the nonbeliever, then the Gospel has not been presented.

But someone might ask, “What about the testimonies of people who have been converted through Dr.Schuller’s ministry?” It is true that there are testimonies of people who have come to the Lord by reading his books or hearing him on television. But it is also true that there are many nonChristians who have felt better about themselves after listening to Dr.Schuller, but were totally unaware of the fact that they are lost sinners who are destined for hell unless they accept Jesus Christ! Michael Nason, in his biography on Dr.Schuller, records several such “testimonies”:

Although I am of the Jewish faith, you have helped me to realize that through God and love all things are possible.⁸³

“We’re Jewish,” the gentleman said. “In fact, our son is a rabbi, but we love to watch you, Dr.Schuller . . .⁸⁴

The terrible tragedy is that there are untold thousands of nonbelievers who think they know what Christianity is all about because they watch the “Hour of Power” or have read one or more of Dr.Schuller’s books, yet who have never heard the true Gospel.

Salvation

As we have seen, Dr.Schuller believes that salvation is being rescued “from shame to glory.”⁸⁵ For him being “born again” means to “be changed from a negative to a positive self-image¾ from inferiority to self-esteem, from fear to love, from doubt to trust.”⁸⁶ Dr.Schuller’s problem is that he has (as he often does) confused an effect with its cause. Salvation, or being “born again,” gives us a basis for a high self-esteem and to have a greater love and trust. However, salvation is not a synonym for self-esteem. According to the Bible the new birth is a spiritual phenomenon, not a psychological one (John3:5; 1Pet.1:3-5).

What is the “real fruit” of salvation? It is not a restoration of our pride and glory. Rather, it is a restoration of our fellowship with God. It means that we now have a living relationship with our Maker and have been saved from the punishment that we justly deserved.

A PARABLE

A modern-day, adapted version of Jesus’ parable of the Pharisee and the Publican (Luke18:10-14) will aptly conclude our study of Robert Schuller’s “New Reformation.”

Two men went up into the church to pray, one a possibility thinker, the other a negative thinker. The possibility thinker stood and was praying thus to himself, “God, I thank Thee that I am not like other people: people with low self-esteem, people who think they are unworthy of You, or even like this negative thinker. I think only positive thoughts for I was created to be a prince, I am worthy of glory, honorable is our name!”

But the negative thinker, standing some distance away, was even unwilling to lift up his eyes to heaven, but was beating his breast, saying, “God, be merciful to me, the sinner.” I tell you, the negative thinker went down to his house justified rather than the other, for everyone who exalts himself shall be humbled but he who humbles himself shall be exalted.

NOTES

1. Robert H. Schuller, Move Ahead With Possibility Thinking (Old Tappan, NJ: Spire Books, 1967), p. 20.

2. Robert H. Schuller, Self-Esteem: The New Reformation (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1982), p. 12.

3. Ibid.

4. Bella Stumbo, “Schuller: The Gospel of Success” Los Angeles Times, 29 May 1983, part 1, p. 24.

5. Robert H. Schuller, You Can Become the Person You Want to Be (New York: Pillar Books, 1973), p. 65.

6. Ibid., p. 39.

7. Robert H. Schuller, It’s Possible (New York: Fawcett Gold Medal, 1978), p. 28.

8. Schuller, Move Ahead With Possibility Thinking, p. 189.

9. Stumbo, “Schuller: The Gospel of Success,” loc. cit.

10. Michael Nason and Donna Nason, Robert Schuller: The Inside Story (Waco: Word Books, 1983), p. 152.

11. Robert H. Schuller, entry for May 29, Daily Power Thoughts (Irvine, CA: Harvest House Publishers, n.d.).

12. Schuller, Move Ahead With Possibility Thinking, p. 112.

13. Schuller, It’s Possible. p. 29.

14. Schuller, Self-Esteem: The New Reformation, p. 19.

15. Robert H. Schuller, Self-Love: The Dynamic Force of Success (New York: Hawthorn Books, Inc., 1969), p. 21.

16. Schuller, Self-Esteem: The New Reformation, p. 57.

17. Ibid., p. 64.

18. Ibid., p. 39.

19. Ibid., p. 45.

20. Ibid., p. 136.

21. Ibid., p. 14.

22. Ibid., p. 15.

23. Ibid., pp. 63, 64.

24. Ibid., p. 67.

25. Ibid., pp. 66, 67.

26. Robert Schuller, as quoted in Joel A. MacCollam, “Self-Love: How Far? How Biblical? How Healthy?” Discussion with Robert Schuller, Elizabeth Skoglund, and Lewis Smedes. Eternity, Vol. 30, Issue 2, February 1979, p. 23. Also cf. Schuller, Self-Esteem: The New Reformation, p.127.

27. Schuller, Move Ahead With Possibility Thinking, p. 209.

28. Schuller, Self-Love: The Dynamic Force of Success, pp. 87, 88.

29. Schuller, entry for March 23, Daily Power Thoughts.

30. Schuller, Self-Esteem: The New Reformation, p. 54.

31. Ibid., p. 52.

32. Ibid., p. 39.

33. Ibid., pp. 26, 27.

34. Ibid., p. 140.

35. Ibid., p. 69.

36. Ibid., p. 16.

37. Ibid., p. 98.

38. Ibid., p. 52.

39. Ibid., p. 80.

40. Ibid., p. 127.

41. Robert H. Schuller, Your Future is Your Friend, (New Canaan, NJ: Keats Publishing, Inc., 1964), p. 18.

42. Schuller, Self-Esteem: The New Reformation, p. 99.

43. Ibid., p. 151.

44. Ibid., p. 68.

45. Ibid., p. 161.

46. Nason and Nason, Robert Schuller: The Inside Story, p. 59.

47. Schuller, Self-Esteem: The New Reformation, p. 17.

48. Nason and Nason, Robert Schuller: The lnside Story, p. 171.

49. Stumbo, “Schuller: The Gospel of Success,” loc. cit.

50. Schuller, entry for May 29, Daily Power Thoughts.

51. The Holy Scriptures According to the Masoretic Text (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society of America, 1955), p. 987.

52. Laird Harris, Gleason L Archer, Jr., and Bruce K. Waltke, Theological Workbook of the Old Testament, Vol. I (Chicago: Moody Press, 1980, p.417.

53. Schuller, Self-Esteem: The New Reformation, p. 80.

54. Ibid., p. 82.

55. Ibid., p. 80.

56. Schuller, It’s Possible, loc. cit.

57. Jon Trott and William Kirk Kilpatrick, “The Psychological Connection,” Cornerstone, Vol. 12, Issue 68, p.18.

58. Roberts Rugh and Landrum B. Shettles, From Conception to Birth: The Drama of Life’s Beginnings (New York: Harper and Row, 1971), p.18.

59. Schuller, Self-Esteem: The New Reformation, p. 19.

60. Ibid., pp. 15, 16.

61. Lewis Smedes, as quoted in Joel A. MacCollam, “Self-Love: How Far? How Biblical? How Healthy?,” loc. cit.

62. Trott and Kilpatrick, “The Psychological Connection,” loc. cit.

63. David G. Myers “The Inflated Self,” The Christian Century, 1 December 1982, p. 1226.

64. Robert Schuller, in Joel A. MacCollam, “Self-Love: How Far? How Biblical? How Healthy?” p. 24.

65. C.S.Lewis, Mere Christianity (New York: MacMillan Publishing Co., 1943), p. 190.

66. Schuller, Self-Esteem: The New Reformation, p. 57.

67. Ibid., p. 39.

68. Ibid., p. 46.

69. Ibid., p. 14.

70. R.C. Sproul, In Search of Dignity (Ventura, CA: Regal Books, 1983), p. 95.

71. Schuller, Self-Esteem The New Reformation, p. 67.

72. Ibid, p. 72.

73. Karl Menninger, Whatever Became Of Sin? (New York: Hawthorn Books, Inc., 1973), p. 228.

74. Sproul, In Search of Dignity, pp. 56, 57.

75. Schuller, Self-Esteem: The New Reformation, p. 80.

76. Schuller, entry for January 24, Daily Power Thoughts.

77. Schuller, Self-Esteem: The New Reformation, p. 52.

78. Ibid., p. 69.

79. Ibid., p. 140.

80. Schuller, “Donahue,” 12 August 1980, Transcript #08120, p. 10.

81. Schuller, Self-Esteem: The New Reformation, p. 98.

82. Schuller, Your Future is Your Friend, loc. cit.

83. Nason and Nason, Robert Schuller: The Inside Story, p. 147.

84. Ibid., p. 187.

85. Schuller, Self-Esteem: The New Reformation, p. 151.

86. Ibid., p. 68.

The Boston Church of Christ or Boston movement is a dynamic, controversial international church movement with roots in the Churches of Christ. Like the Churches of Christ, the Boston movement teaches that baptism is necessary for salvation. Unlike those churches, it has practiced an authoritarian form of discipleship. The biblical proof texts the movement relies on for its doctrine of baptism can each be shown to offer insufficient support for their view. The discipling process, though largely responsible for their success, has also been the cause of severe internal and external problems. Though they are currently attempting to correct these abuses, it does not yet appear that they have penetrated to the authoritarian root of their problem.

Where does one begin when assessing a dynamic new church movement such as the International Church of Christ, more commonly known as the Boston Church of Christ (hereafter referred to as the Boston movement)? Perhaps the place should be where one encounters — or is encountered by — this movement. From that point we may observe the process by which one becomes involved, is discipled, and eventually is baptized. It is there also that some of the controversial aspects of this movement can be noticed, both in doctrine and practice.

We shall therefore consider the initial encounter and ensuing relationship between Mary, an attractive lady in her mid thirties and a member of the Boston movement, and Lisa, a young lady in her mid twenties and an evangelical Christian.

MAKING DISCIPLES, BOSTON STYLE

Lisa is at work, sitting alone one day and eating her lunch. Mary comes along, introduces herself, and asks if she can join her. During the conversation they discover that they have a number of things in common: they are both of Scandinavian descent; they grew up in the same part of the country; they both work in the nursing profession; and both claim to have a relationship with Jesus Christ.

With a budding friendship initiated, Mary invites Lisa to a “Bible Talk” on Thursday night, one that she is attending. Lisa asks, “Who’s teaching it? Who’s involved?” Mary laughs and says, “It’s just a group of believers meeting together to study the Bible. It’s nondenominational.” Lisa attends with Mary and there meets many wonderful people. These people are not only friendly but appear to be genuinely loving and caring. Lisa listens carefully to the lesson and finds nothing contrary to her knowledge of the Bible.

In the days following the Bible Talk, the people Lisa met there call her to talk with her and see how she’s doing. She really appreciates their interest and concern. As she gets to know them she observes that these are people who really try to live out their faith — not only on Sunday mornings, but throughout the week. Encouraged by these people and especially by Mary, she begins to attend their church service and to participate in other activities.

Mary and Lisa (at Mary’s suggestion) begin to meet together for a weekly Bible study. Since Lisa already believes the Bible, Mary skips the usual first lesson, The Word Study, and instead focuses on the subject of discipleship. Mary obviously knows more about this subject (having notes and other materials), and so she leads and teaches Lisa. (At this point Mary becomes Lisa’s spiritual mentor, her discipler.) In addition to studying the Bible, they pray together and confess sins (most of these being Lisa’s). Mary calls Lisa every day, showing great interest in Lisa’s life. She is always available to give help and always ready to provide some guidance and advice.

Though Lisa is attending this church and enjoying its life and fellowship, she has this feeling that she is not really a part of it. Perhaps this resulted from her observation that other women in the group are called “sisters,” and she is not. She isn’t sure. Then one day she hears a Bible Talk on baptism in which the teacher says, “Unless one is baptized as a disciple, one is not saved.” He goes on to say that true baptism is a “conscious baptism in which one believes in that baptism for the forgiveness of sins.” The wheels in her mind begin to turn. She had been baptized shortly after she put her trust in Jesus Christ, but that was not a “conscious baptism” (as the Bible teacher had described it). Furthermore, she was not a disciple at the time of her baptism, at least as this church defines a disciple. Was her baptism valid? She begins to think that it wasn’t. Then the thought crosses her mind: If it wasn’t valid, was she really saved?

Lisa immediately calls Mary. Mary comes over as soon as she can and takes her through certain passages in the Bible regarding baptism, verse by verse. Lisa concludes, from all that was shown to her, that her baptism was not a true baptism and she was not saved. She really loves Jesus and wants to serve Him. She wants to be saved, and tells Mary so. That Sunday afternoon she is baptized again and “becomes a Christian.” As she comes out of the water, she is ecstatic. Tears of joy stream down Mary’s face. All Lisa’s new friends from the Bible Talk and the church are there, and so happy for her.

Feeling like a new person after her baptism, Lisa reflects a bit afterwards and starts to realize that if she was not saved prior to her baptism, neither are the people in her former church, nor are her family and friends. They are all lost and on their way to hell. This bothers her and she tells Mary. Encouraged by Mary and other new friends to evangelize these people from her past, Lisa begins to introduce them to her new friends and invite them to the Bible Talk, a church service, or some other special event. When her former pastor, her parents, and former friends try to speak to her about her new beliefs and church, Lisa is advised by Mary not to talk with them. “Instead,” Mary says, “give them the telephone number of [her new pastor] and have them call him.” (At this point a clear separation is occurring between the old and the new, and Lisa’s life will become increasingly wrapped up in her new church.)

One day Lisa is asked by her nursing supervisor if she would like to work an extra night for a month or so, a night which happens to be the same night as the Bible Talk. Having just incurred some debt due to an emergency, this is just what Lisa was looking for to pay her bills. Thrilled by what she thinks is the Lord’s provision, she calls Mary to tell her the good news. Unfortunately, all one can hear on Lisa’s end is, “Yes. I see that I’m being selfish. I’m putting myself before God. I’m sorry.” Thus, Lisa turns down this opportunity to obtain additional work and attends the Bible Talk.

Sometime later, a young man in Lisa’s church (whom she likes very much) calls and asks her out to dinner. With her heart beating rapidly Lisa says yes, and then calls Mary to tell her. After the call, Mary calls someone else (Mary’s discipler or the pastor) and then calls Lisa back. Mary explains to Lisa that this young man is “not as committed to Christ as he should be.” Until he changes, it would not be wise for her to begin a relationship with him. Lisa responds, “I see,” and then calls the young man to back out of the date.

The saga of Mary discipling Lisa as an illustration of the Boston movement’s methodology is not finished; it continues on (though not in this article).

The above scenario is a composite drawn from cases known to the author and is typical of those who, as recently as the writing of this article, have been introduced to and become involved in the Boston movement. While the individuals and their situations are different, the process employed and content taught are basically the same.

From this scenario, at least two disturbing aspects of the Boston movement are noticeable. The first is a doctrine of salvation in which faith in Jesus Christ is not sufficient: a valid baptism in obedience to Jesus is necessary. The second is a practice of discipling in which the personal life of every believer is controlled by a discipler who is over that person. There is a discipler over every discipler, a hierarchy of disciplers working its way up to the top. Through this the church maintains control of each person.

The Boston movement owes its understanding of the relationship between salvation and baptism to its roots in the Churches of Christ and, as we shall see later, to misinterpretation of certain Bible passages. Its discipling process, however, is a major point of departure from the Churches of Christ, and is considered by the latter group to be a serious problem. Before looking at their doctrine of salvation and some passages alleged to support it, it is important to give some consideration first to the origin of the discipling process, its development in the Boston movement, and its impact.

HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT

In the early 1970s Kip McKean, the founding evangelist and pastor of the Boston movement, was a student at the University of Florida in Gainesville. There he met Chuck Lucas, pastor of the Crossroads Church of Christ. Lucas was active in a campus outreach program for the Churches of Christ, developing “Campus Advance” principles. He recruited McKean and trained him in what was then and is now a radical version of discipleship developed primarily from Robert Coleman’s book, The Master Plan of Evangelism. Lucas understood Coleman to teach that Jesus controlled the lives of His apostles and then taught His apostles to disciple others by controlling their lives. Therefore Christians today should use the same process Jesus taught His apostles when bringing people to Christ. Lucas put this teaching into practice in a discipleship process which he taught to McKean and others.

In 1976 a number of Lucas’s trainees, including McKean, were sent out to affiliate with Church of Christ congregations located near college campuses. The plan was that each would start a campus outreach using the local church for a base. McKean went to Heritage Chapel Church of Christ in Charleston, Illinois and initiated a campus outreach at Eastern Illinois University. Though he was successful, it wasn’t long before some church members questioned his discipleship process and made charges regarding manipulation and control. In fact, several congregational splits occurred over the new discipling process being implemented on these campuses.

In 1979 McKean moved to the Boston suburb of Lexington where he became involved in the Lexington Church of Christ. Meeting on June 1 with thirty people — each committing themselves to the Lord and His work — McKean established an aggressive program of evangelism and discipleship. The result was phenomenal. The church went from 30 to 1,000 members in just a few years and outgrew its facilities. By 1983 the church had to rent the Boston Opera House for its meeting on Sunday and meet in homes (“house churches”) for midweek services. Later that year the Lexington Church of Christ changed its name to the Boston Church of Christ.

In 1981 the Boston movement launched an aggressive missions program, sending out teams of people to establish churches throughout America and the world. These churches would be part of the Boston family of churches, under the authority and control of the Boston Church of Christ, and using the same discipling methods as the Boston church. As Jerusalem was the center from which Christianity spread throughout the world, so the Boston movement sees Boston as the modern-day center for “multiplying” worldwide ministry.

Churches were established in many major cities, including London (1981), Chicago (1982), New York City (1983), Toronto and Providence (1985), Johannesburg, Paris, and Stockholm (1986), and Mexico City, Hong Kong, Bombay, and Cairo (1987-88). Each church in the Boston movement places the name of their city in front of “Church of Christ” — for example, “Los Angeles Church of Christ” — because they believe churches in the Bible were called by the names of their cities. Today there are churches on every continent (103 in all) with a total membership of 50,000.¹

Everything seemed to be going well for the Boston movement. Yes, for years there have been former members, cult researchers, and others accusing the movement of such aberrations as brainwashing, excessive control, exclusivity, elitism, and false doctrine. But the movement itself appeared to be solidly united — until 1988. Disagreement from within the movement surfaced, including breaks within the ranks. Charges similar to those heard from outside the movement were now coming from within.

For example, the Crossroads Church of Christ (the Crossroads movement) voted to dissociate itself from the Boston movement. The Boston movement had been at the forefront of the larger Crossroads movement for years. When Lucas left the Crossroads church (and movement) in 1985, McKean assumed leadership of the movement and Boston became its center. Under his leadership, differences in emphasis between the Boston and other Crossroads churches became evident, leading to disagreement and finally dissociation. The differences cited included the following: 1) the usurping of congregational authority; 2) the exercise of excessive control; 3) the undue authority given to leaders; and 4) the teaching that one must obey one’s discipler in all matters, even in areas of opinion.

Elders of the Tampa Bay Church of Christ also made a decision to break with the Boston movement over four major doctrinal practices: “1) their unscriptural authority and control; 2) their unscriptural leadership and organization; 3) their unscriptural exclusivity and elitism; and 4) their unscriptural self-approval by their successes.”² Of particular concern to them was a statement made on May 14, 1988 by McKean that a congregation must obey its evangelist: “The only time you don’t obey him is if he violates scripture or violates your conscience. But, other than that, in all opinion areas, you…obey!”³

Then, on October 21, 1988, a letter from one of the Boston church’s house church leaders, Ron Gholston in Bridgewater, was sent to the elders of the Boston Church of Christ. It cited problems similar to those indicated by both Crossroads and Tampa Bay.⁴

Until recent years, leaders in the Boston movement, when faced with a problem, would acknowledge some mistakes. But instead of looking at their teaching and practice as the possible source, they would often relegate the blame to some overzealous member(s). By now, however, it has become clear that some problems were caused by the teaching and functioning ministry of the church itself, particularly in the areas of authority and submission. In the second issue of the movement’s magazine, UpsideDown (April 1992), McKean makes the following admission: “I was wrong in some of my initial thoughts about biblical authority. I had felt that church leaders could call people to obey and follow in all areas of opinion. This was incorrect.”⁵ In that same issue, the caption under the title of an article by Al Baird, an elder at Boston, says: “It’s time to look back, admit mistakes, make corrections and move forward for Christ.”⁶

The discipling process of the Boston movement has its origin in the Crossroads movement and evolved from there through the teachings of Kip McKean. It has been an essential component (if not the heart) of the Boston movement since McKean came to Boston in 1979, and has provided the basis for much of the church’s success and controversy. The church is finally recognizing at least some error in the process — error that has caused problems and hurt people. Before we look at how the discipling process is said to be changing, and consider whether these changes are sufficient, the teaching of the Boston movement regarding the relationship between salvation and baptism should be considered.

SALVATION AND BAPTISM

The Boston movement teaches generally the same doctrine of salvation as the Churches of Christ. One must be water baptized into Christ for the forgiveness of sins. Faith, they both teach, is not sufficient for salvation; it is not counted for righteousness until one obeys God by being baptized with the conscious knowledge that at the moment of baptism one is being saved and one’s sins are being forgiven. Furthermore, one’s baptism is not considered valid unless it is administered by the true church of Christ (i.e., the churches of Christ or the Boston movement).

Having said this, the Boston movement seems to go beyond the Churches of Christ, setting an even higher standard for baptism. Teaching that one must be baptized as a disciple, they include the element of commitment as a condition for salvation in addition to faith, repentance, and confession. This may explain why they have rebaptized those who were baptized in other Churches of Christ, and why they also have rebaptized their own people, including elders, who were baptized previously in the Boston movement, but were thought to have lacked the necessary commitment of a disciple at the time of their baptisms. Given their standard and additional condition for baptism (and salvation) which only they seem to meet, one could conclude that those in the Boston movement alone are saved.

Laying aside the understanding of baptism as a “conscious baptism” and “as a disciple,” and the question of who administers it, the bottom line question is whether baptism is necessary for salvation. In other words, must one be baptized to have one’s sins forgiven?

The Bible is very clear in its teachings regarding salvation. Personal faith, belief, or trust in Jesus Christ as one’s Savior is both necessary (if one does not have this, one is not saved)⁷ and sufficient (if one has this, one is saved).⁸ Paul’s response to the Philippian jailer’s question, “What must I do to be saved?” is to the point: “Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and you shall be saved.”⁹

How, then, does the Boston movement substantiate its claim that baptism is necessary (if one does not have this, one is not saved)? They will agree that faith is necessary (though not sufficient) and insist that baptism is also necessary in obedience to Christ. They will point out certain texts in the Bible which they interpret as supporting the necessity of baptism. Space will only permit us to look at three of the major texts cited by the Boston movement: Mark 16:16, John 3:5, and Acts 2:38.

Mark 16:16

He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned.

Regarding this text, the Boston movement simply states the first part of the verse, using the formula belief + baptism = salvation. In studying this passage one should understand, first of all, that Mark 16:9-20 is not in some of the oldest and most reliable Greek manuscripts of the New Testament (e.g., Codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus). Therefore, it may not be part of the original text.

Second, assuming that it is part of the original text, the easiest and clearest way to see what verse 16 teaches is to list the possible relationships between belief and baptism, and then determine what the verse actually affirms and denies. The four possibilities are: (1) believing and baptized; (2) believing and not baptized; (3) not believing but baptized; and (4) not believing and not baptized. The first part of verse 16 affirms possibility (1) (if one believes and has been baptized, one is saved). The latter part of the verse, however, denies possibilities (3) and (4) (if one does not believe, baptized or not, one is condemned). But the verse does not affirm or deny possibility (2) (if one believes and is not baptized). Since it does not deny that one can be saved apart from baptism, Mark 16:16 cannot be used to establish the teaching of the Boston movement that baptism is necessary for salvation. In fact, the second part of verse 16 lends support to the view that baptism is not necessary for salvation since the entire basis of condemnation is disbelief (implying that belief alone can remove this condemnation).

John 3:5

Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Regarding this text, the Boston movement takes the phrase “born of water” to be baptism and interprets Jesus’ words in this manner: unless one is baptized, one cannot enter the kingdom of God. In approaching this passage we should keep in mind that context is always the final determiner as to the meaning of any word or phrase. Given this, we should consider the flow and development of the argument in this dialogue between Jesus and Nicodemus and let that determine what Jesus meant by “born of water.”

In verse 3 Nicodemus hears Jesus say that one must be “born again.” He concludes that Jesus is speaking of something related to physical birth but cannot comprehend how he can go through physical birth a second time (see verse 4). Jesus picks up on Nicodemus’s thinking and seeks to move the argument from physical birth to spiritual birth (the real meaning of “born again” or “born from above”).

Jesus does this by introducing the phrase “born of water and the Spirit” in verse 5, and then explaining the phrase in verse 6. If “born of water” in verse 5 is the same as “born of the flesh” in verse 6 (just as “born of…the Spirit” and “born of the Spirit” are the same in verses 5 and 6), then “born of water” should be understood metaphorically as referring to physical or natural birth. Thus, the gist of what Jesus is saying is this: as one has had a physical birth, so one must have a spiritual birth if one is to enter the kingdom of God (which is spiritual). Since John 3:5 is not a reference to baptism, it should not be used by the Boston movement as a baptism text.

Acts 2:38

Repent, and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Regarding this text, the Boston movement takes the preposition “for” as “for the purpose of” and then concludes that one must be baptized for the purpose of the forgiveness of sins. Students of the Greek language know that eis (“for”) is a preposition of reference used to signify a relationship between two things, and that it can have several meanings. It could be understood, for example, as causative (“in order to attain”) or as resultant (“because of”).

Since prepositions in the English language can also have several meanings, it may be easier to look at two illustrations in English and then apply what we learn to our text. If one says, “I am going to the office for my paycheck,” the meaning is clearly causative (to get or receive my paycheck). Applying this to Acts 2:38, one should “be baptized…[to get or receive] the forgiveness of sins.” This interpretation would support the teaching of the Boston movement. On the other hand, if one says, “I enlisted for love of my country,” the meaning is clearly resultant (because I love my country). Applying this to Acts 2:38, one should “be baptized…[because one already has] the forgiveness of sins.” This interpretation would contradict the teaching of the Boston movement.

The immediate context does not help us in this case to determine which meaning is correct, but other passages in the same book relate the forgiveness of sins to repentance (Acts 3:9) and to believing prior to baptism (10:43-48). These and other passages in the New Testament support the view that “for” in Acts 2:38 has a resultant sense — that one should be baptized because one already has the forgiveness of sins. Since the relationship between baptism and forgiveness cannot be determined from the preposition and the immediate context of Acts 2:38, this text should not be used as a proof text by the Boston movement to substantiate their teaching.

Several other passages — such as Acts 22:16, Romans 6:3-4, Galatians 3:27, and 1 Peter 3:21 — are used by the Boston movement to support their view of baptism. But, as with the foregoing passages, when studied and understood correctly, they do not teach the necessity of baptism. Since nothing in the Bible supports the teaching of the Boston movement regarding baptism, we must return to the clear teaching of the Bible with which we began: What is not only necessary but sufficient for salvation is faith, belief, or trust in Jesus Christ as one’s Savior.

DISCIPLING, CONTROL, AND CHANGE

Returning to the discipling process for a final look, the heart of the Boston movement lies in their perceiving themselves as a discipling movement. What is discipleship? Before leaving earth for heaven, Jesus gave His disciples a commission to “make disciples.”¹⁰ A disciple is one who learns from another, who attaches him or herself to a discipler and becomes a follower in doctrine and conduct of life. The one who disciples helps to shape the whole life of his or her disciple and produce Christlikeness. With this understanding of discipling there is very little, if any, disagreement. Where the disagreement comes is in the means used to produce change in the life of the disciple. Some have sought to control the disciple’s life, making change occur, while others have sought to develop in the disciple a love and a heart for Jesus, letting that be the motivation for change. In other words, the first approach attempts to directly orchestrate change in the disciple’s life; the second approach seeks to facilitate a relationship with Jesus, so that Jesus Himself can orchestrate the change.

Whenever the “C” word (control) enters the discipling relationship, as it has in the Boston movement, it definitely produces the force needed to bring about changes in lives, in a church, and in a movement. But it can also create many distortions. To maintain control a movement might, for example:

• claim that the authority of the leaders is God-given or delegated by God to such an extent that in disobeying them, one is disobeying God;

• develop a hierarchy of discipling relationships from the bottom to the top with decisions always coming from the top down;

• emphasize authority and submission in the relationships between the discipler-disciple, evangelist-congregation, and leaders-people, rather than a servant’s heart and exemplary character.

Such control is insidious; it is an evolving temptation that seeks to use whatever it can to achieve its goal.

Once a movement realizes that problems exist within the realm of control or as a result of it, they can either reconsider the major issue of control (if they perceive that to be the problem), or simply work on the areas in which problems are occurring. In a recent article in UpsideDown, Al Baird, an elder at Boston, seems to pursue the latter course. Admitting that the Boston movement has made some mistakes in areas relating to control and authority, he sets forth his thoughts on changes (which one assumes to be those of the Boston movement). First, he acknowledges that the means used in the discipling process have been wrong. He says, “We tried to make a disciple do something rather than motivate him to do it out of his love for God and our love for him.”¹¹ Furthermore, he believes that a disciple should be given room to wrestle with and make decisions. He says, “If people do not agree (unless it is a clearly defined biblical matter), we need to leave them room to make mistakes.”¹²

As these changes are now being implemented, it will be interesting to see, in the days ahead, how much tolerance and patience will be shown for hearts to be motivated to change, and how much freedom will be allowed, in a movement whose modus operandi thus far has been control. Will they be able to resist the temptation to exercise control in areas other than clearly defined biblical matters, given their emphasis on commitment, attention to numbers (how many attend weekly services and house churches, how many are baptized, etc.), and focus on success (which is used to substantiate that this is God’s movement today)?

Second, Baird admits that authority given to leaders previously — extending to “every area and phase of life” — was excessive. They were “wrong,” he says, “to call someone to obey such things as choice of food, car, clothes and exact amount of giving, etc.”¹³ (One could add to these how long a kiss should be, how often a married couple should have sex, and a host of other things.) The authority of leaders should be limited, according to Baird, to those areas that “prepare God’s people for works of service…build up the body of Christ…promote unity…and bring the individual and body to maturity in Christ.”¹⁴ It should be understood, of course, that leaders have the authority to “call meetings of the body, call for greater sacrifice…specific evangelistic outreach efforts or prayer times, etc.”¹⁵

As these guidelines, derived from Ephesians 4:11-13, are now being implemented, it will also be interesting to observe what changes actually occur and to note the differences. Unfortunately, the potential for the exercise of control in “matters of opinion” (matters where God’s Word does not specify or legislate) still exists. Some matters of opinion and matters that should be left to the individual could easily be interpreted as part of or in light of the goals indicated in the guidelines, and thus understood as necessary directives. Will the Boston movement be able to resist this temptation when their goals as a movement are at stake?

An example of this might be a situation Baird himself mentions in his article. He says, “It has been said that if any evangelist asks you to move to a particular zone or Bible Talk, then you need to move. That may be the end result unless the two of you can come up with a better plan, but it omits the process of persuasion and motivation that leaves people confident and excited. The end result is the same, but the heart is very different.”¹⁶ If “the end result is the same,” it may be that the Boston movement has no intention of relinquishing control of its members’ personal lives where the goals of the ministry are concerned, even if that control is now wielded in a “kinder and gentler” fashion.

Thus far this author’s contacts on the Eastern Seaboard have not revealed any observable differences as a result of changes being implemented. But, as the old saying goes, “time will tell.” The Boston movement should be commended for seeing the need for some change and encouraged to bring these changes (and others) to fruition.

James Bjornstad, Ph.D., is assistant professor of religion and philosophy at King’s College, Briarcliff Manor, New York, and the Executive Director of the Institute for Contemporary Christianity in Oakland, New Jersey.

NOTES

1. Kip McKean, “Revolution through Restoration,” UpsideDown, April 1992, 5-16.
2. Elders, Tampa Bay Church of Christ, “Why We Refused to Submit to Boston,” Gospel Advocate, June 1989, 160-61.
3. Ibid.
4. Letter from Ron Gholsten to Al Baird and Bob Gempel, Boston Church of Christ elders, dated 21 October 1988, on file.
5. McKean, 15.
6. Al Baird, “A New Look at Authority,” UpsideDown, April 1992, 2.
7. See, for example, John 3:18; 8:24; Heb. 4:2; 11:6.
8. See, for example, John 3:14-15; 5:24; 6:40, 47; 20:30-31; Acts 10:43; 16:31; Rom. 1:16-17; 1 John 5:1, 13.
9. Acts 16:30-31.
10. Matt. 28:19.
11. Baird, 18.
12. Ibid.
13. Ibid., 19.
14. Ibid.
15. Ibid.
16. Ibid., 49

The action came after universi­ty officials determined that the group’s recruiting practices violat­ed campus regulations, accord­ing to the September 21, 1990 St. Louis Post-Dispatch. University officials said that the St. Louis Church, which is affiliated with the Boston Church of Christ/Crossroads/Multiplying Ministries Movement, failed to comply with a university rule requiring groups to register annually with the stu­dent affairs office if their members are primarily non-students.

The action was among the latest to affect the Boston move­ment on college campuses nationwide. According to the December 1990 Cult Awareness Network (CAN) News, the sect is banned at Harvard and Boston universities, and media reports from across the U.S. indicate the church has faced con­troversy (including allegations that it exercises mind control and encourages members to sever ties with their families) at many other colleges as well.

“They’ve infuriated chaplains nationwide,” according to Steve Hassan, a cult “exit counselor” and author from Boston who has followed the church. “This group destroys people’s relationships with spouses, families, and friends. It interferes with educa­tion. It has caused people great despair. It’s a group that believes no other church is Christian and that no one can be saved other than people in their church.”

Many involved in cult evan­gelism have received inquiries concerning the Boston move­ment for some time. Bill Kellogg of the Spiritual Counterfeits Pro­ject of Berkeley, California said they have received more inquiries (some of them com­plaints) “by far” about the Boston movement in the past year than any other religious movement.

The CAN report, which included several testimonies of former members who were recruited while in college, states that officials at Harvard and Boston University were upset with the church because “an inordinately high number of its students drop out of school before graduating” after meeting up with the sect.

Despite the ongoing contro­versy, the sect continues to flour­ish. It posted a 36 percent increase from 1989 to 1990, placing the number of “disci­ples” at 28,724, according to its Winter 1991 Discipleship Maga­zine. What’s more, it is continu­ing to expand rapidly through­out the world. Leaders say Kip McKean, the Director of World Mission land the self-proclaimed apostle-like leader of the church), now based in Los Angeles, is gearing up to try to start a congregation in Moscow.

According to Discipleship Magazine, besides having many congregations in major metro­politan areas of the U.S., the church also maintains congrega­tions (several of them thriving) in London, New Zealand, Aus­tralia, India, Singapore, Sweden, Germany, South Africa, Jamaica, Kenya, Haiti, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, Hong Kong, Japan, South Korea, Thailand, the Philippines, and elsewhere.

Although the church is not now affiliated with the tradition­al churches of Christ, it was from within that denomination — at the Crossroads Church of Christ in Gainesville, Florida — that the group began in 1971. Also, the movement is not affiliated with the mainline United Church of Christ or the Disciples of Christ denominations.

The Boston movement’s liter­ature, however, claims that the movement is the “reconstructed” Church of Chris, “God’s…mod­ern day movement [which is] restoring original Christianity” (Roger Lamb, “Back to Square One,” Discipleship Magazine, Winter 1991, 4). And because of these claims of exclusivity, many churches of Christ have been at odds with the Boston church due mostly to their efforts to get various churches and leaders to join their movement.

According to documentation letters reproduced in What Does the Boston Movement Teach?, a two-volume set by former Boston leader Jerry Jones, a number of church splits have occurred within the churches of Christ as some of its leaders have joined the Boston move­ment and have attempted to per­suade their congregations to come with them.

Jones’s book also contains statements from leaders of vari­ous churches of Christ in Alaba­ma, Tampa, and elsewhere con­demning the movement. Per­haps the most interesting state­ment was issued in August 1990 by the Crossroads Church (where it began) that charged the Boston movement with abuses including “one Christian trying to control another Christian or one congregation exercising control over another congrega­tion. We do not believe that any Christian has the right to control another Christian (Eph. 5:21).” The statement issued by the Crossroads leaders also asked for “forgiveness” for its role in the abuses of the Boston movement.

“There certainly have been abuses,” said Al Beird, an elder and evangelist with the Boston Church of Christ in a telephone interview. “But never is abuse advocated or taught by the lead­ership.” Beird added that the church is “open to the charges of exclusivism” due to its teach­ings on baptism, “but we feel like we’re following the Bible…. We’re continually examining our teachings.”

Doctrinally the Boston move­ment is a lot like other churches of Christ. They hold that water baptism by immersion is essen­tial for salvation, teaching that when one is baptized he or she is “baptized into Christ.” Like the churches of Christ, they don’t use musical instruments during services.

But they differ from the churches of Christ in other ways. They usually meet in rented facilities such as hotels and sports arenas when moving into a new area. (The Boston Church, for example, which is considered the mother church of the movement, at last report was still meeting in the Boston Garden arena, drawing a Sunday atten­dance of about 4,500.) And unlike the churches of Christ which have a strong tradition of autonomous congregations, Boston movement leaders demand churches to be submit­ted to a hierarchical structure of authority. Members seeking to join the Boston movement from the traditional churches of Christ almost always have to become rebaptized when joining, according to Jones.

After nearly a quarter century of worldwide growth and notoriety, the International Churches of Christ (ICOC), known in its early years as the Crossroads Movement and more popularly as the Boston Movement, is undergoing unprecedented changes fueled by the resignation of its founder and autocratic leader, Kip McKean.

McKean’s resignation on 6 November 2002 followed a yearlong sabbatical from his duties as ICOC World Missions evangelist and leader of the World Sector Leaders of the International Churches of Christ. In his request for a sabbatical, McKean had cited “serious shortcomings” in his marriage and family. The most public aspect of the events leading to his resignation has been the defection of his daughter, Olivia, from the movement when she left home to attend Harvard University. McKean taught that the defection of a leader’s child from the ICOC disqualified him from leadership. McKean has been reassigned to the south region of the Los Angeles ICOC and is reportedly still employed by the movement full-time. The leadership of the ICOC has fallen to longtime leaders Al Baird and Bob Gempel.

Despite McKean’s seemingly humbling tumble from on high, there is no indication that he has revised any of his teachings or beliefs, including one of the most important ICOC tenets, that the ICOC is God’s movement for today, and that only its members are true Christians. Some who have watched behind the scenes say McKean did not capitulate as readily as his statement might indicate. Calvin Kwan, a former ICOC member currently with a resource group for former ICOC members called Reveal (www.reveal.org), told the Journal, “I do not believe for a moment that he resigned on his own. I believe he was pressured to do so by many leaders within the ICOC. Due to his family dynamics at the time and perhaps deeper issues within the church, he was persuaded to resign.” Kwan doesn’t believe McKean is finished with the ICOC: “I don’t think it is in Kip’s personality or character to voluntarily give up the limelight and power. It is my opinion that he truly believes he is ‘God’s greatest living treasure on earth’ and that the movement could not function without his hand directly involved.”

ICOC Upheaval Spreads. The event has sparked a plethora of problems, criticisms, complaints, and defections from the movement. Insiders and outsiders, including ex-members, have noted a myriad of ongoing problems, including high disaffection rates, financial improprieties, abuses of authority, false record keeping, and member complaints. During the summer of 2003 structural changes appeared headed toward greater autonomy for individual congregations, greater leadership authority for unpaid local elders and deacons, and a sizeable decrease in full-time paid staff and leadership.

The ICOC has been controversial since its inception, amid charges that it was exclusivistic, autocratic, extremely controlling of individual members’ lives, doctrinally aberrant, practicing deceptive recruitment techniques, and siphoning huge amounts of funds from rank-and-file members to enable elite leaders to live lives of sumptuous extravagance. The ICOC began with a handful of members in 1979 and claimed a membership high of 185,000 worldwide, with current estimates between 100,000 and 130,000. Estimates of members who have left hover at 250,000.

Longtime watchers of the ICOC are encouraged by McKean’s resignation and other potentials for change in the ICOC, but they are also concerned that if the fundamental principles on which the ICOC is founded are not jettisoned, the ICOC will remain controversial, albeit on a smaller scale and perhaps without the charismatic one-man leadership of McKean.

ICOC Apology Has Domino Effect. McKean’s resignation letter was published throughout the ICOC and posted on multiple Web sites (e.g., www.upcyberdown.org/icocmain/ Documents/11_02/mckean_resignation.htm). Parts of the letter demonstrate a rarely seen candor and humility from McKean. In the first paragraph he states, “My leadership in recent years has damaged both the Kingdom and my family. My most significant sin is arrogance — thinking I am always right, not listening to the counsel of my brothers, and not seeking discipling for my life, ministry and family.” He goes on to mention anger, making people fearful to speak up, failing to build good relationships, disrespecting other leaders, and insensitivity. He notes that he “focused more on numeric goals than on pleasing God.”

Following McKean’s resignation, evangelist Henry Kriete, a longtime leader in the Boston ICOC and cur-rently a leader in the London ICOC, published a 39-page open letter that contained an apology to ICOC rank-and-file members and an exhortation to ICOC leaders to admit their doctrinal and leadership failures and correct their errors. Kriete’s February 2003 letter was followed within weeks by a similar apology from 42 ministry leaders at the Los Angeles ICOC headquarters. At least a dozen ICOC churches in the United States have subsequently issued online apologies. Some churches are encouraging their members to air their problems and work together for solutions, while others are reportedly stifling any dissent and dis-suading their members from accessing any information critical of the ICOC on the Internet or elsewhere.

ICOC Honest to God. Kriete’s letter unveils the depth and breadth of the problems in the ICOC from his perspective as a longtime member and leader. Arthur R. Ryter, who runs a support group for ICOC members, told the Journal, “It was a stinging indictment of the practices of the ICOC.…It was a wake up call to many members and leaders in the ICOC. Various other churches had meetings to discuss the points raised by…Kriete.”

The most candid of all the statements from ICOC leaders, Kriete’s letter is seen by many as the benchmark by which the sincerity, humility, and repentance of other ICOC leadership will be judged by most mem-bers. James K. Walker, president of the countercult organization Watchman Fellowship, told the Journal, “The letter is a call for repentance for past sins, and, unlike earlier apologies, cites flaws in the ICOC structure and related doctrines themselves rather than unrelated failures on the part of individual leaders.”

The subtitle to Kriete’s letter is “Revolution through Repentance and Freedom in Christ.” The table of contents is a chronicle of the errors Kriete says have plagued the ICOC as systemic, entrenched problems — not merely random errors caused by out of control individuals. Four of the most significant problems he lists are: “Our Corrupted Hierarchy,” “Obsession with Numbers,” “Our Shameful Arrogance,” and “Our Seduction by Money.”

Kriete’s introduction emphasizes the seriousness of the problems as he sees them:

Virtually every high-gate we have built, and every trophy that we have boasted in — as proof to our-selves and to the world — that we are “God’s Modern Day Movement,” has been effectively dismantled. The things we boasted in: our numerical growth, our retention rate, our members to fall away ratio, the faithfulness of our children, our never missing a Special Contribution, our consistent sacrificial giving, and now, perhaps most painful of all — even our unity — all these have been leveled by the hand of God.

He summarizes the kinds of problems plaguing the ICOC, noting,

Fallen elders and evangelists; countless other leaders who have resigned or stepped down — staff and non staff alike; questionable practices and teachings; serious concerns over finances; the heartache, disappointment and even disgust from the mouths of faithful but weary disciples who are now “allowed” to talk openly (some in great anger); the quarter million who have fallen away; the tens of thousands who have walked away or been pushed away; and the enormous subculture of critics that constantly challenge us (and let’s be honest, several of them are sincere and conscientious) — all of these things and more — have damaged our integrity, deepened the mistrust between “clergy” and “laity,” and given reason for many to question our moral authority and even legitimacy.

Kriete declares, “those practices and sins that are systemic to our movement are being exposed by God,” and “whether from commission or omission, cowardice, bad theology or irresponsibility — our sins need to be exposed and acknowledge for repentance and healing to take place, and for the crucial restoration of trust.” Kriete then spends more than 30 pages detailing the problems he believes are systemic in the ICOC, giving specific examples, and citing particular practices that he says cannot be tolerated in a truly biblical movement.

ICOC- How Far the Changes? Will the changes precipitated by McKean’s sabbatical and resignation foster fundament change in the ICOC, so that it will no longer be a theologically problematic and behaviorally destructive movement? Most observers of the ICOC have not yet reached such a conclusion.

Some remember other times when change was promised but never materialized or was cosmetic rather than foundational. Support group leader Ryter, referring to some of the leaders’ apology letters he has read, notes, “Others were obviously attempts to do damage control and to stem the exodus of members.” He explained to the Journal, “Many leaders also talked of change and promised to reform their ways; but, because the focus was always on the harmful practices and never on the core doctrine that enabled these practices, very little meaningful change has occurred.” Ryter also noted that the drastic drops in finances and active membership have caused some leaders to cling to the past: “This is resulting in some drastic measures that tend to retract the promised changes. This [in turn] causes those members who have been waiting to see the changes implemented to leave. This further complicates the financial picture.” Ryter even thinks this may mean the end of the ICOC: “It appears to me that the ICOC is in the process of self-destructing.” Watchman Fellowship’s Walker states that “some former members are concerned that there will only be a ‘kinder and gentler’ version of the same organization and that the alleged abuses, legalism, and authoritarianism will just be more subtle and less obvious.”

Ryter, Kwan, and other ICOC watchers are concerned about McKean’s future in the ICOC. Ryter says McKean may not be finished as an ICOC leader, noting, “I do not believe that McKean is capable of changing his methods or beliefs and if he can, he will continue to run an organization he can control.” Reveal’s Kwan has similar concerns. He remembers the way people viewed McKean before his resig-nation, telling the Journal, “I also think for a long time there was sort of a type of idol worship within the ICOC. Kip McKean and many of the leadership were almost viewed as above human failings. Members were almost in awe of the leadership, in an unhealthy manner. I think Kip’s resignation has brought many members back down to earth, so to speak.” Kwan warns, “I think Kip will not be content until he regains his previous role as the top leader of the ICOC. I also think that his reputation and credibility within the organization will never again be the same as it was before his resignation.” Kwan notes the current rumor that McKean has been offered leadership of the Portland, Oregon church: “It is my opinion that Portland is not Kip’s only ambition. I think he will use Portland as a springboard to regaining control of the ICOC.”

Some observers are concerned by other leaders who exhibit some of the same characteristics that seemed to cause the most problems in McKean. Kwan told the Journal that he has a continuing concern that the “culture” of autocratic leadership remains in the ICOC, with a significant number of members and leaders retaining the belief that they alone are the “one true church.” He warns, “My fear is that this segment will not be satisfied until the ICOC is back to its previous ‘glory days’ and if they’ll have their way, all the supposed changes within the ICOC will be scrapped in favor of ‘what worked’ in the past.”

The Future of the ICOC. Most observers will wait to see the depth of changes and continuing activities of the ICOC before they pronounce the movement dead, reformed, or back to the same beliefs and practices; nevertheless, the events of the past year will have lasting effect.

Ryter predicts that some churches will become autonomous, moving on independently of the ICOC along lines favored by their own membership. He thinks other churches will not survive the upheaval and their members will scatter to other churches, form their own churches, or perhaps become inactive Christians altogether. He predicts that a third faction “will retain the old model and continue in all the old doctrine and practices. Kip McKean may well become the leader of this group because they will perceive him to be the only one able to reconstruct the ICOC.” Watchman Fellowship’s Walker shares his concern: “Even if there are social reformations, I am concerned that the underlying doctrinal problems will remain. Foundational doctrinal problems persist — mainly their belief that the ICOC is the only true church and that salvation is dependent upon a person’s performance and obedience, including ICOC baptism and a commitment to daily contact with one’s discipler.”

Churches of Christ- HISTORY

These churches stem from the “Restoration” movement (not to be confused with the Pentecostal “Latter-Rain” Restoration movement of the late 1940s) begun by (among others) Thomas and Alexander Campbell (father and son), Presbyterian ministers from Ireland, in the eastern United States in the early 1800s. Neither Campbells intended to found a new denomination, but were rather intent on promoting unity among all Christians. Nevertheless, many Christians, including whole Baptist churches, forsook their previous denominational ties and rallied behind the Campbell’s teaching. These “Campbellites,” as they were nicknamed (to their dismay), were united in a loose association of autonomous churches known as the “Disciples of Christ.” Meanwhile, Barton Stone, a former Presbyterian minister who had been teaching along similar lines even before the Campbells came to America, formed an association of churches known as the “Christian Church.” When Stone’s and the Campbells’ churches discovered one another, they united in 1832 (along with similar, smaller groups), and eventually came to be known by the name “Christian Church (Disciples of Christ).”

As the new denomination solidified, and particularly after the Civil War, divisions began to arise over various issues, especially the establishment of institutions (such as missionary societies) and the use of instrumental music in worship services. By 1906, the movement had divided into two groups, the Disciples of Christ and the Churches of Christ, the latter of which decried the formation of institutions and generally rejected instrumental worship. These Churches of Christ themselves are subdivided over such issues as whether only one cup should be used in communion.

Later, a second group of churches began to pull away from the Disciples of Christ, primarily in reaction to liberalism and denominational structures. By 1971 these churches were listed separately in the Yearbook of American Churches as the “Christian Churches and Churches of Christ.” This group is also known as the North American Christian Convention (NACC), a meeting of Christian churches which first convened in 1927 and has met annually since 1951. The NACC is generally “instrumental” (that is, they either favor or do not oppose the use of musical instruments in church). Meanwhile, a large number of churches in the Disciples of Christ (hereafter “DOC”) have abandoned the evangelical faith and adopted the liberal theology so widespread in the mainline churches.

Churches of Christ- DOCTRINAL SURVEY

Keeping these three main branches of the Restoration movement straight (there are roughly two dozen other, many smaller, divisions) is not easy. All three branches include churches which call themselves “the Church of Christ” or “the Christian Church.” There are non-instrumental and instrumental churches in both the Churches of Christ (hereafter “COC”) and the NACC (though the former are largely non-instrumental and the latter mostly instrumental). The COC and the NACC both tend to consider baptism as necessary for salvation, though the COC are generally more insistent on this teaching. Because the COC and the NACC value the autonomy of the local church so highly, there is a great deal of diversity in the teaching of the individual churches, and generalizations, though valid and helpful to a point, may not apply in certain cases. With these qualifications in mind, we may turn to an analysis of the doctrines taught by these groups.

The original vision of the movement was that differences of opinion over doctrinal matters were not to become issues dividing

Christians from one another. This did not mean, however, that the new movement did not have its doctrinal distinctives. Basic to “Restoration” theology is the call to return to “New Testament Christianity,” the beliefs and practices of the first century Christian church as documented in the New Testament. Only by rejecting everything not specifically found in the New Testament, it was reasoned, could true Christian unity be achieved.

Some Restorationists took this guiding principle further than others. The Campbells and Barton Stone were all agreed that belief in the creeds should not be required of Christians (“No creed but Christ”), and that it was best to preach and teach about God and Christ without reference to words like “Trinity.” The Campbells, though, definitely believed that Jesus was God, and their understanding of the doctrine of God was at least roughly trinitarian, though they avoided using trinitarian language. Stone, however, flatly rejected the doctrine of the Trinity, and denied that Jesus was God. In the DOC and a small number of the COC and NACC churches, there is still a tendency to avoid references to the Trinity, although most churches in the latter two branches today accept the Trinity in substance if not in word.

On the basis that they are not mentioned in the New Testament, most of the COC reject the use of musical instruments in church services. Indeed, the issue of instrumental music is the main difference between the COC and the NACC. Again, it needs to be kept in mind that these are generalizations; varieties of opinions are to be found in all three major branches of the Restoration movement.

Also based on the silence of Scripture, many churches in the COC and especially the NACC object to certain denominational structures, such as mission agencies. One segment of the COC has separated itself because it insists on using one cup in communion services. A few take this line of reason to extremes, objecting to Sunday Schools, kitchens in church buildings, and the like.

Also in keeping with the principle of rejecting everything not in the Bible, the Restorationists historically have rejected the use of denominational names not found in the Bible (Lutheran, Baptist, Methodist, etc.) and argued that Christians should be known by “Bible names” only. Unfortunately, this stance did not always produce harmony within the movement. In the early years the followers of the Campbells and the followers of Stone disagreed over whether they should be known as Disciples or Christians. This minor controversy eventually resulted in the compound name of “Christian Church (Disciples of Christ).” In any case, the Restorationists did not wish to found another denomination. When, then, it became evident that the DOC had become a denomination, the NACC broke away; and both the NACC and the COC refuse to consider themselves to be denominations.

The vast majority of members in all of the Restorationist churches reject the distinctive doctrines of Calvinism, especially predestination and the perseverance of the saints (popularly known as “eternal security”). While most in the DOC and the NACC appear to take a moderate view of these doctrines — neither accepting nor condemning — a strong segment (again, how strong in terms of numbers is difficult to gauge) of the COC actually regard the doctrine of eternal security as a damnable heresy implying that Christians have a license to sin.

Restoration churches tend to be amillennial (i.e., they believe that the Millennium of Revelation 20 refers to the history of the church between Christ’s first and second coming), although one splinter group of the COC is premillennial (i.e., believing that the Millennium will be a period of Christ’s rule on the earth after His second coming). The movement is almost uniformly non-charismatic, and again in some circles of the COC the doctrine is actually anti-charismatic (as also in many Baptist churches).

Perhaps the best-known distinctive of the COC is its strong stance on the necessity of water baptism for salvation, a stance shared by at lease some of the churches in the NACC. Most of the COC appear to teach that no one can be saved through faith in Christ who is not also baptized by immersion (pouring and sprinkling are considered absolutely unacceptable) upon confession of faith (infant baptism is also utterly condemned). This teaching, if held consistently, means that all Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and the majority of Protestants, even evangelicals, are not saved. This leaves only Baptist, Pentecostal, and independent evangelical churches, besides the Restoration churches, that are considered Christian A significant number — perhaps a majority, though this is far from clear — of the COC go even further and teach that those who have been immersed as believers but do not regard baptism as essential for salvation are also not truly Christians. This rules out almost everybody except members of the COC (and some of the NACC churches) as genuine Christians. Thus, although none of the COC (so far as we know) teach that only people baptized in the COC are saved, in practical terms their doctrine of baptism sometimes implies just that. CRI has received numerous letters from members of the COC, as well as testimonies of non-COC Christians, that confirm the prevalence of this teaching.

Churches of Christ- DOCTRINAL EVALUATION

The key to Restorationism is the teaching that only by abandoning every theological system and religious practice not found explicitly in the Bible can true Christianity be realized and Christian unity be achieved. As innocent and even “biblical” as this approach to Christian unity may sound, in our estimation it is seriously flawed in its understanding of Scripture. The Bible itself never suggests that Christians reject whatever is not found within its pages. Rather, it forbids adding anything to Scripture that would contradict Scripture (Matt. 15:6) or that would imply that Scripture was not itself an adequate guide to salvation and the Christian life (2 Tim. 3:16-17). Theological doctrines which are not firmly rooted in Scripture should not, we agree, be accepted by the church; on this point we agree with the COC and the NACC. But this does not mean that Christians should not use extrabiblical terminology like “Trinity,” “canon,” or even “Bible,” none of which contradict the scriptures and each of which is in fact an expression of biblical truth. Furthermore, in the area of religious practices, whatever the Bible does not forbid (explicitly or implicitly) is not to be condemned or marked as less than Christian. In other words, the Restorationists’ motto, “Where the Scriptures speak, we speak; where the scriptures are silent, we are silent,” is actually violated when they speak against those things which Scripture neither mentions nor condemns explicitly or implicitly.

To some extent all of the COC admit in practice that not everything that is not mentioned in Scripture is to be rejected as part of the church’s worship or religious practice. Thus, even the most conservative Churches of Christ will build church buildings, use microphones to amplify the preacher’s voice, read the Bible in English translation, etc. — none of which can be found in the Bible. Because those things which are rejected are rejected upon the basis of silence, there is no objective basis for determining which things will be rejected and which will not. Without an objective basis for making such determinations, disagreements and divisions are inevitable, as the two dozen or so splinter groups of the movement attest.

The depths of error into which this principle of Restorationism can lead is best illustrated by the fact that the early leaders of the movement were prepared to accept Barton Stone as one of them, despite the fact that he denied the Trinity and the deity of Christ. The rationale for not requiring their members to affirm the Trinity was that the creeds did serve to divide orthodox Christians from heretics. Only if Arians or modalists are considered Christians would it make any sense to say that trinitarian creeds divided Christians. The precedent that was set by accepting Stone without any controversy over his doctrine of God is alarming. Indeed, the members of the Restorationist churches are a prime target of the Jehovah’s Witnesses because of their weakness on the Trinity.

It is not only the principles of rejecting everything not found explicitly in the New Testament that is the cause of the many divisions in the movement. Also contributing to the problem is the emphasis, especially among the NACC and COC, on the absolute autonomy of the local church. This doctrine was actually inherited from the Baptists, which have also suffered numerous divisions in its history for the same reason. But it is the combination of this local autonomy with their “New Testament pattern” principle that has resulted in the fragmentation especially of the COC. Christian Research Institute does not condemn or even reject the Baptist and Restorationist belief in the autonomy of the local church. We simply point out that taken to an extreme, and combined with a disregard for creeds and confessions of faith, the potential for disunity is high.

Moreover, we are particularly concerned that there are some in the COC which regard any ecclesiastical structure not only as undesirable but even anti-Christian. It is becoming increasingly recognized today that the New Testament does not mandate any one system of church government. The three main types of church government are the episcopal (in which bishops preside over groups of churches and the bishops meet together periodically to ensure unity), Presbyterian (in which churches are semi-autonomous and are governed by elders), and congregational (in which the local church is completely autonomous and is governed by the entire body of members). It is arguable that elements of all three approaches can be found in the New Testament, and that the Bible never actually commands one system or condemns any of them. While we freely grant that the COC and the NACC have the right to adopt whatever system they choose, we are concerned about those extremists who regard all other systems as damnable.

The anti-denominationalism of the Restoration movement is, among its more moderate representatives, perfectly understandable and acceptable. The more extreme variety, however, according to which denominations are not truly parts of the church, is actually divisive. The Restoration movement did not set out to become a denomination; but the historical fact is that it is now a full-fledged denomination along with a number of splinter movements which are denominations in reality if not in name. The word “denomination” simply refers to a group of churches that associate together under some common name. This means that not only are the Baptists, Lutherans, and Methodists denominations, but also the various for a group of churches to have a hierarchy to be a denomination; nor is it necessary for them to have an “unbiblical name” (e.g., the Church of God is a denomination, its “biblical name” notwithstanding). Any group of churches which has identifiable distinctive doctrines and practices is a denomination. Of course, the existence of so many divisions in the church is lamentable. But the solution is not to denounce all of the different groups and start a new one! The fact is that very few of the many Protestant denominations started out with the intent to form a new division. Rather, they were “just Christians” who felt it was important to take a stand on certain issues. Also, in most cases their “unbiblical names” were nicknames that became so ingrained that they were more or less stuck with them. This is certainly true of “Lutherans” (who are known simply as “Evangelicals” in German-speaking countries), “Methodists” (so-called for the Wesleys’ methodical approach to religion), and even “Baptists” (so-called for obvious reasons).

The rejection of instrumental music in church is another matter in which moderates simply choose to adhere to the principle while extremists make it an essential doctrine. Opponents of the use of instrumental music in worship have noted that instruments were not used in worship until the late Middle ages, and that so respected a Protestant theologian as John Calvin denounced the use of instrumental music in church. However, this historical argument gives no real weight to their position on instrumental music. A similar argument gives no real weight to their position on instrumental music. A similar argument could be formulated in defense of infant baptism, for example, a practice which the Restorationists reject. As for the biblical argument, at best it is fallacious (since it is based merely on the silence of the New Testament) and at worst actually contrary to the New Testament. The apostle Paul specifically approved the use of “psalms” in church worship (1 Cor. 14:26; cf. Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16); and the word accompanied by musical instruments. Admittedly, it can refer to noninstrumental singing as well, but there is no reason to restrict its meaning to exclude all use of instruments. It is also true that the word is used with reference to the Old Testament book of Psalms; but since those psalms were generally sung with instruments, this usage confirms the basic meaning of the word. Therefore, the utter rejection of instrumental music in worship is quite mistaken, even though so great a theologian as Calvin made this mistake.

The extreme position on water baptism held by many (if not most) of the COC is also unwarranted by scripture. There are other Christian communities which regard baptism as more or less integral to the salvation process (Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Anglicans, and Lutherans, for example), without holding that absolutely everyone who is unbaptized since Christ’s resurrection or ascension is lost. And it is certainly wrong to hold, as some do in the COC, that even those immersed as believers are not Christians if they regarded their baptism as merely symbolic of their salvation, rather than an essential pre-condition of it. The Bible simply does not support such extreme positions.

As to whether or not the New Testament makes baptism essential for salvation, it is impossible in this statement to offer a complete exegesis of all the biblical passages relevant to this question. A place to begin on this subject is our statement, “Baptism and Salvation.”

Finally, we do not consider the issues of charismatic gifts and eternal security to be matters essential to Christian faith. However, we strongly oppose the extreme condemnation of the charismatic movement and of the doctrine of eternal security by some in the COC. Those interested in pursuing these subjects further can contact CRI for additional references.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Beisner, E. Calvin. Is Baptism Necessary forSsalvation? Santa Ana, CA: CARIS, 1980.

Answers “No,” with a careful analysis of most of the important prooftexts. Long distributed by CRI, this booklet is at present out of print.

Bjornstad, James. “At What Price Success? The Boston (Church of Christ) Movement.” DC615

Bourland, Eugene, Phil Owen, and Paul Reid. Eternal Life and Water Baptism. Waltham, MA: Waltham Evangelical Free Church, 1986.

Refutation of the view that water baptism is essential for salvation, targeted especially at the Boston COC.

Brents, T.W. The Gospel Plan of Salvation. Nashville, TN: The Gospel Advocate Co., 1977; orig. 1874.

Restorationist teaching of salvation.

Delling, Garhard. “hymnos, hmneo, psallo, psalmos,” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Vols. VIII, ed., Gerhard Friedrich. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1972.

The meaning of the world “psalm” is classical, common, and biblical Greek.

Flanagan, James M. (ed.). What We Believe. St. Louis, MO: The Bethany Press, 1960.

DOC.

Girardeau, John L. Instrumental Music in Public Worship. Harvertown, PA: New Covenant Publication Society, 1983 reprint.

Polemic against the use of instrumental music.

Melton, J. Gordon. The Encyclopedia of American Religions, 2nd ed. Detroit, MI: Gale Research Co., 1987.

Pages 65-67 and 406-409 give a fairly accurate analysis of the history and divisions of the Restoration movement. Helpful also for its listing of schools and periodicals associated with each branch.

Morris, Leon. “Church Government,” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1985.

Argues that elements of episcopacy, Presbyterianism, and congregationalism can also be found in the New Testament.

Murch, James D. Christians Only: A History of the Restoration Movement. Cincinnati: Standard Publishing Co., 1962.

NACC perspective.

Perment, Eric. “Denominations: Variety and Variance within the Christian Church,” Cornerstone, 12, 79 (n.d.).

Argues that God has used and is still using denominations to His glory.

Phillips, Thomas W. The Church of Christ. Cincinnati, OH: Standard Publishing Co., 1043; orig. 1900.

First publishing anonymously, before the major divisions occurred; exposition of Restorationist theology (with no reference to instrumental music).

Ruhland, Joanne. “Witnessing to Disciples of the International Churches of Christ (a.k.a. the Boston Movement).” Fall 1996 article, DC462

Short, Howard E. Doctrine and Thought of the Disciples of Christ, A Bethany Study Course. St. Louis, MO: Christian Board of Publication, 1951.

Tinder, D. G. “Denominationalism,” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1985.

A useful discussion of the subject.

Tucker, William E. and Lester G. McAllister. Journey in Faith: A History of the Christian Church Disciples of Christ . St. Louis, MO: The Bethany Press, 1975.

DOC perspective.

Summary

Neil T. Anderson’s promotion of unverified demonic activities permeates his book The Bondage Breaker, which describes in vivid, gripping terms at least 75 different episodes of overtly demonic phenomena. Careful research by law enforcement officials, including the FBI, social scientists doing primary research, and investigative journalists has produced abundant evidence that his view of satanic activity is not true.

Neil T. Anderson and his Freedom in Christ Ministries promotes serious errors concerning satanic conspiracies and satanic ritual abuse (SRA) that impact many thousands of unsuspecting Christians. The problem is exacerbated by the numerous Christian luminaries who endorse him, including Campus Crusade for Christ founder and president Bill Bright, Dallas Theological Seminary president and author Chuck Swindoll, Josh McDowell, Dr. D. James Kennedy, Multnomah School of the Bible president Joe C. Aldrich, and Jack Hayford, pastor of the Church on the Way in Van Nuys, California.¹

Anderson draws on his academic roots and personal experience to encourage people to trust his teachings: “In more than 20 years of ministry as a pastor, counselor, seminary professor, and conference speaker, I have met and ministered to more Christians in bondage to the dark side of the spiritual world than you may believe.”²

Anderson’s objectivity is compromised by his reliance on unverified personal stories and his credulous acceptance of the reality of widespread, multigenerational, nearly invincible satanic conspiracies that routinely engage in torture, sexual abuse, and murder. Anderson’s books and materials are almost wholly bereft of objective research, but replete with undocumented,³ mostly sensational stories. Anderson refers for substantiation to the many stories he is told by those who attend his conferences or write him, or by those who are relating someone else’s story.⁴

ANDERSON’S ASSUMPTIONS

1. A Vast Satanic Conspiracy. Without any evidence, Anderson declares, “There are breeders⁵ out there. I will even encounter people who are doctors and lawyers and pastors who are Satanists, disguising themselves as ministers of righteousness.”⁶

Anderson’s teachings assume that what his counselees tell him is generally true, even though there is no objective verification for their stories, and the overwhelming consensus of research and evidence refutes the conspiracies he believes and promotes. That Anderson bases his beliefs on dubious sources is made painfully clear in his book The Bondage Breaker:

After I led Harry, the former high priest of Satanism, to Christ, I began to learn from talking with him more about the extent and organization of Satanism. He told me that he was not a priest in a local coven, but a member of the council of 50 in a worldwide coven. He shared with me that the organizational structure in Satanism corresponds to the four-level hierarchy of demonic rule under Satan mentioned in Ephesians 6:12. “Rulers” is linked to the royal court of Satanism. There are seven major covens in the world which are presented on the royal court. “Powers” corresponds to host-level priests, and “world forces” to legion-level priests. “Spiritual forces” identifies the circle covens or local covens. The Satanist organization is massive and extremely secretive. When you hear of satanic priests or rituals, you are hearing only about activities at the level of the circle coven. However, you need not concern yourself too much with what you see or hear, since the Satanist activity which you read about in the newspapers or which is recorded in most police reports is usually the activity of mere dabblers. It’s what you don’t see that is pulling the strings and arranging events in Satanism. I have counseled enough victims of Satanism to know that there are breeders (producing children expressly for sacrifice or for development into leaders) and infiltrators committed to infiltrating and disrupting Christian ministry. To illustrate how human and spiritual forces of wickedness work together, ask any group of committed Christians this question: “How many of you have been awakened for no apparent reason at 3:00 A.M.?”…Satanists meet from 12:00 to 3:00 A.M., and part of their ritual is to summon and send demons. Three in the morning is the prime time for demon activity, and if you have awakened at that time it may be that you have been targeted. I have been targeted by demons numerous times.⁷

This could be a phenomenal exposure of the intricate depths of spiritual warfare if it were true, but Anderson provides absolutely no evidence for the accuracy of “Harry’s” report. In fact, Anderson admits that Harry eventually dropped out and Anderson never heard from him again.⁸

Anderson’s promotion of the unverified activities of the demonic snakes through The Bondage Breaker, which describes in gripping terms at least 75 different episodes of overtly demonic phenomena. Careful research by law enforcement officials, including the FBI, social scientists doing primary research, and investigative journalists has produced abundant evidence that this view of satanic activity is not true.

2. Multiple Personality Disorder (MPD or Dissociative Personality Disorder, DID) and Satanic “Memories.” Anderson’s paradigm incorporates widely disputed theories of dissociative disorders, repression and recovery of memories (e.g., of childhood abuse), and satanic ritual abuse (SRA). Anderson at times appears to divorce his views of repression and revelation from the MPD/repression/therapeutic recovery paradigm. This seemingly protects him from having to defend theories that are disputed by a wealth of evidence and professional opinion, although it doesn’t exempt him from criticism by biblical and theological authorities. In truth, he doesn’t actually disavow the therapeutic paradigm. For example, he explains and then modifies the common assumptions regarding MPD in Lesson Eight of his Spiritual Conflicts and Counseling manual,⁹ concluding that through biblical counseling and therapeutic knowledge one can lead a suffering Christian into memory “retrieval” and freedom from demonic bondage. In his teaching videos he observes, “But boy, all across the country, the rise of victims of SRA are just appearing everywhere. They’re just loading up our hospitals and our clinics. How do we respond to this atrocity and how do we come to terms with the concept of spiritual conflict, but as well as the psychological dimension that comes because people disassociate?”¹⁰

Anderson’s credulousness is similar to that of many therapists. According to psychologist Paul Simpson, who once believed in and practiced repressed memory/abuse/SEA therapy, “An astounding 57 percent of therapists nationally report they do nothing at all to differentiate truth from fiction when working with hypnotic images of abuse.”¹¹

3. Demonization of Christians.¹² Some spiritual warfare teachers attribute any sinning by Christians to demonic power, but even teachers like Anderson who stress personal moral responsibility teach that “once a stronghold is established, you have lost the ability to control your behavior in that area.”¹³

The current term preferred over “demon possession” by Anderson and others is “demonization” and refers to a continuum of influence and/or control by demons.¹⁴ Arguments for “Christian demonization” is based on personal or clinical experience rather than on strong biblical exegesis.

The Anderson continuum model argues that the Christian is positionally or legally free from the bondage of sin, the world, and Satan through justification, but that since sanctification is an ongoing process, we are ontologically or in reality gradually coming out from the domination of sin, the world, and the devil in our maturing Christian life.¹⁵

Given Anderson’s belief that demonization of Christians is along a continuum, it is not surprising that he describes relief from demonic strongholds in gradual terms as well. Concerning the apparent recalcitrance of some demons to leave as commanded in the name of Jesus, Anderson says, “God may be bringing you through a growth process in which you are gradually dealing with all the entrances of Satan into your life. I (Neil) refer to this as the onion effect. The Lord is peeling off one layer at a time.”¹⁶

THE SATANIC CONSPIRACY DISMANTLED

Despite the tens of thousands of reports of satanic crime and abuse that have blanketed therapists’ couches, television talk show stages, tabloid front pages, and the pages of Anderson’s books, there has been no corroborative documentation that there is any widespread, multigenerational, multifamily, organized, nearly undetectable, almost invincible satanic conspiracy propagating murder, mutilation, cannibalism, and other criminal activities. Investigation by law enforcement agencies, mental health professionals, journalists, academic researchers, and historians here and abroad has conclusively shown that the satanic alarm of the l980s and 1990s was a hysterical myth, a genuine witch hunt.

Anderson’s lists of certain “symptoms” of demonic bondage or stronghold range from the universal foibles of human experience such as sleepiness, headaches, and thoughts of despair¹⁷ to explicit and alarmingly evil experiences, including willful participation in such occult practices as trying to contact the dead and worshipping Satan.¹⁸ His “shopping list” is nearly identical to lists developed by therapists who also find pseudoendorsement for their suspicions by spreading a net wide enough to include everyone, genuine victim or not. Simpson catalogs some of the characteristics commonly listed:

One of the most common is from E. Sue Blume’s book, Secret Survivors. Blume offers thirty-five categories, with over 180 “symptoms” a person can read through to discover if he or she has repressed memories. A few of them are: fearing the dark, having nightmares, not liking your body, having spontaneous vaginal infections, getting headaches, arthritis, wearing lots of clothes, preferring privacy when using the bathroom, being scared of different things needing to be invisible, not being funny, doing what others want, blocking out memories between the first and twelfth years of life, being in denial, not enjoying sex, not liking gynecological exams, avoiding mirrors, avoiding making noises, or stealing things…. You might also find yourself feeling guilty, shameful, valueless, worthless, abandoned, different, unhappy, crazy or wanting to change your name. You might abuse or not abuse drugs, think you’re perfectly good or perfectly bad, have constant anger or don’t get angry, can’t trust others or trust too much, take too many risks or don’t take risks, are controlling or fear losing control, feel real or feel unreal, don’t like particular sex acts or like particular sex acts, are seductive or not interested in sex, are sexually aggressive or not, or your relationships are ambivalent or they’re conflicted.¹⁹

Simpson concludes that it is so all-inclusive that “it literally predicts that everyone alive is the victim of abuse.”²⁰

There are few areas of contemporary psychology and psychiatry that are more contested than that of dissociative disorders, most commonly known for sensational publicized cases of “multiple personality disorder (MPD).”²¹ The definitive publicized cases that began this almost exclusively American phenomenon, Sybil and Michelle, have both been brought into serious disrepute by evidence gathered long after their stories became common knowledge.²² The accounts that fueled the Christian fascination with this have also been discredited, including sources cited for support by Anderson,²³ such as Lauren Stratford’s Satan’s Underground (Harvest House Publishers, 1989), which we carefully investigated and disproved shortly after it spawned stories from other Christians who became persuaded that whatever was wrong with them must have been caused by SRA.²⁴

The Courage to Heal remains the “Bible” of SRA therapists, victims, and support groups, Christian as well as non-Christian, and is also listed by Anderson for support.²⁵ It is tragic that Christians would embrace a book written by authors with no degrees in psychology, from a decidedly non-Christian perspective, a book that “promotes erotic regression theories, lesbian lifestyles, and the need to sustain and nurture one’s hatred and anger against parents.”²⁶ Christians such as Anderson should not trust a book that affirms: “At one point or another, many survivors have strong feelings of wanting to get back at the people who hurt them so terribly. You may dream of murder or castration. It can be pleasurable to fantasize such scenes in vivid detail. Wanting revenge is a natural impulse, a sane response. Let yourself imagine it to your heart’s content. Giving yourself permission to visualize revenge can be satisfying indeed.”²⁷

“Repressed memory” theory is comprehensively refuted by reality. As Dr. Paul Simpson notes, “Their theories don’t work in the real world. When we know that a traumatic event has occurred, we find that victims don’t repress their traumatic experiences. Instead they are plagued by recurring memories of their trauma, sometimes resulting in post-traumatic stress disorder.”²⁸ Simpson then recounts four notable studies that contradict repressed memory theories:

One study found that children who had witnessed the murder of a parent didn’t repress their memories; rather, they were pre-occupied with the murders and they were continually flooded with disturbing emotions. Of the dozens of children kidnapped in Chowchilla, California in 1976, none were found to have repressed their memories of the event. Paul McHugh, Director of Psychiatry at Johns Hopkins University Medical School, has worked extensively with Cambodian refugees. Based on the theories of multiple personality we would expect to find some portion of these children having developed MPD. But despite experiencing the horrors of war as children [not to mention the horrific “Killing Fields” of the Khmer Rouge regime], McHugh has not found one case of repression or multiple-personality disorder (MPD). In another study, researchers interviewed seventy-eight Holocaust survivors forty years after the end of World War II. Though each of the people had experienced normal memory decay, none had repressed memories of their prison camp experience, and all but one quickly remembered forgotten details with simple prompting.²⁹

Anderson declines to say that he is providing “recovered memory therapy.” He throws some Bible verses into the mix, calls the mental dysfunction of repression God’s gift to protect young victims of trauma, and then credits God with “revealing” the memory once the victim is in a safe, supportive situation. After all, if it’s a miraculous intervention from God, many believe, one doesn’t need to have any evidence, research, or documentation. With such an unfalsifiable paradigm, Anderson can blithely recount “revealed” memories from people’s own birth experiences.³⁰ This flies in the face of contrary scientific evidence concerning preverbal memory retention and recall, and draws on irrational suppositions that must be adopted to believe one can actually remember one’s own prebirth, birth, or early infancy experiences.

Using an actual story involving “Gale’s” “memories” of her mother digitally raping her during her infancy, Simpson recites the incredible assumptions one must swallow to believe this is possible:

As an infant Gale would have to distinguish between someone changing her diaper, taking her temperature rectally, cleaning and washing her, a difficult bowel movement, and digital rape. After such an advanced sensory awareness, she would then need to transfer this short-term memory into long-term storage. But she won’t have a developed hippocampus, completed myelination process, or language to encode the event for the next couple of years. Next, she would need to go for several decades without rehearsing the memory and then bring it up pristine and perfect at the prompting of her regressionist, in defiance of all we know about forgetting.³¹

Anderson’s repression/recovery paradigm and the therapeutic version lack any credible evidence to support them, while they run up against substantial counter evidence. Simpson remarks, “There is no scientific or biblical technique that can safely and accurately unlock ‘repressed’ events. In fact, the hypnotic techniques that are promoted are consistently shown to create highly suggestible delusional states of mind in which clients have: 1) a decreased ability to accurately recall historical events, 2) increased experiential fantasy, and 3) increased levels of confidence in the accuracy of their recall, even though they have no reason for this.”³²

The general unreliability of memory has been demonstrated many times by sound research. Even preschool children can be induced to “remember” events that never happened.³³ Simpson recounts an experiment conducted on young adults at Emory University by Dr. Ulric Neisser. The day after the Challenger explosion in 1986, Neisser had 106 students write down their accounts of where, when, and how they saw or learned about the Challenger disaster. Three years later he was able to find nearly half of the students and had them repeat the assignment. When he compared the “fresh” memory records with the three year postevent memory records, he found that fully one-third were “wildly inaccurate” and yet, those same students, according to Simpson’s summary, “expressed as much certainty about the accuracy of their memories as those who were more correct,”³⁴ None of the students was completely correct, and many were seriously wrong, although not up to Neisser’s standard of “wildly inaccurate.”

Even those who believe that early childhood traumatic events, especially repeated and prolonged SRA, can be repressed and then recovered with valid content admit that error, misinterpretation, and fabrication abound. Psychologist Jim Hopper notes some of the issues that should be addressed: “Every instance of recall is a process of reconstruction, and therefore involves some, degree of distortion…. There is strong evidence that people can sincerely believe they have a recovered memory or memories of abuse by a particular person, but actually be mistaken. There is strong evidence that such memories have led to accusations about particular events that never happened and accusations of people who never committed such acts” (emphasis in original).³⁵

The National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect sponsored the definitive study on ritual abuse. The study was conducted by University of California at Davis psychology professors Gail S. Goodman and Phillip R. Shaver, in conjunction with Jianjian Qin of UC Davis and Bette L. Bottoms of the University of Illinois at Chicago. The study investigated more than 12,000 accusations and surveyed more than 11,000 psychiatric, social service, and law enforcement individuals and agencies.³⁶

The study found no evidence of the SRA scenario supported by credulous Christians such as Anderson and by naive and often biased therapists. The overwhelmingly convincing conclusions discounting the satanic scare are summarized by Simpson:

The researchers…noted, “Over the last decade, accusations of molesting by cults have been made in thousands of cases and in retrospective claims by adult patients in psychotherapy who say they were abused as children. Combined with sensationalistic press coverage, these lawsuits and other reports have led many people to believe that there is a nationwide network of satanic groups preying on the young.” The survey found occasional cases of lone abusers who used ritualistic trappings. There was “convincing evidence of lone perpetrators or couples who say they are involved with Satan or use the claim to intimidate victims.” But in the thousands of cases investigated, not a single case related to well-organized satanic rings was shown to be true. “After scouring the country, we found no evidence for large-scale cults that sexually abuse children.” The survey showed that “there was not a single case where there was clear corroborating evidence for the most common accusation, that there was a well-organized intergenerational satanic cult, who sexually molested and tortured children in their homes or schools for years and committed a series of murders.” (emphasis added)³⁷

Many of the criminal cases once heralded by the therapeutic and Christian communities have ended in acquittal for lack of evidence.³⁸ Others that resulted in convictions have been or are being reversed or overturned on appeal.³⁹

Numerous professional organizations have also evaluated “recovered memory therapy” and have warned of its unreliability. These include the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the British and the Australian Psychological Societies, the American Academy of Psychiatry, and the Canadian Psychiatric and Psychological Associations.⁴⁰

An investigation by a San Diego, California Grand Jury (1991-1992) was unable to find evidence proving several contemporary cases alleging SRA, saying, “There is no physical evidence of satanic ritual child abuse in San Diego County. There is evidence and considerable professional testimony that the existence of satanic ritual abuse is a contemporary myth perpetuated by a small number of social workers, therapists, and law enforcement members who have effected an influence that far belies their number. These ‘believers’ cannot be dissuaded by a lack of physical evidence.”⁴¹

The State of Washington ordered a study of ritual abuse cases that resulted in compensation from the state Crime Victims Compensation Program. The dismal statistics and strong doubts generated by the careful study led the state to exclude from payment any other victims who were involved in therapeutic services that focus on the recovery of repressed memories.⁴²

England’s most extensive child-abuse case was thoroughly investigated by the Nottinghamshire police and the director of social services. They produced a 600-page detailed report (unpublished) uncovering a bungled investigation and concluding that the ritual abuse never took place.⁴³

These are but a few of the studies that conclusively show the witch hunt nature of, and social hysteria foundation for, the SRA scare.⁴⁴ Twelve thousand reported accusations, and not one substantiated case of what Anderson claims is “everywhere”!

THE FACTS ABOUT DEMONIZATION OF CHRISTIANS

Most of the Christians who have contacted us believing that they were encountering the demonic had no expectations of particular forms of demonic activity until they had been led to expect them through their exposure to popular Christian literature, seminars, conferences, and speakers on spiritual warfare. This is consistent with how those who follow Anderson’s teachings also come to believe that they have repressed memories of early childhood abuse and SRA, and that they suffer from dissociative disorders.

During one videotaped counseling session, for example, Anderson prompts the woman he is trying to help, telling her that any distraction she may be experiencing is or may be a satanic block. When she says that she doesn’t remember any SRA from her childhood, Anderson assures her that absence of memories can be an indication of repression: “Almost everybody I’ve walked through this doesn’t recall it. Sometimes memories come up afterwards.” As they progress, he further assures her that “there is a possibility if there has been something dramatic there that some of that stuff may come back even as flashbacks just a little bit later on.”⁴⁵ With such leading, it is not surprising that many of those Anderson counsels come to interpret mental images as “revealed” memories of early childhood SRA.

How do Christians become so convinced that they are in demonic bondage? The power of suggestion can greatly influence what one experiences. People who are highly suggestible often respond to provide the initial examples of the expected behavior. They are then followed by others. Learning by example and trusting experience in spite of reason or Scripture are two of the most compelling factors drawing people into the spiritual warfare movement. They believe the authority figure, are given the parameters of the behavior expected of them, and then watch those they look to as role models in their own groups who seem to experience the same thing. They naively believe others and their own experiences rather than first testing everything by the Word of God (1 Thess. 5:21-22; Acts 17:11).

When we turn to the Bible on the issue of the demonization of Christians, we search in vain for clear scriptural support of the features of Anderson’s demonology. In fact, we see that in the passages where Jesus dealt with demonized individuals, there is no indication that they were genuine, spiritually regenerate believers before they were delivered.⁴⁶

Not only is there no positive evidence that Christians can be demonized, there is positive evidence that they cannot. When the Jews disputed about Jesus’ words and works, some said, “He is demon-possessed and raving mad” (John 10:20). But the others, recognizing no possibility of a genuine believer “having” a demon, responded, “These are not the sayings of a man possessed by a demon. Can a demon open the eyes of the blind?” (v. 21).

Anderson’s procedure is not the pattern we see when we survey biblical passages that show Christians in association with demonic activity or action.⁴⁷ In Jesus’ temptation by Satan in the wilderness, Jesus provides us with an example of how we are to respond to demonic temptation: by a confident use of the Word of God in all of its power (Matt. 4:1-11; cf. Mark 1:12-13; Luke 4:1-13).

When Jesus instructed His disciples how to pray, he taught them to say, “And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one” (Matt. 6:13). His meaning is clear: temptation — not covert kidnapping or mind control — is the demonic modus operandi for exerting influence on humans.

In Matthew 15:19, Jesus does not attribute evil thoughts to demons or Satan, but to the individual’s moral alienation from God: “For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander” (cf. Mark 7:21-23). He expresses a parallel thought in Luke 6:45: “The good man brings good things out of the good stored up in his heart, and the evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in his heart.”

Throughout the New Testament, instead of finding a pattern of Christian demonization, we find a consistent pattern of protection for the Christian from direct invasion or control by demons. Scripture also posits a moral and spiritual division between Christians and non-Christians, characterized as the “kingdom of God” and the “kingdom of Satan.”

Nowhere is this better exemplified than in Matthew 12:43-45. Jesus compares unbelieving Israel to a demonized man, and then compares the man to a house:

When an evil spirit comes out of a man, it goes through arid places seeking rest and does not find it. Then it says, “I will return to the house I left.” When it arrives, it finds the house unoccupied, swept clean and put in order. Then it goes and takes with it seven other spirits more wicked than itself, and they go in and live there. And the final condition of the man is worse than the first. That is how it will be with this wicked generation (emphasis added).

The word “unoccupied” leaps off the page. The demon could come back only if the man’s “house” was unoccupied. But the Christian’s “house” is occupied — by the Holy Spirit. This destroys the argument that the Christian is “owned” by God, but under the “control” of the demon. Not only is God the owner, He (the Holy Spirit) is the occupier as well.

If the Pharisees had watched Jesus’ ministry of healing and exorcism, they would have seen that the Lord God Almighty was glorified and the powers of the devil were broken in every case. Never was an exorcism or healing used as an excuse to bring glory to Satan. Jesus argues that if He were to cast out demons by the prince of demons in such a manner that the prince of demons would be put to shame, then the prince of demons would be “divided against himself.” In such a case, as the learned Pharisees knew, Satan’s kingdom cannot stand. Obviously then, unless Satan is self-destructive, he could not be giving Jesus the power to cast out his own servants.

There can be no compromise. One is either in covenant relationship with God, or in covenant relationship with Satan. One cannot make contradictory covenants without nullifying one or the other.

Some may argue that Jesus mentions only one of the possible conditions of the man when the demon returns — his “house” is “unoccupied.” Some might say that one cannot argue anything about a “house” that is occupied, since Jesus simply doesn’t address such a condition. They would clarify that it is the condition of a man who is “occupied” by the Holy Spirit, but giving a “foothold” to Satan, that they are concerned with when they speak of demonization of a Christian.

This argument misses the entire context in which the analogy appears — that of the Kingdom of God overcoming the kingdom of Satan through Christ Himself. Although the “occupied” house is not addressed directly by Jesus, it is implicitly as strong as if He had, just as His rhetorical question to the unbelieving Pharisees (“By whom do your people drive them out?” v. 27) is answered implicitly (“Demons can be driven out only by the power of the Holy Spirit”). In the demon-occupied house analogy, Jesus allows only two alternatives, one addressed explicitly, one addressed implicitly. The empty house remains empty and is subsequently occupied by even more demons; or the empty house does not remain empty, but becomes occupied by the Holy Spirit, and cannot be reoccupied by one demon, much less seven or eight.

The two key concepts from this passage are: (1) in order for a house to be taken over, the “strong man” of the house must be bound first; and (2) a “strong man” can only return to a house that remains “unoccupied.” When we apply these two concepts to our question, “Can Christians be demonized?” we understand that (1) If the Holy Spirit is the “strong man” of our house, He cannot be bound, therefore an invading demon cannot come in (even though Jesus identifies the “strong man” as the devil, the principle applies equally to Christ or the Holy Spirit as “strong men”); and (2) If our “house” remains or becomes “occupied” by Jesus, reinvading demons (who could only have been “strong men” of non-Christian houses) cannot come back in to the now Christian “house” (Matt. 12:22-37, 43-45).

No Christian can be demon-possessed or invaded and controlled by a demon. This is not merely a legal or positional freedom or adoption — it is an actual freedom and adoption guaranteed by God, not by ourselves, We don’t need Anderson’s “seven steps to freedom in Christ” — we have been freed already by Christ’s one act of sacrifice on the cross (Rom, 6:18). We are not in bondage to sin, even though we sin; neither can we be in bondage to demons, even though they may attack us. Answers in Action researcher Michael Martin exhorts us to adopt this biblical concept:

Whatever adversity we may endure, or any encounter we may have with a power or principality that is opposed to God and our peace in his Son, they have been rendered powerless by his cross. This is a matter of authority. Jesus said to his disciples after he had risen from the dead, “All authority in heaven and in earth have been given unto me” (Matt. 28:18). Too many Christians are forgetting this truth and surrendering to a disarmed and defeated enemy. They regard the emotional weight of an experience to be more truthful than the word of God, and they stumble in their fear and confusion….The scriptures tell us that we are not our own, that we have been purchased with the blood of God’s own Son. If the creator of the heavens and the earth says you are free, you can discount any experience that might lead you to believe the opposite.⁴⁸

Neil Anderson’s approach fails to be credible when it is measured against the Scriptures, evidence, and rational inquiry. Popularity, persuasiveness, and earnest conviction do not justify poor work. Nevertheless, his lurid anecdotes, years of self-sacrifice to help those he designates as victims of spiritual warfare, and often novel interpretations of Scripture have produced unqualified support from Christian leaders as well as individuals who have been helped by his work. Some, such as his own publisher, have gone so far as to say that they are more concerned about Christian unity than about what’s right or wrong in this issue!⁴⁹ On the contrary, we must reject any unity that is based on what is false or wrong and that spawns the destructiveness we see from teachings such as Anderson’s.

Anderson’s approach lacks clear-cut evidence, violates proper hermeneutics (method of interpretation) regarding key Bible passages, gives far too much credit and power to the demonic, spawns an atmosphere of fear and paranoia, provides legitimacy for the often-heard criticism that Christians are credulous regarding the supernatural, and fails to do justice to Scripture’s underlying theme about occultism: Christ has destroyed the power of the devil by means of the cross (Col. 2:14).

We can be confident that if we resist the devil, he will flee from us (James 4:7); that greater is he who is in us (God the Holy Spirit) than he who is in the world (1 John 4:4); that Christ’s death on the cross made a mockery of Satan and his demons, actually triumphing over them through his sacrifice for our sin (Col. 2:10-14); and that in Christ we have the power to cast down the strongholds of spiritual opposition, and to refute every false argument contrary to Christ (2 Cor. 10:4-5).

Spiritual warfare is not the mumbo-jumbo incantation of spooky experience, but the Christian’s daily (and often rather mundane) battle to die to self and live for Christ (Rom. 12:1-2). Paul gave the Philippians the formulae for vanquishing the enemy: “Be anxious for nothing, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your request be made known to God. And the peace of God which surpasses all comprehension, shall guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus” (Phil. 4:6-7).

The dangers of sensationalizing spiritual warfare beyond its biblical paradigm can devastate a person’s life — spiritually, emotionally, and, all too often, even physically. Scholar Sydney H. T. Page lists some of the most significant dangers: “First, given the susceptibility of some to the power of suggestion, one may unconsciously induce simulated possession. Second, one may encourage exaggerated views of the power of the demonic and an unhealthy paranoia. Third, one may provide those who are inclined to deny personal responsibility for their actions with a convenient scapegoat.”⁵⁰

Martin agrees, remarking,

Human moral depravity is not laid at the feet of unseen devils but in the human heart. If you belong to Christ, the devil can’t make you do anything you may not already be considering yourself. The apostle Paul says, “We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ” (2 Cor. 1O:5)….This is not an overnight remedy but a difficult transformation of one’s previous wicked nature into the image and likeness of Christ.⁵¹

When all is said and done, the contemporary spiritual warfare movement model promoted by Neil Anderson is committed to a paradigm that is vulnerable to unbiblical sensationalism, fear, superstition, and dependency. Biblical spiritual warfare, by contrast, endows us with power, confidence, submission to God’s will, and the certainty of the Lord’s protection. David Powlison summarizes the scriptural position nicely:

Reclaiming spiritual warfare means learning afresh how God pursues his glory in our lives. It means gaining an understanding of progressive sanctification in a Christian culture habituated to look for quick fixes. It means learning to see heroic dramas played out in tiny corners of life. It means becoming human, renewed in the image of Jesus Christ — the pioneer and perfecter of faith. It means learning how to become Christians…. As in the birth, life, death, and resurrection of the country Galilean, so in spiritual warfare today: strength is subverted by weakness, worldly wisdom by truth, riches by poverty — and the powers of darkness are best felled by the small, weak words and works of faith and obedience.⁵²

NOTES

1. http://www.ficm.org/endorsement.htm

2. Neil T. Anderson, The Bondage Breaker (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 1990, 1993), 10-11.

3. In a letter to Christian Research Institute (CRI) president Hank Hanegraaff, Anderson’s own publisher agreed that Anderson’s “evidence” of satanic ritual abuse “is anecdotal” (5 June 1996, on file at CRI).

4. “The Freedom in Christ Ministries” web site, for example, advertises for stories on its home page, noting, “Thank you for all of the responses we have received from our request for personal stories. We are now looking for personal testimonies of those who struggle or have struggled with perfectionism, control and Obsesive [sic] Compulsive Disorder (OCD)” (http://www.ficm.org). Stories recounted without documentation are found throughout his books, such as in Victory Over the Darkness: Realizing the Power of Your identity in Christ (Ventura, CA: Regal Books, 1990, 168-69 and 175-78), The Bondage Breaker (22, 29-30, 41-42, 72-73, 86, 95-98, 101-2, 111, 116, 121, 148-51, 171-73, 220-21, 228-29, 232-35), and Stomping Out the Darkness (coauthored by Dave Park, Ventura, CA: Regal Books, 1993, 152-53).

5. “Breeders” supposedly give birth to infants who are then sacrificed in satanic rituals.

6. Neil Anderson, Spiritual Conflict and Biblical Counseling (videotape on file at CRI). In fact, one wonders why, if Anderson has personally met (encountered) some of these sadistic, criminal abusers and murderers, he has not turned them in to the appropriate authorities.

7. Bondage Breaker, 101-2. Anderson promotes this “test” in other books, noting in one, “At least one-third of the audience will respond that they have. Chances are they are being targeted, as Satan sends demons to terrorize and harass.” (Neil T. Anderson and Charles Mylander, Seeing Your Church Free [Ventura, CA: Regal Books, 1994], 233.) A familiarity with basic statistical, sociological, and psychological research data would enlighten Anderson to the fact that “night-tenors” are common and come, not from demons ordinarily, but as a physiopsychological by-product of sleep. (See, for example, information available from the National Sleep Foundation, 729-15th St. NW, 4th Floor, Washington D.C. 20005.)

8. Bondage Breaker, 114.

9. Neil T. Anderson, Spiritual Conflicts and Counseling (Ventura, CA: Regal Books, 1992).

10. Spiritual Conflicts and Biblical Counseling.

11. Paul Simpson, Second Thoughts: Understanding the False Memory Crisis and How It Could Affect You (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1996), 17.

12. This subject was covered in Part Two by Elliot Miller, but it is treated briefly in this article since it is a cornerstone of Anderson’s view of satanic activity in the world and among Christians.

13. Bondage Breaker, 54.

14. C. Fred Dickason, Demon Possession and the Christian (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1987), 38.

15. Neil T. Anderson and Robert L. Saucy, The Common Made Holy (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 1997), 332.

16. http://www.ficm.org/questions/ques07.htm.

17. For example, he urges, “Consider the problem of falling asleep in a church service. Some people, of course, are so exhausted that they sleep any time they become quiet and relaxed. But others sleep only in church, not other settings. In these cases, it is not exhaustion at all, nor is it a boring sermon, but rather a deceitful ploy of the devil.” (Setting, 246.)

18. See, for example, Bondage Breaker, 173; Stomping, 148; Neil T. Anderson and Dave Park, Busting Free! Helping Youth Discover Their Identity in Christ (Ventura, CA: Gospel Light Publications, 1994), 7, 117, 119, 159-60.

19. Simpson, 94-95.

20. Ibid., 95.

21. Much of the available research and information regarding dissociative disorders goes beyond the main focus of this article. Comprehensive information is cited and/or referenced in many of the books listed in a research bibliography available from Answers in Action, P.O. Box 2067, Costa Mesa, CA 92628-2067.

22. The story of Sybil (Flora Rheta Schreiber [New York: Warner Books, 1973]) brought the term and the condition of MPD into American culture. Newfound tapes of the collaboration between the psychiatrist and the book author “suggest these personalities were actually created during therapy, through suggestions to a pliable young woman” (Associated Press, “Newfound Tapes Suggest Story of Sybil Was False,” 17 August 1998). The same is true of the story publicized in Michelle Remembers (Michelle Smith and Lawrence Pazder [New York: Congdon and Latles, 1980]), said to be the first person tale of a psychiatrist treating a young woman who had escaped from her multigenerational Satanism-practicing family.

23. In supporting documentation Anderson submitted to CRI through his publisher, on file at CRI.

24. See our article coauthored with Jon Troll, “Satan’s Sideshow,” Cornerstone (18:90), 24-28, our “The Hard Facts about Satanic Ritual Abuse,” Christian Research Journal, Winter 1992, 20-23, 32-34, and our “Satanic Ritual Abuse in Popular Christian Literature,” Journal of Psychology and Theology (1992:20:3), 299-305.

25. On file at CRI

26. Simpson, 27.

27. B. Bass and L. Davis, The Courage to Heal (New York: Harper & Row, 1928), 128.

28. Simpson, 45. Simpson discusses the evidence against ascribing posttraumatic stress disorder in cases of recovered memory therapy in pp. 64-65.

29. Ibid., 45-46.

30. Spiritual Conflicts and Biblical Counseling.

31. Simpson, 66.

32. Ibid., 52.

33. “False Memories Can Be Created in Preschoolers, Studies Find,” American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 16 June 1997 press release.

34. Simpson, 57.

35. Jim Hopper, “Preface,” Recovered Memories of Sexual Abuse: Scientific Research and Scholarly Resources, http://www.jimhopper.com/memory, 16 September 1998.

36. A free summary is available from the National Center for Child Abuse and Neglect at (800) 394-3366. The full report may be ordered for a small fee.

37. Simpson, 84-25.

38. The McMartin Preschool case is the most famous. It was the most expensive series of trials ($15 million of government money, not counting the costs to defendants and others) regarding early childhood satanic ritual abuse ever conducted and each jury returned verdicts of “not guilty” or were stalemated, unable to convict on any of the charges. Another case, also in Southern California, has seen most of those convicted freed by the courts with prosecutors declining to refile charges. (See, for example, Mark Sauer, “Mending a Broken Trust,” San Diego Union-Tribune, 17 December 1995.)

39. The most well-known was the Little Rascals Day Care in Edenton, North Carolina, which finally ended at the end of May 1997 with the prosecutor dropping oil charges. Previous convictions in the case were overturned.

40. http://www.religioustolerance.org/rmt_prof.htm

41. San Diego County Grand Jury (1991-1992), Child Sexual Abuse, Assault, and Molest Issues (San Diego: County Printing Office, 1992).

42. See “Outcome of Recovered Memory Therapy” at http://www.religioustolerance.org/rmt_outc.htm.

43. Although the report was never published, it is available on various Internet web sites. See, for example, http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,11209,00.html.

44. See, for example, the excellent information and referrals from The Ingram Organization, P.0. Box 7465, Spokane, WA 99207 (http://www.IngramOrg@aol.com) and the secular Religious Tolerance Organization (http://www.religioustolerance.org/rmt_outc.htm).

45. Spiritual Conflicts and Biblical Counseling.

46. See, for example, Matt 4:24; 8:28-34; 9:32-33; 12:22-23; 15:22-28; 17:14-2l; Mark 1:23-26, 32; 5:1-5; 16:9. Concerning Luke 13:10-18, see Elliot Miller’s comment in Part Two, n. 50. Also, being called an offspring of Abraham didn’t necessarily make someone a believer — frequently it merely meant someone who was a Jew, physically descended from Abraham.

47. In addition to arguments from these passages and those in Miller’s article, arguments can be derived from many other passages, including various verses in John 8.

48. Michael Martin, “Spiritual Warfare,” Answers in Action Journal, Spring 1996, 6.

49. Letter to Hank Hanegraaff from William T. Greig, Gospel Light Publications, 9 July 1996, on file at CRI.

50. Sydney H. T. Page, Powers of Evil: A Biblical Study of Satan and Demons (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1995), 181. Psychologist Rodger K. Bufford adds, “More seriously, there is abundant evidence in medical and psychological research literature supporting the conclusion that nonspecific effects of the treatment process (such as receiving attention, the concern of others, or the arousal of hope) result in improvement in many cases. This is known as the placebo effect.” (Counseling and the Demonic [Waco, TX: Word Publishing, 1988], 146.)

51. Martin, 5.

52. David Powlison, Power Encounters: Reclaiming Spiritual Warfare (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1995), 151-52.

summary: the problems at a glance

Further problems with Neil T. Anderson’s spiritual warfare teachings include his emphasis on his seven “steps to freedom” to the extent that they become a virtual “second work of grace”; his assertion that satanic curses and “assignments” have real power that must be warded off with repeated formulaic prayers; his insistence that it is necessary to remember and renounce every instance of certain kinds of sin in order to cancel Satan’s influence in one’s life; and his further insistence that such satanic strongholds can be passed on generationally and thus to be free one may also need to identify and renounce the sins of one’s ancestors.

“Many Christians have said that after going through the Steps to Freedom they felt just like they did when they first received Christ, and they earnestly desire to maintain their freedom. As with new Christians, these renewed Christians need a place where they can be nurtured. It’s difficult to overemphasize the value of a small group discipleship experience to establish them in truth and freedom”¹

“Going through the Steps must be a personal choice, and people should not be coerced into it. Those who have found freedom will often want their spouses or friends to experience the same joy. But taking people through the Steps because others want them to do it is usually not advisable…. Therefore, we encourage those who have been freed to pray for their loved ones and allow the Holy Spirit to prepare their hearts for “an appointment.”²

“One church put together a ‘freedom ministry’ after I had conducted a conference in its facilities. A year and a half later, they had led more than 500 people to freedom in Christ, and 95 percent of it was done by lay people.”³

In Parts One and Two of this series we examined two critical components of the message and method of Freedom in Christ Ministries founder Neil T. Anderson: his teachings on the believer’s identity in Christ and his strategy for dealing with the devil that he labels the “truth encounter.” As central as these emphases are to Anderson’s ministry, they only support and supplement what he apparently views as his most significant contribution to the body of Christ at large. This contribution — conveyed not only in his books but also in conferences held around the globe — is his approach to spiritual conflict resolution called the steps to freedom.

“SECOND BLESSING” THEOLOGY

As can be seen in Anderson’s pronouncements quoted above, the steps to freedom are described in the same kind of language most evangelicals reserve for salvation, or as some Christian traditions use for a “second work of grace” (e.g., sanctification or the baptism in the Holy Spirit). Anderson even compares the effect in the spiritual realm that transpires when someone sincerely recites the printed prayers of the steps with that which transpires when one prays to accept Christ as Savior.⁴

The steps to freedom have therefore become a Second Blessing essential to victorious Christian living, yet never quite formulated until Anderson came along. As Anderson states in Released from Bondage, Christ purchased our victory on the cross, but only as we walk through the seven steps can that freedom be realized.⁵ In his various books, Anderson repeatedly advises his readers that they should also read several of his other books so that they will be fully equipped to walk effectively through the steps.⁶ He seldom recommends books by other authors. Thus, although Anderson is not given to making boastful claims about himself,⁷ the implications of what he does say about the steps to freedom and his own books certainly do cast his ministry in a uniquely important role in the historical and contemporary church.⁸ He would have us believe that he has recovered and explicitly outlined the steps to freedom that were only implicitly revealed in Scripture — steps necessary for Victorious Christian living.

VALIDATION THROUGH TESTIMONY?

Anderson’s books are laden with testimonials of people who have applied his teachings and found freedom in Christ. The reactions from his counselees and conference participants included in his books always conform to and confirm his theology and expectations.⁹ He clearly thinks that these testimonies go a long way toward validating his ministry.

The value of some of these testimonies immediately seems questionable. For example, one woman proclaims: “I suffered from unexplainable rashes, hives, and welts all over my body. I lost my joy and closeness to the Lord. I could no longer sing or quote Scripture. I turned to food as my comfort and security. The demons attacked my sense of right and wrong, and I became involved in immorality in my search for identity and love. But that all ended yesterday when I renounced Satan’s control in my life” (emphasis added).¹⁰ In another place, Anderson recounts that a college student who had been threatening to kill him came to his apartment and Anderson “walked him through the Steps. He left being free in Christ.”¹¹ While we rejoice if the changes in these people’s lives were authentic, experience abundantly teaches that it is unwise to print such testimonies before they’ve stood the test of time.

No doubt some people have been helped because they have applied the biblical components of Anderson’s teaching noted elsewhere in this article and series. The question remains whether even these positive aspects of his ministry might not lead to a greater negative effect in the long run. For instance, if people conclude that because Anderson’s teachings helped them to deal with negative thoughts, everything he has to say about demons must be true, they might spend the rest of their lives in bondage to a ritualistic, legalistic, and superstitious approach to spiritual warfare that could have more negative consequences than they would have experienced from their negative thoughts — which they might have eventually learned to deal with apart from Anderson. Of course, we might not expect Anderson to look for, let alone include, testimonials of people who have been hurt through his teachings, but we have such testimonials in our files.

Anderson’s stories have fairly consistent characteristics: (1) they include wild or highly unusual and unsubstantiated supernatural events or human behaviors that support his views; (2) the protagonists in the stories are well-intentioned but have done, or had done to them, terrible things; (3) his approach always fits the situation and provides the answer.

WALKING THROUGH THE SEVEN STEPS

The steps to freedom are usually completed in one appointment that takes from three to five hours. The process is typically facilitated by a “committed Christian” (in the company of a “prayer partner”) who has gone through the steps himself (or herself) and has been trained by Anderson’s book Helping Others Find Freedom in Christ and/or advanced workshops provided at Freedom in Christ events. The leader walks the Christian seeking freedom through a series of personal inventories and prescribed prayers and declarations in which Satan’s lies are renounced and God’s truth is announced. Anderson considers such renunciation and annunciation key to finding freedom.

Anderson gives each of the seven steps a title that counterposes the desirable quality or condition into which he is seeking to lead his followers against the unbiblical quality or condition from which he is seeking to free them. The goal is for the counselee to identify his or her personal struggles and sins openly and to recite the various prayers and declarations from the heart, resulting in a life-changing transaction with the spiritual realm. In the process, it is not uncommon for emotional upheavals, bizarre behaviors, and shocking outbursts to occur. The latter two manifestations are considered forms of “demonic interference” with the deliverance process that can be overcome by a “truth encounter” with the Enemy (see Part Two).

Step One: Counterfeit vs. Real

The first step to freedom involves renouncing “your previous or current involvements with satanically inspired occultic practices or false religions.”¹² Central to Anderson’s concept of renunciation is the idea that once one engages in a forbidden practice, Satan gains a foothold in one’s life that will never be broken until that sin is identified and rejected:

What right did Satan have to control Janelle as he did? Only the right that she gave him by yielding to his lies….once Janelle renounced her involvement with sin and Satan, his hold on her was canceled, and he had to leave.¹³

Write down everything God brings to mind. After you are sure your list is complete, pray the following for each practice, religion, and teacher: “Lord, I confess that I have participated in ________. I ask your forgiveness and I renounce ________ as a counterfeit to true Christianity.”¹⁴

This principle of renunciation is so absolute for Anderson that he would rather be safe than sorry, even if it means renouncing sins one has not actually committed: “Some hesitate to complete the inventory because they don’t believe they actually participated in these activities. But if anyone in your family was involved, you may want to put it on your list of activities to renounce just in case you unknowingly gave Satan a foothold.”¹⁵

Step Two: Deception vs. Truth

Step two involves “acknowledging the truth in the inner self.”¹⁶ In his explanation of this rather vague step, Anderson states that Christians previously lived their lives in deception as a defense mechanism arising from having to live independent of God, but now that they are alive in Him and forgiven, they can afford to face the truth. This again illustrates his fundamentally nonmoral understanding of fallenness and redemption (See Part One). For Anderson, sin is not the essence of fallenness (which he defines solely as separation from God) but rather a survival response to it, which is no longer necessary after fellowship with God is restored.¹⁷

Step Three: Bitterness vs. Forgiveness

The general proposition that learning how to forgive the sins of others is a step to experiencing freedom in Christ is not a claim I wish to dispute. Unfortunately, in step three Anderson takes this basic biblical truth and develops it in biblically unwarranted ways:

The major decision you are making in forgiveness is to bear the penalty of the other person’s sin. All forgiveness is efficacious, if we are to forgive as Christ forgave us, how then did He forgive? He took the sins of the world on Himself; He suffered the consequences of our sin. When we forgive the sin of another, we are agreeing to live with the consequences of his or her sin. You say, “That’s not fair!” Well, the fact is that you will have to anyway, whether you forgive or not. Everybody is living with the consequences of somebody else’s sin…. The only real choice is whether we will do it in the freedom of forgiveness or the bondage of bitterness.¹⁸

While Anderson says that forgiveness is required regardless of the attitude of the offending party,¹⁹ the Bible teaches that forgiveness is predicated on the repentance of the offender, even as God’s forgiveness of sinners is predicated on their repentance (Luke l7:3-4). There is, however, a degree of truth in what Anderson is saying: rather than remaining angry or becoming bitter when offending parties fail to repent, Christians should bless them and release their fate into the hands of God (Eph. 4:26; Rom. 12:14, 17-21). But Anderson’s teaching on the substitutionary, efficacious value of forgiveness takes Christ’s suffering for sin, which is unique, and without biblical basis extends it to all Christians. This confusing emphasis raises questions about whether the Christian’s own suffering has atoning value and, consequently, whether there is something lacking in the atonement of Christ. Since Anderson seemingly would not make such a claim, this odd emphasis is unfortunate.

Anderson writes: “You say, ‘You don’t understand how much this person hurt me!’ But don’t you see, they are still hurting you! How do you stop the pain? You don’t forgive someone for their sake; you do it for your sake, so you can be free” (emphasis in original).²⁰ It may be true that unforgiveness generally hurts the one holding on to it more than it does the one who is its object. Nonetheless, forgiveness from such a self-centered motive sounds a lot more like pop psychology than anything found in the Bible. The only reasons Scripture ever supplies for forgiving others is either to receive God’s forgiveness or because God’s forgiveness has been received (e.g., Matt. 6:12-15; Mark 11:25; Luke 6:37; Eph. 4:32; Col 3:13). In other words, forgiving others is the morally appropriate thing to do, given that God has made provision to forgive one’s own sins (which generally turn out to be greater than the sins one is being called onto forgive; Matt. 18:21-35).

After defining forgiveness as “agreeing to live with the consequences of another person’s sin” (emphasis added),²¹ Anderson contradictorily goes on to teach that it is important that we learn to forgive both God and ourselves! “Once the counselee has prayed the prayer in Step 3, record the names of the people that God brings to his or her mind. If he doesn’t mention himself or God, I will ask him if those names need to be on his list. He usually agrees.”²²

Step Four: Rebellion vs. Submission

Step four seeks to cancel all satanic ground gained in an individual’s life by a rebellious attitude toward God and human authorities, for “rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft” (1 Sam. 15:23). It contains a prayer of repentance and submission.

Step Five: Pride vs. Humility

Step five is similar to step four, only it addresses the related sin of pride. “I now renounce the self-life and by so doing cancel all the ground that has been gained in my members by the enemies of the Lord Jesus Christ.”²³

Step Six: Bondage vs. Freedom

Step six seeks freedom from the bondage of habitual sin through confession and accountability to God and sometimes to a mature Christian as well. The principle set forth here is certainly sound, and the formulae prayer Anderson provides for this step is basically biblical, except for the statement, “I have transgressed your holy law and given the enemy an opportunity to wage war in my members (Romans 5:12, 13; James 4:1; 1 Peter 5:8).”²⁴ The first two passages cited actually speak about sin or lust waging war in a Christian’s members. The third mentions the devil prowling around like a roaring lion, but says nothing about him operating within the believer. Through such illegitimate proof texting Anderson once again derives from Scripture something it never actually teaches (see Parts One and Two). But how many Christians reading his books take the time to check such references? Many no doubt simply assume that with all these proof texts he must have plenty of biblical support for what he teaches.

Anderson maintains that Satan’s entrance into people’s “members” through sexual sin can only be reversed as they renounce every sin.

I have found it necessary for all sexual sins to be renounced. I usually have such people pray, asking the Lord to reveal to their minds all the sexual sins and partners with whom they have been involved, whether they were the victim or the perpetrator.²⁵

If you are in sexual bondage, what can you do?… ask the Lord to reveal to your mind every time you used your body as an instrument of unrighteousness, including all sexual sins….verbally respond to each offense as it is recalled by saying, “I confess (whatever the sin was), and I renounce that use of my body.”…If you think this process might take too long, try not doing it and see how long the rest of your life will seem as you drag on in defeat!²⁶

Anderson instructs his followers, “After you have confessed all known sin, pray: ‘I now confess these sins to You and claim through the blood of the Lord Jesus Christ my forgiveness and cleansing. I cancel all ground that evil spirits have gained through my willful involvement in sin.”²⁷ While forgiveness is certainly obtained instantaneously through repentant confession, it is presumptuous to think that after having willfully indulged in sin over a long period of time, the believer can, through a verbal proclamation, instantly cancel all ground that the enemy gained (properly understood as external influence and not internal presence or control). According to Scripture, deliverance from the power of sin and restoration to a right relationship with God essentially take place in the realm of the heart (e.g., Prov. 4:23; Isa. 29:13; Joel 2:12-13; Matt. 15:19). Deliverance and restoration involve a transaction between the believer and God, not Satan (see, e.g., Ps. 51) — a turning of the will prompted by His Spirit (2 Thess. 2:13; 1 Pet. 1:2; John 16:8) that is deepened and confirmed over time (e.g., Phil. 2:12; 1 Pet. 5:8-10; 2 Pet. 1:3-1l). Anderson’s instantaneous verbal solution amounts to magical thinking, a defect in his approach that becomes even more apparent in step seven.

Step Seven: Acquiescence vs. Renunciation

Following the lead of many other spiritual warfare teachers, Anderson not only believes in territorial spirits,²⁸ but in generational spirits as well:

The last step to freedom is to renounce the sins of your ancestors and any curses which may have been placed on you. In giving the Ten Commandments, God said: “You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth. You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me” (Exodus 20:4, 5).

Familiar spirits can be passed on from one generation to the next if not renounced and your new spiritual heritage in Christ is not proclaimed. You are not guilty for the sin of any ancestor, but because of their sin, Satan has gained access to your family…In addition, deceived people may try to curse you, or Satanic groups may try to target you.²⁹

Some Christian leaders respond negatively to the teaching that we can inherit spiritual problems from our ancestors. Let me respond by saying that we are not guilty for our parents’ sins, but because they sinned we are vulnerable to their areas of weakness. Jeremiah 32 offers more insight: “Ah Lord God!… who showest lovingkindness to thousands, but repayest the iniquity of fathers into the bosom of their children after them…” (emphasis in original)³⁰

This last Step to Freedom…is a crucial turning point for those people who come from dysfunctional families or families involved in cults or the occult. It is breaking the final links of bondage that have chained them to their past.³¹

The fact that demonic strongholds can be passed on from one generation to the next is well-attested by those who counsel the afflicted.³²

This experiential “validation” must be the true basis for Anderson’s doctrine, for it is difficult to imagine that he came to this belief from a serious study of the Scripture passages he quotes. One need only examine the wording of Exodus 20:4-5 to note its complete lack of reference to evil spirits. The natural interpretation is that God would visit circumstantial punishments (not evil spirits) on those who hate Him. In the same sense, just because Jeremiah said the Lord would repay the parents’ iniquities “into the bosom” of their children, it does not follow that the parents’ areas of moral weakness would be passed on to their children. Rather, this phrase is simply an idiomatic way of saying that the punishment of the parents would be visited on the children (note the word “repay”), if the children do not repent of their parents’ sins.³³ By confusing the punishment for sin with the sin itself, Anderson makes God the transmitter of sin from one generation to the next.

Carrying this unbiblical teaching to its logical conclusion, Anderson makes an astounding statement: “Adopted children can be especially subject to demonic strongholds because of their natural parentage. But even an adopted child can become a new creation in Christ, and must actively renounce old strongholds and embrace his or her inheritance as God’s child” (emphasis added).³⁴ Adopted children who do not know their genealogical history are at a disadvantage when it comes to anticipating inherited physical vulnerabilities. But Anderson has needlessly burdened them with additional concern about inherited demonic vulnerabilities, in a sense making them second-class citizens spiritually and thus adding to the prejudice with which they already have to deal.

As a partial consequence of his incorrect view that Satan once had ownership over the earth (see Part Two), Anderson’s demonology has taken a decidedly magical turn:

I here and now reject and disown all the sins of my ancestors. As one who has been delivered from the power of darkness and translated into the kingdom of God’s dear Son, I cancel out all demonic working that may have been passed on to me from my ancestors…I renounce all satanic assignments that are directed toward me and my ministry, and I cancel every curse that Satan and his workers have put on me. I announce to Satan and all his forces that Christ became a curse for me…. I reject any and every way in which Satan may claim ownership of me. I belong to the Lord Jesus Christ, who purchased me with His own blood. I reject all of the blood sacrifices whereby Satan may claim ownership of me. I declare myself to be eternally and completely signed over and committed to the Lord Jesus Christ.³⁵

Contrary to Anderson, there is absolutely no relationship between superstitious occult curses and the very real curse of God that was laid on Christ for our sins. There is therefore no point in even making a comparison between them. In fact, in the Bible curses are strictly the prerogative of God and so there is no scriptural validation whatsoever for the pagan belief that there is real power in satanic curses, “assignments,” and blood sacrifices. Furthermore, the idea that by reciting prescribed prayers believers can cancel the workings of evil spirits is far more reminiscent of traditional magic doctrine, which holds that humans can control the spirit world through correct verbal formulae and ritual, than anything found in the Bible. Christians are already the property of the Lord Jesus Christ and do not need to declare themselves to be so for this reality to take effect (see below).

THE ROLE OF RENUNCIATION

Our brief survey of the seven steps makes it clear that renunciation plays a central role in Anderson’s approach to obtaining freedom from spiritual bondages. For Anderson, it is absolutely essential to confess and renounce past sins if one wants to be free of them. He describes renunciation as

a greater concept of repentance. The problem is, “Oh, I’ve confessed it.” Well, that deals with your relationship with God but it doesn’t deal with the entrapment of sin. It really doesn’t. Now, that’s not to put down confession, that’s an honest agreement before God, but all that’s in terms of reality isn’t there [sic]. You haven’t dealt with the entrapment of sin. Repentance is a broader concept. I renounce that, I accept this. And we found the necessity to do that with every lie we exposed.³⁶

Anderson finds legitimation for this practice in church history: “The early church included in its public declaration of faith, ‘I renounce you, Satan, all your works and ways.’ The Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, and many other liturgical churches still require this renunciation as part of confirmation. For some reason it has disappeared from most evangelical churches. You must not only choose the truth but disavow Satan and his lies.”³⁷ Anderson stresses that “all [Satan’s] works and all his ways need to be renounced as God brings them to our memory” (emphasis in original).³⁸

It is no mystery that most evangelical churches have not retained this rite, since — unlike baptism or communion — it cannot be derived from Scripture alone. But even the traditions that do ritually practice renunciation do not hold that every past sin must be specifically named and renounced.

Clearly, it is Anderson’s counseling experience that provides the true basis for this teaching: “To be completely free from the past, we have found it necessary for each person to specifically renounce every false religion, false teacher, false practice and every means of false guidance that he or she has participated in” (emphasis added).³⁹ We are supposed to accept this practice, then, on the basis of Anderson’s experience — even though there is no biblical warrant for it, there are (as we shall see) biblical reasons to question it, and the experiences of other counselors do not lead to Anderson’s conclusion.

The Bible does make a place for disowning past involvements in forbidden activities (Acts 19:18-20). If those activities remain a factor in one’s life, renunciation can be a way of closing doors that had previously been opened. What gives a legalistic, ritualistic, and even magical character to Anderson’s understanding of renunciation is the principle that every past involvement (not only of oneself but also of one’s ancestors) must be identified and renounced for one to be free.

Rather than seeing a past involvement in occultism as a possible problem in the present because some of the beliefs or practices may be retained (e.g.,. an ongoing curiosity about horoscopes), Anderson sees it as a definite problem in the present. He insists that Satan gained a foothold in the individual’s life through that involvement that will not be released until the sin is specifically identified and renounced. This belief undermines the efficacy of one’s conversion: the initial general repentance from a life of sin and the cleansing of that sin through the blood of Christ are not good enough to free the believer from the power of Satan.

Anderson answers this objection by arguing that although through Christ’s cross, resurrection, and ascension new believers automatically receive all the forgiveness, life, and authority they need, Romans 12:2 tells us that their minds are not automatically renewed.⁴⁰ This is true (properly understood), but the point of renunciation as Anderson teaches it is not so much mind renewal as breaking down Satan’s strongholds, something his critics would maintain was accomplished at the Cross (Col. 2:14-15; John 12:31; Heb. 2:14). Thus, he has not truly answered their concern.

This is one of many ironies in Anderson’s teaching. His doctrine that Christians no longer have a sin nature is an overstatement of their newness in Christ. But his emphasis that they cannot “break the links of bondage that have chained them to the past” without revisiting and renouncing every sin (at least of certain kinds) actually binds them to their old selves ongoingly. For who can exhaust all the sins of their past, let alone those of their ancestors? An additional irony is that the entire mission of Anderson’s ministry is to set Christians free, and yet, as we’ve seen, he instead binds them to a superstitious worldview where Satan is not only present on every front,⁴¹ but he must repeatedly be renounced on each and every one of those fronts or he will control them.

STEPPING BACK FURTHER INTO BONDAGE

After laying out his seven steps, Anderson suggests a series of prayers and affirmations that are intended to help his followers maintain their freedom in Christ, but that actually lead them a step further into superstition and fear. His belief that the curses and spells of occultism have real power that can harm Christians plays no small role in this. In his prayer for “Cleansing Home/Apartment,” Anderson instructs his adherents to pray: “We claim this home for our family as a place of spiritual safety and protection from all the attacks of the enemy. As children of God seated with Christ in the heavenly realm, we command every evil spirit, claiming ground in the structures and furnishings of this place based on the activities of previous occupants to leave and never to return. We renounce all curses and spells utilized against this place.”⁴²

In Anderson’s worldview, spirits are everywhere. If you have the misfortune of living in a home occupied by nonbelievers, watch out! It’s not just the worldly influence such nonbelievers might exert, but, as he makes clear in the above prayer and in his prayer for “Living in a Non-Christian Environment,”⁴³ spirits may have seized the opening provided by nonbelievers to attach themselves to the very spaces and objects of the home. You may be their victim if you don’t use prayers like those Anderson suggests to cleanse the home of their influence.

What about when you stay in a hotel where thousands of people with thousands of spiritual histories have slept before you? Anderson observes the following formulae:

When I rent a room in a hotel, it is under my stewardship. I have no idea what occurred in that room before I rent it, so I renounce any previous use of the room that would not please my heavenly Father….Next, I commit the room and all that is in it to the Lord and command Satan and all his evil workers to leave the room in the name and by the authority of the Lord Jesus Christ. Finally, I ask for the Lord’s protection while I sleep.⁴⁴

If Anderson cannot even stay in a hotel room without taking such magical and paranoid precautions, how much more superstitious can we expect his less mature and less stable followers to be?

Even in his own home, Anderson is apparently not safe from frightening demonic attacks. One morning when he was getting ready to “expose the strategies of Satan” in a chapel service, Anderson stepped out of the shower to notice “several strange symbols traced on the fogged-up mirror.” Suspicious that this was a diabolical attempt to dissuade him from delivering his chapel message, he went down to eat breakfast alone. “Suddenly I felt a slight pain on my hand that made me flinch. I looked down to see what appeared to be two little bite-marks on my hand. ‘Is that your best shot?’ I said aloud to the powers of darkness attacking me. ‘Do you think symbols on the mirror and a little bite are going keep me from giving my message in chapel today? Get out of here.’ The nuisance left, and my message in chapel went off without a hitch.”⁴⁵ I think it would be fair to say that many of us have had strange experiences that for a moment seemed to be supernatural manifestations of evil. But in the cold light of day, how many of us would print them in a book discussing what Christians might expect to encounter in spiritual warfare?

Anderson also teaches without biblical basis that the medieval Catholic and pagan belief in spirits having sexual relations with humans (incubi and sucubi) is valid, and, as if it were a common occurrence, he includes it in step one on his check list of possible past sins to be renounced. Showing no concern for the power of suggestion, he encourages his followers to check “sexual spirits” on the list even if they only recall “vivid sexual dreams or fantasies” (who has not at some time had these?).⁴⁶ He instructs his counselors, “Let the Holy Spirit bring those thoughts to their minds, and as He does, let them note the thoughts on the page.”⁴⁷ By assuming that the Holy Spirit is supporting his program, he is more likely to accept the product of his counselees’ imaginations as the work of the Spirit.

Although Anderson says his teachings are an antidote to fear,⁴⁸ one of the most frequent complaints the Christian Research Institute and similar ministries have received about his ministry is that it instills fear in Christians where none existed before. Many of us have had to reassure Christians terrified of being demonized or molested by spirits while they sleep.

Even some of Anderson’s recommended prayers for protection from demonic attack suggest frightening possibilities. In his “Bedtime Prayer,” for instance, Anderson has his adherents reciting, “I commit myself to You for Your protection from every attempt of Satan or his emissaries to attack me during sleep.”⁴⁹

He assures his readers that Satanists meet from 12:00-3:00 a.m., and “part of their ritual is to summon and send demons. Three in the morning is prime time for demon activity, and if you have awakened at that time it may be that you have been targeted….You are only vulnerable when you are walking by sight instead of by faith or walking in the flesh instead of in the Spirit.”⁵⁰ Rather than focusing Christians’ attention on Christ and His finished work. Anderson directs them to make a subjective and therefore uncertain judgment as to the quality of their faith and spiritual walk. This only serves to leave them feeling vulnerable to these frightening attacks. Anderson even warns that Christians whose motives are impure for entering into spiritual service can end up demonized?⁵¹

Anderson solemnly advises parents that the creatures their children imagine in their rooms at night are real: “I have traced the origin of many adult problems to childhood fantasies, imaginary friends, games, the occult and abuses. It is not enough to warn our children about the stranger in the street. What about the one who may appear in their room? Our research indicates that half of our professing Christian teenagers have had some experience in their room that frightened them” (emphasis added).⁵² To the frustrated mother who checked under the bed and in the closet and found nothing, Anderson answers that something real was there nonetheless.⁵³ “Most of my students at seminary have had such an experience,” he affirms, “and by the time they complete my class on resolving spiritual conflicts, several tell about having such an experience that semester” (emphasis added).⁵⁴ Once again, the power he exerts through his own suggestions seems to elude Anderson’s notice.

As we’ve seen, much of the fear and superstition engen­dered by Anderson’s teachings is related to his central emphasis on renunciation. One additional manifestation of this is the subject of our final installment of this series (which will appear in the next Christian Research Journal). Because the counselee cannot become free in Christ until he or she has renounced every past instance of unforgiveness, involvement in occultism, sexual sin, and so forth, Anderson’s counseling approach invariably leads to a pursuit of lost or repressed memories.⁵⁵ This pursuit of repressed memories has in turn led Anderson down the rabbit hole into a world where things do indeed become “curiouser and curiouser.” It is a world teeming with satanic conspirators who infiltrate churches, ritually abuse children, breed other children for human sacrifice, breed still others to create a satanic “super race,” and — let us not forget — send demons to attack Christians at 3:00 a.m.

NOTES

1. Neil T. Anderson, Helping Others Find Freedom in Christ (Ventura, CA: Regal Books, 1995), 247.

2. Ibid., 122.

3. Ibid., 248.

4. Ibid., 143.

5. Dr. Neil Anderson, Released from Bondage (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1993), 232.

6. Not to the exclusion of Bible study, of course.

7. For example, Anderson states: “It’s not ‘Neil’s method,’ It is simply God working through the truth of His Word to release people. Thousands of pastors and lay men and women around the world are using the Steps to Freedom to do just that.” (Released, 184.) If it’s not ‘Neil’s method.’ where in the Bible or in prior church history do we find the seven steps to freedom identified and laid out?

8. See, e.g., ibid., 10.

9. On the contrary, over the past three decades (as the director of a Christian counseling center and then as a church pastor and a researcher at Christian Research Institute), I have counseled hundreds of Christians experiencing spiritual conflicts without finding corroboration for Anderson’s more controversial methods and claims. Even if we accept that Anderson has accurately reported these stories, we must still ask to what extent his overtly or subtly conveyed expectations condition his counselees’ responses (see Part Four).

10. Neil T. Anderson, The Bondage Breaker (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 1990), 172.

11. Helping, 115-16.

12. Bondage Breaker, 188.

13. Ibid., 150-51.

14. Ibid., 189.

15. Ibid., 100.

16. Released, 236.

17. For example: “Now that you are alive in Christ and forgiven, you never have to live a lie or defend yourself. Christ is your defense.” (Ibid., 237.)

18. Ibid., 49-50. See also Neil T. Anderson, Victory over the Darkness: Realizing the Power of Your Identity in Christ (Ventura, CA: Regal Books, 1990), 204.

19. “Twenty-Five Most Popular Questions,” Freedom in Christ website, http://www.ficm.org.

20. Released, 242.

21. Bondage Breaker, 196.

22. Ibid., 230.

23. Released, 246.

24. Ibid., 247.

25. lbid., 112.

26. Ibid., 127.

27. Ibid., 250.

28. “These spirits may take territorial rights and associate with certain geographical locations which have been used for satanic purposes.” (Bondage Breaker, 103.)

29. Released, 250-51.

30. Helping, 231.

31. Ibid., 229.

32. Bondage Breaker, 205-6.

33. In every passage cited by Anderson, the punishment is passed on only if the children perpetuate their parents’ sin. In Jeremiah 32 we find the clarification that God rewards “everyone according to his conduct and as his deeds deserve” (v. 19; emphases added). This truth is explicitly and exhaustively explained in Ezekiel ch. 18.

34. Bondage Breaker, 207.

35. Ibid., 207-8.

36. Neil Anderson, Spiritual Conflicts and Biblical Counseling (videotape on file at Christian Research Institute).

37. Bondage Breaker, 188.

38. Released, 70.

39. Helping, 140.

40. Ibid.

41. This is not to say that belief in Satan itself is superstitious. Superstition can be defined as irrationally attributing supernatural causes to events that have natural explanations, and this is what Anderson does through his exaggerated view of Satan’s activity (see Part Two).

42. Bondage Breaker, 211-12.

43. Ibid., 212.

44. Helping, 110.

45. Bondage Breaker, 85-86.

46. Ibid., 144-45.

47. Ibid., 145.

48. Dr. Neil Anderson, Walking in the Light (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1992), ch. 5.

49. Bondage Breaker, 211.

50. Ibid., 102.

51. Walking, 164.

52. Released, 69.

53. Helping, 49.

54. Neil T. Anderson and Steve Russo, The Seduction of Our Children (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 1991), 27.

55. See, e.g., Helping, 98.