|
Promise Keepers (an update) - Part 1
Midwest Today magazine opens its coverage of Promise Keepers with these important questions: "How faithful to the Word of God is the Promise Keepers men’s movement? How close of an association do its founders and board members have with the Charismatic fringe? What theology is really being espoused by its guest speakers, and its numerous books, videos and other materials that carry the Promise Keeper imprimatur?" It then adds, "These and other legitimate questions have largely been overlooked as this evangelical men’s group attracts uncritical and enthusiastic press coverage, and its ranks of members swell with every big conference it holds."
It is the intention of this paper, and those that follow, to carefully examine the above questions. That Promise Keepers is successful is beyond question; however, whether it is a movement of God, that honors the Lord and should be supported by His people, can only be discerned by exposing the movement to the light of God’s Word. We will start our examination by looking at Promise Keepers in general, pointing out what we believe to be positive and then finish by traveling to Atlanta to sit with forty thousand pastors at the 1996 Promise Keepers National Clergy Conference.
Some General Information about Promise Keepers
Promise Keepers is barely six years old and is already one of the largest Christian organizations in the world. Their headquarters receive up to five thousand pieces of mail and over ten thousand phone calls per day! It has a permanent staff of three hundred and sixty, and a budget of $120 million.
It is estimated that one million one hundred thousand men attended the twenty-two stadium rallies that were spread out over the country in 1996. Its official magazine, New Man, already has a circulation of three hundred twenty thousand, which by comparison, is three times greater than that of Christianity Today, the leading evangelical magazine in America.
Promise Keepers has held stadium events in three foreign countries, with requests from twenty-two more. Its radio program, Promise Keepers Highlights, can be heard on over twelve hundred radio stations; and Promise Keepers Week in Review, a thirty minute show, is on two hundred stations.
In addition to its large rallies, Promise Keepers also has its act together on the grass roots level. This comes in several forms:
Wake Up Calls — Promise Keepers hosted about three hundred of what are known as Wake Up Calls" in 1995. These mini-conferences serve three purposes: 1) to build momentum for the large conferences, 2) to bring men together who have a heart for men’s ministry, and 3) to stir men’s heart’s about needs within their community - to encourage them to get together, pray and form small groups.
Task-force — This is a group of ethnically and denominationally diverse men who meet for prayer and Bible study on the local level. Task Forces are comprised of Ambassadors and Key Men who meet as often as weekly. The principle goal of these gatherings is to share information and plan strategy on the local level.
Key men — Are liaisons between Promise Keepers and the local church. These men are attempting to promote Promise Keepers and its ministries in their local congregation.
Ambassadors — They are the liaisons between the key men and the task-forces.
A basic summarization is as follows: Key men are Promise Keepers’ promoters in the local church — they report their accomplishments and other information to the ambassador who in turn reports to the task-forces. The task-forces come together for Wake Up Calls. The Wake Up Calls promote the big rallies. The rallies send the men home with an encouragement to join a task force. This is organization (the envy of anyone)!
It is said that imitation is the highest form of flattery. If so, Promise Keepers ought to be greatly flattered, because several denominations have made attempts to duplicate the Promise Keepers format. Also, women, not wanting to be outdone, are starting to jump on the bandwagon with their own Promise Keepers type of organizations.
Reactions
The reaction to Promise Keepers, as with anything of this size and magnitude, is mixed:
Christianity Today: "I think it is time to acknowledge that the Holy Spirit is igniting a flame in the hearts of men all over the nation" (Feb. 6, 1996 p26). Many would agree with this assessment, declaring Promise Keepers to be evidence of a great revival in our country.
Paul Cain, the Vineyard prophet, thinks so highly of Promise Keepers that he claims it is a fulfillment of a divine dream he received when he was nineteen (Aug. 30, 1995 message at Christ Chapel, Florence, AL — reported in Beyond Promises, by David Hagopian and Douglas Wilson).
Some do not quite know what to make of Promise Keepers, as was evidenced when USA Today described its rallies as "Part rock concert, part football, part evangelistic crusade" (Mar. 23, 1996).
Still others, such as John Armstrong, who wrote the forward for Beyond Promises, take a critical view: "In the end Promise Keepers is simply what evangelicalism has become, a movement without a doctrinally defined focus, that can draw multitudes to exciting events but without a theology of the church that will build Christ’s church in a New Testament sense. . . .It will ultimately give us what several generations of similar "revival" movements have already given us — emotional burn-out and doctrinal confusion and indifference" (pp10,11).
Of course, no movement can be judged by its outward success, or by the opinion of its observers. Ultimately, only the Word of God can evaluate the Promise Keepers movement.
Commendable Aspects
The overall agenda of Promise Keepers would be hard to challenge. The leadership of the movement has identified true problems, concerns and sins that exist in America in general, and in the church specifically.
First of all, racism is far too prevalent even among true Christians. Many believers are no different than their unsaved counterparts when it comes to racial issues.
Our prejudices must be exposed to the light of the Word and changed. That we should more aggressively pursue the removal of the walls of racism, and should seek friendship and fellowship with those of other races is a commendable goal. To think of oneself as superior because we happen to be born into a certain race, or of a certain color, is nothing less than sinful pride. Racism should not be tolerated among Christians. Promise Keepers is right to say so.
Second, there is a lack of male leadership in the home and in the church. We should definitely pity the American male at the end of the twentieth century, for he has never been more confused about his role in society. There was a time when he thought that he knew who he was and what he was to do in life, but that was before the women’s liberation movement.
As women began to change how they perceived themselves, it inevitably caused men to view themselves differently. Men who used to think they were strong, now understand themselves to be insensitive; leaders are tyrants, silent men are bad communicators, providers are workaholics, etc. Women expect more from men today, however, as men have tried to understand what women want, many have simply given up. They have interpreted women’s assertiveness as demanding control.
As a result, far too many men, even Christian men, have abdicated their role as leader in the home. Their wives are making the decisions about where the family will go to church, how they will raise the kids, how the money is spent, etc. Many men, finding it too much of a bother to challenge their wives leadership, simply walk away. They live independently of the family, at least on an emotional and spiritual level, which means the wife must now fill the void that her man has left.
Promise Keepers has discerned this cycle and has sought to provide a remedy. They rightly point to this sin in men’s lives and encourage them to promise to make amends. While some of the messages and materials used to guide men back to home leadership are errant (as we will find later), Promise Keepers has correctly identified that a problem exists and they are trying to do something about it.
Third, there is an epidemic of spiritual deadness. Promise Keepers promotes commitment to Christ and godly living. This is a refreshing call to an increasingly secularized church.
Statistics often demonstrate that those who claim to be born again, are barely living above their unregenerate peers in the areas of morals, divorce, "addictions," and other measurable forms of sinfulness. Promise Keepers has recognized this and has called men to live up to what they profess to believe. We are more than happy to join in this invitation. Our problem, as we will attempt to show, will come in the specifics of the invitation.
The Clergy Conference 1996:
During the month of February 1996, the largest gathering of pastors that the world had ever seen, took place. Almost thirty-nine thousand pastors from every denomination (ranging from fundamentalists to approximately six hundred Roman Catholic priests) met in Atlanta for the first Promise Keepers National Clergy Conference. The purpose of the Conference, according to the founder of Promise Keepers, Bill McCartney, was to "Tear the hearts of pastors open so that a single leadership could be produced."
Randy Phillips, current president of Promise Keepers, apparently felt that the conference met its objectives. In the 1996 Spring issue of Men of Action, he said,
"The Clergy Conference in Atlanta was awesome! In just three days we began to see some of the walls which have divided the church for centuries break down" (p3).
Of course, evaluation is always subjective. One Christian journalist, writing from another perspective said, "The writer witnessed the most vivid illustration of massive emotional hysterical mind crowd control he has ever seen anywhere" (Promise Keepers, by Don Jasmin, p10).
So, which was it? A great movement of God or an example of mass manipulation? Even for those at the Conference, it would be difficult to subjectively discern. After all, were the loud cheers for Jesus, the hugs, the tears, the pleas for forgiveness, the excitement and enthusiasm, and renewed commitments, generated by the Holy Spirit for the glory of Christ; or were they well orchestrated reactions based upon methods guaranteed to produce emotional catharsis? This is a question that is always asked whenever a mass movement in the name of Christ (usually known as a revival or an awakening) takes place.
Is it of God or is it of man?
Charles Finney, the 19th century revivalist, after whom almost all movements such as Promise Keepers take their cue, assured the Christian world that the right methods will always produce revival, with or without the aid of the Holy Spirit. In his Lectures on Revivals of Religion (1835) he stated:
The connection between the right use of means (methods) for revival and a revival is as philosophically sure as between the right use of means (methods) to raise grain and a crop of wheat. I believe, in fact, it is more certain, and there are fewer instances of failure (p33).
Os Guinness, commenting on Finney’s methods, writes:
On the one hand, his new methods accented the human initiative instead of the divine. On the other hand, they gave rise to a sense of "engineered" or "worked up" revival. Revival could occur whenever Christians used the proper means. . . Finney’s methods have been a defining feature of evangelicalism ever since. They have been demonstrated by later evangelists, such as D.L. Moody and Billy Sunday, or by the evangelistic approaches of the 1940s and 1950s. Billy Sunday, for instance, boasted to his sponsors that if "Gypsy" Smith could win converts for $4.92-a-piece, he could cut the cost to $2.00-a-soul when he got his system working.
. . .Reliance on methods has even been lifted to new heights by the church-growth movement. From parking-lot theory to platform-dress style, everything in worship as well as evangelism can now be engineered and enhanced. . . .Through it all pragmatism has become part of the evangelical soul. Finney’s "right use of the appropriate means" is our hallmark (Fit Bodies, Fat Minds, pp58,59).
Is the Promise Keeper’s phenomenon a movement of God or Finney’s method updated? This is still a difficult question to answer, even if the leaders of Promise Keepers are using Finney’s "means." It is possible that in spite of (not because of) man’s manipulation — God is doing a great work!
This is the issue that Jonathan Edwards attempted to address in works such as, A Faithful Narrative of the Surprising Work of God, and Treatise on Religious Affections. Iain Murray, in his excellent book, Revival and Revivalism, attempts to distinguish between true revival in history, and its counterfeit, revivalism. His summary is:
In all revivals there are admixtures. It cannot be supposed that, in the high excitement attending a work of the Spirit of God, God’s saving work can be instantly distinguished from what moves men only temporarily or from what can be accounted for in psychological terms (pp 82,83).
And, it would be entirely wrong to suppose that periods of true revival are not also times of danger. To ignore that is to ignore a major lesson of history (p382).
Similarly, it would be foolish to argue that wherever earnest gospel work is attended by any errors or by any unwise methods, there cannot be true revival. . . .Calvinists have sometimes been inclined to deny God’s sovereignty by imagining that His work is always in proportion to the doctrinal correctness of the earthen vessels which He employs. But such is God’s mercy that His blessing may also be found even among ‘wood, hay, and stubble,’ as was the case in Corinth (I Cor. 3:12). . . .But this same qualification is misused (as Finney misused it on a grand scale) when it is employed as an argument to show that because God has granted His blessing, therefore the ‘wood, hay and stubble’ cannot be errors at all but must represent a cause which He honors" (pp382,383).
So, the question remains: Is Promise Keepers a great movement of God or manipulation by men? It could be both, or neither — this is the issue we will begin to examine in our next paper. While we ponder this subject, let’s close this paper with two major concerns we have with the Clergy Conference:
The Charismatic Influence
If our presupposition, based upon our understanding of Scripture, is that the Charismatic and Vineyard movements are not of God (see our papers on the Vineyard Movement), then something is terribly amiss at the Promise Keepers’ conferences. Not only are the founders of Promise Keepers, many of the key leaders, and a number of favorite speakers Charismatic, but the very worship, music and methods of Promise Keepers spring from the Charismatic’s well. I believe that in a very real sense Promise Keepers is the machinery that is moving the evangelical church wholesale into the Charismatic camp, without most even realizing it.
One example at the Clergy Conference will suffice at this time: Jack Hayford, one of the most often used speakers at Promise Keepers conferences, attempted to teach the thirty-nine thousand pastors how to "dance in the Lord." He said he had learned a little dance in Africa and later the Lord spoke to him directly saying, "May I have this dance?" At this point he demonstrated his dance before the pastors.
Hayford and Promise Keepers were subtly introducing thousands of pastors to some of the heretical teachings of the Charismatic movement. The focus was on a Charismatic form of worship — dancing in the Lord! The real issue, one that seemed to be missed by most of those pastors, is that this man is claiming direct revelation from God! Where was the outrage among those pastors? Are they being anesthetized by Promise Keepers to the extent that those who claim direct revelation are accepted without rebuke? If so, where will this lead?
A Centralized Authority
McCartney wants the hearts of pastors so torn open that a single leadership can be produced. Just who will assume this leadership? Is it to be McCartney? How about the leadership of Promise Keepers? Are all local churches and denominations to submit to the authority of Promise Keepers?
Randy Phillips believes that, "In just three days we began to see some of the walls which have divided the church for centuries break down." What walls is he talking about? The walls of doctrine? Pastors are now being told that they must lay down their beliefs in order to unite with a common leadership. Is this the real agenda of Promise Keepers? More on these things next time.
Within our last paper we pinpointed several areas in which we find agreement with the Promise Keepers' movement. In our remaining studies on Promise Keepers we will examine our areas of concern.
Author Thomas Hardy said that he had a friend who could go into any beautiful meadow and immediately find a manure pile (The Master's Plan for the Church, p22). We do not want to be like Hardy's friend. It is not our desire to nit pick, nor do we want to ignore something of great value while concentrating on the few problem areas. We want others to be fair and gracious with us, so we, in turn, strive to do the same — understanding full well that even the best of ministries are imperfect.
Having said all of this, we nevertheless, have deep concerns about Promise Keepers. We are not searching for small piles of manure in an otherwise beautiful meadow. Rather, there is a strong stench emanating from the Promise Keepers' meadow, and it is time to find out from where the smell is coming.
Ecumenicalism
Let us begin with an issue that is very dear to the Promise Keepers' movement. In fact, it could be argued that ecumenicalism is central to, possibly even the very heart of, Promise Keepers. However, before we detail Promise Keepers' ecumenical agenda, we should first define ecumenicalism and place it under the light of Scripture.
Ecumenicalism means different things to different people. The broad definition includes the attempt to unite all religions under the same banner. The Parliament on World Religions, held in Chicago in 1994, is a good example. Broad ecumenicalism then is the attempt to break down the barriers that separate world religions so that cooperative efforts can be undertaken.
To others, ecumenicalism has a narrower definition, that is, to simply unite all "Christian" denominations under one umbrella. The efforts of the National Council of Churches stands out, because this organization has attempted for many years to break down the barriers that separate Christian churches and denominations. Here the one common denominator is the person of Christ. Due to wide diversity of opinions, no other doctrinal distinctive would be possible. Even the person and work of Jesus is up for grabs — defined, not by Scripture, but by personal opinion.
Promise Keepers fits a more narrow definition yet. They, and others in their ecumenical camp, hold forth several doctrinal essentials. Indeed, Promise Keepers claims in print that it does not promote unity at the expense of sound doctrine. The "essential doctrines," which they claim to uphold without compromise are: The inspiration of Scripture, the deity of Christ, the Virgin Birth, substitutionary atonement, Christ's bodily resurrection, and the need for regeneration and salvation by faith. Their brand of ecumenicalism then, is to unite all Christians around these essential doctrines. All other doctrinal distinctives are considered barriers to unity and must be discarded, or at least greatly minimized.
A Defense for Biblical Separation
At this point we need to pause and discuss whether, and over what issues, Scripture calls for believers to separate from other believers. We will be the first to admit that the doctrine of biblical separation has never been loved by many, is often misunderstood, and is frequently abused. Nevertheless, it is a clear teaching of Scripture and thus must be obeyed by God's people.
In addition to teaching that the believer must not be bound together with unbelievers in compromising situations (II Cor. 6:14-18), the New Testament also teaches separation from Christians who are under church discipline (Matt. 18:15-20); those living in unrepentant open sin (I Cor. 5: 10,11); those who are repeatedly divisive in the church (Titus 3:10); and those who teach doctrinal heresy (I Tim. 1:20). It is this last issue that concerns us in relation to Promise Keepers.
Promise Keepers wants us to ignore doctrinal differences, and unite with men of various beliefs. The fifth promise says, "A Promise Keeper is committed to reach beyond any racial and denominational barriers to demonstrate the power of biblical unity" (emphasis ours). Doctrinal disunity is ranked and equated with racism — a terrible and unbiblical accusation! The question is, "Are we to ignore any and every doctrinal difference for the sake of unity?" Let's look at what Scripture says:
We are to shun those who teach heresy (II Tim. 3:1-9).
We are to avoid the teaching of those who twist the Scriptures with worthless "chatter" (nonsense teachings) (I Tim. 6:20; II Tim. 2:16-18).
e are to rebuke and silence those who contradict sound doctrine (Titus 1:9-14).
We are to turn away from those who cause problems which result from not following scriptural teachings (Rom. 16:17,18).
We are to have nothing to do with worldly fables that contradict sound doctrine (I Tim. 4:6,7).
We are not to receive (fellowship with, support) anyone who rejects the essential biblical teachings (II John 9-11).
We are to strongly oppose any who preach an unbiblical gospel (Gal. 1:8,9).
All true biblical unity is wrapped around biblical truth (John 17:17).
Remember, the most unified religious movement of all times will be the united worship of the world at the feet of the Antichrist (Rev.13:11-18).
(Also See Men Who Run The World)
"Unity at the expense of God's Word is not true unity; unity at the expense of God's character is not holy unity. Unity at any level that pleases God and advances His kingdom will not be at the expense of His Word or character. The oneness Jesus prayed for in John 17 will not compromise truth and righteousness" (Richard Mayhue,Voice, March/April 1993, p9).
"Underneath the hoop, holler and hype of the Promise Keepers' movement is an ecumenicalism that smacks of the last days spoken of in Scripture, rather than what some have called the 'greatest movement of God since Pentecost'" (Psychoheresy Awareness Letter, Sept/Oct. 1995, p2).
Promise Keepers' Ecumenical Agenda
While we will affirm that disagreement over some doctrinal issues should not be a cause for the breaking of fellowship (e.g. modes of baptism, church polity, many eschatological issues), nevertheless we do have three major concerns with Promise Keepers' ecumenical view:
First of all, are there not some "essential" doctrines that are being left out? Are the doctrines related to the Trinity and the nature of God, the deity and ministry of the Holy Spirit, the two natures of Christ, eternal destiny of mankind, the sinful nature of mankind, the believer's relationship to the Law, the origin of the universe, eternal security, sanctification, the church, and the priesthood of the believer, unimportant? Can they be disregarded as nonessential for the believer attempting to walk with God today?
Second, even with the doctrines that Promise Keepers declares non-negotiable, there seems to be problems. How is it possible that liberals, fundamentalists, evangelicals, Pentecostals, Charismatics, Mormons, and Roman Catholics, all seem comfortable with Promise Keepers and its supposed doctrinal base?
Mormons do not believe in the deity of Christ; Catholics do not believe in justification by faith alone; Pentecostal/charismatics play loose with the Scriptures; and liberals don't accept any of Promise Keepers' essentials. Yet, they all are attending Promise Keepers' conferences and some have even moved into leadership positions.
It is one thing to write a doctrinal statement, it is quite another to adhere to it. Many liberal denominations (e.g. many liberal Presbyterians) have rather good doctrinal creeds, but have abandoned them in practice. This appears to be the road down which Promise Keepers is headed.
In addition, we would suggest that Promise Keepers takes a weak stand, even with the doctrines mentioned as "essential." For example, they espouse the inspiration of Scripture, but do they believe in the inerrancy, the infallibility, the authority, or the sufficiency of Scripture? Most cults will claim to believe in the inspiration of Scripture, but will add their own writings or twists to it. Promise Keepers leaves their statements open to fit the interpretation of almost anyone.
The third concern, which is at least as important as our first two, is that the whole thrust of Promise Keepers is anti-doctrine (at least this is their rhetoric). Theology is of very little significance to Promise Keepers, instead it is a "relationship with Jesus" that matters. Life, not doctrine is paramount, but there is no spiritual life without truth, and there is no relationship with Christ unless it is grounded in the Word. Christ and His truth cannot be separated!
Promise Keepers is on a mission to minimize the importance of biblical truth in the lives of God's people. Why? Because doctrine is divisive.
The two theme songs at the 1996 Clergy Conference were, "Let the Walls Come Down," and "Yes, We All Agree." Pastors and laymen are being sent home from every stadium conference with the message that truth divides. Therefore, we must minimize truth and major on Christ and unity. This strategy is disastrous. It will lead to the same place that all other such movements have lead — to an insipid liberalism that clings to a slogan but has lost the person and power of Christ.
By the way, with all of Promise Keepers down playing of doctrine, it is ironic that they very clearly have a doctrinal base. Every organization teaches something, and we will see what Promise Keepers teaches in future studies.
Trying to untangle what Promise Keepers says and what it does is confusing. "On the one hand, Promise Keepers has affirmed the fundamentals of the faith, but on the other hand, they have stated that we must overcome denominational barriers — barriers which were created by a denial of these fundamentals" (Beyond Promises, p239).
Just why do denominational barriers exist anyway? Mostly for doctrinal reasons. David W. Cloud says it well, "Why, for example, is an Episcopal church different than an Independent Baptist church, generally speaking? Different doctrine. One teaches baptismal regeneration; the other teaches baptism is symbolic only. One baptizes infants; the other practices believer's baptism. . . One has a priesthood; the other has pastors and deacons. . . .One interprets prophecy literally and is looking for the imminent return of Jesus Christ; the other interprets prophecy symbolically and is working to establish the kingdom of God on earth. One allows its leaders and members to hold every sort of heresy and immorality; the other practices discipline and separation" (The Christian News, Dec. 30, 1996, p9).
Is it wise or profitable to break down such barriers? A Promise Keeper promises to reach beyond any denominational barrier, and sings songs about breaking down the walls. He may even meet with a small group, on the local level, of denominationally diverse men — promising not to discuss doctrine (which divides).
Any who would challenge such unbiblical activity are usually branded as divisive, of course, but just who truly is divisive, "Those who teach false doctrine as gospel truth or those who correct false gospel with gospel truth" (Beyond Promises, p241)? Besides desiring to break down denominational barriers, how directly involved with ecumenical compromise is the Promise Keepers movement? Note some examples:
MORMONS: The L.A. Times (5/5/96) claims that, "The Promise Keepers promises have attracted interest from Catholics and Mormons as well in the Los Angeles area." A Mormon leader, Chip Rawlings, said that because of Promise Keepers' interdenominational approach, "Fellow Mormon leaders of the Palos Verders Stake, or group of congregations, are urging members of the Latter-Day Saints to participate in the movement." He claimed that the Promise Keepers', "Seven promises are like the men's priesthood manual for the church."
In all fairness to Promise Keepers, they officially renounce the teachings of the Mormon church (see New Man, Vol. 3 #7, Oct. 1996, pp40ff). Yet, inexplicably, Mormon men are feeling comfortable at Promise Keepers' rallies. Why? Could it be that nothing is being said that offends their beliefs?
ROMAN CATHOLICS: Promise Keepers has made a practicing Roman Catholic (Steve Jenkins) a field ministry representative for Minnesota, North Dakota, Iowa and Wisconsin. In July of 1995, a Promise Keepers' men's ministry leadership seminar was held in Steubenville, Ohio at Catholic Franciscan University. Six hundred and forty Catholic men attended this, and the conference was closed with a Catholic Mass.
Richard Gregory, National Executive Director of the IFCA, in the May/June 1996 issue of Voice (p8,9) stated that he was informed by Promise Keepers leadership that Roman Catholic priests were being considered as speakers in upcoming Promise Keepers Meetings. However, such priests would have to sign the statement of core beliefs. Gregory then asked (in a subsequent letter) how a Roman Catholic priest could break his ordination vow - part of which pronounces an anathema on those who teach salvation by faith alone (sola fide) — and still be considered a promise keeper? This is a good question, which has apparently received no clear answer.
Promise Keepers places strong emphasis on returning men to their own churches — even if they are Roman Catholic or Mormon!
Jack Hayford, in Seven Promises of a Promise Keeper says, "Whether your tradition celebrates it as Communion, Eucharist, the Mass, or the Lord's Supper, we are all called to this centerpiece of Christian worship" (p19).
This is a good example of how Promise Keepers ignores or "breaks down barriers" between denominations. There is indeed a great difference between celebrating the Lord's Supper and celebrating the Mass. The Lord's Supper is a memorial dedicated to remembering the death, resurrection and coming again of our Savior, and has nothing to do with our salvation. The Mass is the repeated sacrifice of Christ for our sins — this is a "sacrament," and is thus deemed necessary for our salvation. The Lord's Supper and the Mass are not the same thing and the barrier between them (and all they stand for) cannot to be discarded by the true believer.
Ages ago, the Church Father, Irenaeus warned, "Error, indeed, is never set forth in its naked deformity, lest, being thus exposed, it should at once be detected. But it is craftily decked out in an attractive dress, so as, by its outward form, to make it appear to the inexperienced (ridiculous as the expression may seem) more true than the truth itself" (The Master's Seminary Journal, Vol.7#1, p49).
As someone has noted, "You can have a limited fellowship, or you will have a limited message." However, you can only have one. The Scriptures would condone unity, but only unity based on truth — any other unity is counterfeit.
Also See Holding Hands With The Pope
Promise Keepers (an update) - Part 3
Progressive Sanctification
In our first paper on the Promise Keepers' movement, we examined the areas in which we believe that Promise Keepers are doing a good job. Then, in our last paper, we began to point out some areas of concern, the first of which is Promise Keepers' ecumenical nature.
The leaders of Promise Keepers either do not understand, or have purposely chosen to ignore the biblical doctrine of separation. As we have seen, the Scriptures clearly teach that the child of God is to note those who teach error, refute them, reject them, remove them, and stay away from them — depending on the circumstances.
We are not to cozy up to false teachers, yet Promise Keepers has chosen to disobey this crystalline teaching of the Word of God and invite those who believe in rank heresy to join them. There would be no complaint if it was the agenda of Promise Keepers to invite such people in order to evangelize them, or to correct their false doctrines with the truth of Scripture. Unfortunately, one of the marks of this movement is that you can be a Promise Keeper and keep your errant views. As a matter of fact, they have promised to accept you no matter what you believe (promise #5).In addition, many who should be admonished are instead being drawn into leadership positions.
One might argue, "At least men are growing in Christ. Testimonies flow of men who have gone to Promise Keepers' rallies and returned home as better husbands, fathers and Christians. How can we knock a ministry that has accomplished so much good — that is drawing thousands of men to a closer walk with God?" To this thought we must give a two-fold answer:
Pragmatism is never the criterion by which we discern right from wrong — only the Word of God occupies that position. For example, by the standard of pragmatism the Jehovah's Witnesses cult must be of God. It is one of the fastest growing" churches" in the world. It must be blest of God — right? No, none of us would agree because the Jehovah's Witnesses cannot stand the test of Scripture. Therefore, everything must be judged by the Bible, not by pragmatism.
Next, and this brings us to the heart of this paper, we have deep and genuine questions about the supposed Christian growth and maturity taking place in Promise Keepers' members. As we deal with this subject, let's do so by first taking a look at how Promise Keepers is attempting to develop maturity in its followers. Secondly, we will turn to the Scriptures for its teaching on the subject. While doing this, we will attempt to compare and contrast the two throughout the course of the paper.
How Does Promise Keepers Promote Growth?
Promise Keepers claims that its mission is," To promote spiritual revival in the homes, churches and communities of this nation. This will be accomplished by modeling, praying for, and instructing all men to grow in Christlike masculinity; enabling them to become 'promise keepers' to the Lord who loves them, to their wives who trust them, and their children who need them, and to the world which must be influenced by them"(Men of Action, Spring 1992).
While we would prefer a stronger emphasis upon living for the glory of God, and while we are concerned with the whole idea of making "promise keeping" our goal (as we will see in a moment), we appreciate Promise Keepers' desire to call and equip men to become Christlike. The issue is how Promise Keepers intends to accomplish its goals. What is its strategy, what is its methodology? This is the point at which we find much that is out of line with Scripture.
Promise Keepers teaches that we grow by:
Becoming Keepers of the seven promises —
Bill McCartney says: We start by committing our lives to Jesus Christ and becoming a new creation (II Cor. 5:17).Then we make the kinds of commitments to growth embodied in the seven promises covered in this book(Seven Promises of a Promise Keeper pp 206, 207).
Randy Phillip writes:
These promises] are meant to guide us toward the life of Christ and to transform us within so that we might see transformation in our homes, among our friends, in our churches, and, ultimately in our nation (Ibid p9) (emphasis ours).
This may very well be the most overlooked fly in the Promise Keepers' ointment. Of all the promises and instructions in the Word of God, why are these seven chosen? Is there any Scripture that lines up these seven promises as the means of sanctification? Are we not to adhere to all of the biblical teachings as we march toward maturity, rather than just these few?
Even more basic than all of the above questions is the fact that Promise Keepers' primary method of growth (the keeping of promises) is legalism, pure and simple. Legalism is the teaching that the keeping of certain rules and laws will transform lives. Scripture is clear that this is not true.
The book, Beyond Promises says it well:
By so teaching, Promise Keepers has claimed something for the seven promises not even the ten commandments can do. Not even the 'holy and righteous and good' moral law of God as summarized by the ten commandments can transform our lives (Rom. 7:12).Among other things, the moral law was given by God to convict us of our inability to keep it perfectly, in order to drive us to Christ as the only One who ever kept it perfectly for us (Rom. 7:7; Gal. 3:23-25).And even after driving us to Christ, the moral law of God does not transform us in our Christian life. It does not and cannot make us righteous. It only provides a pattern of righteousness for us (I John 3:4). . . . The moral law is that standard. But never does the law transform us. . . . If the ten commandments cannot transform us, how can the seven promises? Paul teaches that what the law was powerless to do, God did by sending us His Son (Rom. 8:3). . . . We do not begin in the Spirit and end in the flesh (Gal. 3:1-3)(pp39-41).
It should not be forgotten that unregenerate Paul, Nicodemus, the rich young ruler and others, were promise keepers. They, however, did not know God, nor were their lives changed by keeping promises. The power of God is what transformed them (II Cor. 5:17).This is the transformation which gives us the desire to obey God, but obeying laws or keeping promises cannot transform us.
While we are dealing with the promises themselves, we should point out another problem. In order to be a promise keeper we must eliminate the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5-7).In that sermon Jesus discussed the teachings of some of the great promise keepers of His time — the Pharisees. By reducing the commandments of God down to external rules, they were able to keep those rules to such an extent that they were self-righteous. Yet, when Jesus moved beyond the external and challenged their hearts, the Pharisees realized that they could not keep God's Law. What man has ever promised to never lust — and has perfectly kept that promise???
We Grow As A Result Of Attending Enthusiastic Pep Rallies —
This concept is never stated in so many words (as far as we know), but it is the obvious view of the leadership of Promise Keepers. Bill McCartney, the founder of Promise Keepers, is not a theologian, nor a pastor, he is not even a Bible student. His religious background consists of Roman Catholicism and the Vineyard church.
McCartney has spent a good part of his life coaching football, and he was a good coach, as he proved by leading the University of Colorado to a National championship. McCartney definitely knows how to ignite athletes through the use of hype, pep rallies and motivational speeches.That he has carried over the same methodology to Promise Keepers is evident everywhere one looks — from the football stadiums in which the conferences are held, to the cheers for Jesus, "the wave," the enthusiastically empty motivational speeches; to the vendors selling Promise Keepers' T-shirts and ball caps, everything smacks of football!
One individual gave this description of a Promise Keepers' conference:
Balloons, gliders and beach balls are batted around. Blaring rock music pounds to increase the hype. Entire sections of the stadiums stand to challenge the other sides with chants of, 'We love Jesus, yes we do! We love Jesus, how about you?' They do the wave and commit themselves to God, family and racial reconciliation.
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution (6/27/95; pB10) said:
Promise Keepers combines the Jesus saves preaching of Billy Graham with the male bonding message of Robert Bly, the call for racial conciliation of Martin Luther King, Jr. and the marital advice of Ann Landers. . . . it (the 6/95 Promise Keepers' rally in the Houston astrodome) had men roaring and applauding Jesus as if he had just scored a touchdown (reported in BDM journal).
This is undoubtedly great fun. There is no dispute that emotions are running high and that men are enthused about something, and that something they believe to be God. We question however, whether the methods that create great athletes and enthusiastic football crowds, can be carried over to making great Christians? More importantly, are such methods biblical — are they the methods that God prescribes in His Word?
The answer to both of the above questions is no. Entertainment, enthusiasm, hype, etc. are easily mistaken for worship and commitment to Christ. Too often a mood has been created, but true worship has not taken place. Also, as we will see later, God does not teach such methods of progressive sanctification." The whole history of revivalism is the history of one sweeping emotional sect movement after another. After the hype wears out, people go back to doing what they were doing before and very often, cynical about the whole thing"(Beyond Promises p214).
Small Group Sharing Without Doctrine —
The leadership of Promise Keepers is wise enough to understand that the enthusiasm generated at the stadium rallies must be reinforced if it is to last. In order to do that Promise Keepers has scores of mini-rallies (Wake Up Calls) throughout the country every year.
In addition, they encourage all Promise Keepers to join a local small Promise Keepers' study group, composed of racial and denominationally diverse men. At the Bible studies, men are to share their lives, hold one another accountable, study Promise Keepers' materials and help one another grow in Christ.
Although all of this sounds good, there is a problem. In order to maintain denominational diversity, it is necessary that doctrine (i.e. biblical truth) be eliminated from study and discussion.
Gil Rugh, Pastor of Indian Hills Community Church in Lincoln, Nebraska states:
There is so much theological diversity among those involved with Promise Keepers that no in-depth discussion of Scripture or what it means to be a Christian could take place without tearing the movement apart.
He is right. When unity becomes more important than truth, truth will be minimized and eliminated.
Of course, it is not true that Promise Keepers does not teach doctrine — such is an impossibility. Even Promise Keepers' emphasis on avoiding doctrine is a doctrine. They are teaching that truth is unimportant and can be discarded without harm to the Christian life.
The great theologian B. B. Warfield said:
We deceive ourselves if we fancy that because we scout the doctrines of the creeds and assume an attitude of studied indifference to the chief tenets of Christianity we escape teaching a system of belief. Even the extremist doctrinal indifferences, when it ascends the pulpit, becomes necessarily a scheme of faith(The Master's Seminary Journal Vol.7#2; p248).
And again:
It cannot be a matter of indifference, therefore, what doctrines we preach or whether we preach any doctrines at all. We cannot preach at all without preaching doctrine; and the type of religious life which grows up under our preaching will be determined by the nature of the doctrines which we preach (Ibid p247,8).
Wise words!!! So, the question now is not whether Promise Keepers teaches a doctrine of Christian growth, but whether that doctrine agrees with Scripture.
A writer for The Christian News (9/16/96, p9), in a rather comical (and yes, sarcastic) way, points out the error of Promise Keepers when he writes:
My purpose here is not to debate the issues of the Reformation again but to say that agreement at Promise Keepers can only be based upon Mad Magazine theology as put forth by Dr. Alfred E. Newman:' What, me worry?' Why worry if some say works are required for eternal salvation and others say you can only be saved by grace through faith? Let's all buy a sweat shirt with a really nifty slogan on it. Why worry if some believe Jesus Christ is God in the flesh or if the flesh of man becomes a god or if a wafer becomes the flesh of God to allow a man to be godly? Let's all buy a book that talks about Jesus' sexuality, and phallic spirituality (The Masculine Journey). Why worry if some baptize babies and teach that act makes the child a Christian while others say baptism is only for adult believers to make them a Christian and some teach that baptism does not make anyone a Christian? Let's all sing praise songs and hold hands. Doctrine, schmoctine. Somebody order pizza!
Scriptural Teaching Concerning Sanctification
What do the Scriptures teach on this important subject? It's message can be summarized as follows:
We are not called to be promise keepers in order to be saved.
The gospel message is that Christ died as our substitute because we are unable to be promise keepers (Rom. 8:3,4).It is Christ, not ourselves, who has satisfied the righteous demands of the Law. We are not called to keep the Law (be promise keepers) in order to be saved. Rather, we are called to turn from our sins and place our faith in Christ.
We are not called to be promise keepers in order to grow in Christ.
So, how do we grow in Christ? II Peter 3:17,18 tells us, "You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, be on your guard lest, being carried away by the error of unprincipled men, you fall from your own steadfastness, but grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To Him be the glory, both now and to the day of eternity. Amen. "We must recognize the fact that we cannot make ourselves grow spiritually any more than we can physically. For example, the high school boy may desire to be seven feet tall, but he cannot will himself to grow!
The same is true spiritually, so what are we to do? Although we cannot make ourselves grow, we can observe certain conditions which promote growth and which are essential to it.
A good illustration might be in the area of one's health. We cannot make ourselves have good health, however, we can do certain things to promote good health. We can eat and rest and exercise properly. Also, we can follow good medical advice, etc.
What then are we to observe in order to grow in grace and knowledge? Starting with the negative, we might say that we are to avoid everything that is harmful to our growth (II Pet. 3:17).
The majority of Peter's second epistle is taken up with warnings concerning the errors of "unprincipled men."We do not need to rehearse these things now, but if we will not take Peter's warnings seriously, we will not grow. As we have seen, Promise Keepers ignores this fact.
Perhaps a person wants good health, so they determine to eat, exercise and rest properly; but they continue to smoke two packs of cigarettes per day and drink a quart of whiskey each night. Quite obviously all of their good efforts are being undermined by their bad ones.
On the same note, some believers will follow all of the disciplines of the Christian life. Yet, they will allow themselves to indulge in certain sins, or certain false teachings and then wonder why they do not grow as believers.
(Also See Saving Faith)
Now moving to the positive, it is tempting to simply highlight the standard disciplines of the Christian life: Bible study, prayer, witnessing, fellowship, worship, church attendance, etc. While each of these should be a vital part of our lives, we do not find any passage where the Bible specifically says, or even implies that most of these are the means of growth.
For example, the Bible never says that we will grow if we pray. Prayer is an important part of the Christian life, but we are never told that it is a means of growth. The same is true of worship, witnessing and fellowship. There is only one discipline that we are actually told specifically contributes to genuine growth in the life of the believer — that is the study and application of the Word of God(refer to Acts 20:32; Heb. 5:11-14;I Pet. 2:2)!
In our search for specific statements on growth, we could have also looked for statements concerning sanctification, since they sometimes mean the same thing. We discover John 17:17, which tells us that we are sanctified by the truth of the Word. It is the Word of God, studied and applied that is used by the Holy Spirit to produce growth. This can be personal study or corporate (Eph. 4:11-16).Either way, the Word teaches that growth is impossible without the study and application of Scripture.
So, w | 
Index To 
