Truth Magazine

By Allen S. Dvorak

Little David Willmann is dead. He died of bone cancer last year in Cincinnati, Ohio. Seven years is not a long time to live on this earth, but the real tragedy is that perhaps David Willmann did not have to die. Maybe if surgery had been performed when the doctors had recommended it, the cancer could have been stopped before it ravaged his youthful body and eventually took his life. But David Willmann’s parents, Douglas and Lori Willmann, would not allow surgery for religious reasons. His father was quoted as saying, “David was healed 2,000 years ago when Jesus Christ died on the cross. Christ provided us with eternal salvation. The blood he shed on the cross healed us from all sickness. The only way we can achieve that healing is to have faith and believe that it has happened.”(1)

Although David was made a ward of the court, the delay involved probably cost him his life. I am fairly confident that his parents were merely acting on the basis of their convictions, but their sincerity did not save the life of their small son. Was their faith simply inadequate? Could little David Willmarm really have been healed of cancer by the death of Jesus on the cross?

There are many people who believe and teach the “gospel of good health,” that the atonement of Christ can alleviate physical illness in this life. Is this true? Can we be free in this life from the suffering of physical illness by virtue of the atonement of Christ? To answer this question we must first examine the purpose of the atonement.

The concept of atonement is introduced and developed in the Old Testament. The shedding of blood (the taking of a life) was central to the idea of atonement. For this reason the Israelites were forbidden to eat blood; the life is in the blood and God gave the blood of animals to the Hebrews for the purpose of making atonement for their souls (Lev. 17:10-14). A contextual word study of “atonement” indicates further that blood was offered for the atonement of unclean persons or objects (Lev. 14:18-20, 48-53, 16:30-34; see also Lev. 12 and 15 and Exod. 29:36-37). When atonement had been made, the person or object was again considered “clean.” The Hebrew word most commonly translated “atonement” literally means “to cover. ” The idea seems to be that when blood was offered, the cause of the “uncleanness” (sin, leprosy, etc.) was “covered,” i.e., removed from God’s sight.

The doctrine of atonement reached its clearest expression under the Old Law in the events of the Day of Atonement. Upon that day, the high priest took blood for his household and the rest of the people into the holy of holies to make atonement for sin, to cleanse them from their spiritual “uncleanness” (Lev. 16:30). The writer of Hebrews reveals that this ritual was a type of the sacrifice offered by Christ (Heb. 9). Jesus made atonement for our “uncleanness” when He shed His blood and then, as our High Priest, presented His blood before the Father. The atonement of Christ was offered because man was estranged from God. The cause of that estrangement was sin and it is amply clear that the blood of Christ was shed for the forgiveness of sin (Eph. 1:7; Heb. 9:26-28). When His blood “covers” our sins we can again enjoy the fellowship with God that had been interrupted by sin (Rom. 5:1, 9-10). Because of the atonement of Christ, man can be reconciled to God.

Physically Healed By The Atonement?

Some “faith healers” suggest that we can be physically healed by miraculous means on the basis of the atonement. Isaiah 53:4-5 is given as evidence that our illnesses were “healed” in prospect on the cross. All we must do now, we are told, is “stand on the atonement,” i.e., claim that healing as a benefit of the atonement.(2) Isaiah 53:4-5 reads as follows:

(4) “Surely He has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; Yet we esteemed Him stricken, smitten by God and afflicted. (5) But He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement for our peace was upon Him, and by His stripes we are healed.”

The first half of verse 4 is quoted in Matthew 8:17 with obvious reference to physical healing that Jesus did on that occasion. It is thus argued that since Isaiah 53 discusses the atonement, physical healing is available. Two observations should be made in reply to this assertion. First, the section of Isaiah 53 which Matthew quoted does not have to do with the atonement. It is certainly true that verse 5 has reference to the atonement, but that is not what Matthew quoted – he affirmed that the healing by Jesus was the fulfillment of verse 4a – not of verse 5. Not all of Isaiah 53 has direct reference to the atonement; we must remember that the atonement was made when Christ shed His blood and offered it before the Father. Secondly, the healing recorded in Matthew 8 was done before the atonement was offered and thus could not have been as a result of or on the basis of the atonement!(3)

Some would point triumphantly to the concluding phrase in Isaiah 53:5 (“by His stripes we are healed”) as evidence that physical healing was contemplated in the atonement. However, the apostle Peter alludes to this very expression with clear reference to the forgiveness of sins rather that physical healing (1 Pet. 2:24). Our conclusion is further sustained by Arndt and Gingrich who suggest that the word translated “healed” in that passage (1 Peter 2:24) can be used in the figurative sense of deliverance from sin .(4)

Physical Illness And Sin

It seems clear that the atonement was offered to “cover” sins and not for physical illness. It is not physical illness which causes man to be separated from God – it is sin (Isa. 59:1-2). On the other hand, could it be that physical illness is caused by personal sin and thus the atonement would afford physical healing by removing the sin which caused the sickness in the first place? While we sometimes suffer physically because of our own sins, the Scriptures do not teach that all physical illness or suffering is the result of or punishment for personal sin. The most obvious example of innocent suffering is that of Job. It is plain that the physical illness of Job was not caused by any sin on his part (Job 2:7; 1:1,8,22). When the disciples of Jesus saw the blind man of John 9, they asked Jesus who had sinned so that the man was born blind. Jesus replied that the man’s disability was not punishment for anyone’s sin (John 9:1-3).

The Scriptures also reveal that New Testament saints, those who enjoyed the benefits of the atonement, were sometimes physically ill. Timothy was frequently sick (1 Tim. 5:23). Paul left Trophimus sick at Miletus (2 Tim. 4:20). Epaphroditus, who was commended highly by Paul, was sick “almost unto death” (Phil. 2:25-30). If the atonement provided for relief from physical illness, why did these saints become ill? In fact, why would any person who has obeyed the gospel and is thus entitled to the benefits of the blood of Christ ever become sick if the atonement provided for healing? Since the atonement was offered on behalf of those who were estranged from God, it can be concluded that if the atonement is for physical healing, then those who are physically sick are separated from God. The Scriptures teach no such thing!

The Danger Of The Doctrine

The tragedy of the “gospel of good health” is that it creates false hope. It targets those who, because of their sickness, are often poorly equipped emotionally to resist its welcome appeal even in light of obvious failures. The desire to be well is so strong that men and women will grasp at the opportunity to be healed miraculously, particularly if medical science can do little or nothing for them. When the promised benefits do not materialize, despair or even anger against God can follow. Little David Willmann died.

Even more importantly, the “gospel of good health” places undue emphasis on physical health. It focuses the attention of men on the physical rather than on the spiritual. It is certainly desirable to be physically healthy, but the most important need for man is to be spiritually healthy. Jesus shed his precious blood for the lofty purpose of providing forgiveness of sins, thus promoting man’s spiritual health. Praise God – by his stripes I am healed!

Endnotes

1. Cincinnati Enquirer, no date available.

2. Oral Roberts, If You Need Healing – Do Thesee Things! (Tulsa: Standard Publishing Co., 1947), pp. 45-46. Quoted by David Edwin Harrell, Jr., Oral Roberts. An American Life (Bloomington, In.: Indiana University Press, 1985), p. 450.

3. Waymond D. Miller, Modern Divine Healing (Fort Worth: Miller Publishing Co., 1956), pp. 58-61.

4. William F. Arndt and F. Widbur Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1979), p. 368.

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 12, pp. 368-369, 390
June 18, 1987

By Edward O. Bragwell, Jr.

As a preacher of the gospel, I have always tried to avoid references to political issues in my preaching. In most cases I think that preachers should avoid trying to make political statements. After all, our main concern is to be for the spiritual welfare of others rather than being too concerned with the social, economic, or political affairs of the world. I am a strong believer in this. I also try to avoid too much involvement in these areas in my writing. But I think that something has occurred which merits comment, because it does in a way strike at our spiritual well-being. So please bear with me.

An interesting thing has happened here in the state of Alabama, the ramifications of which affect the whole country. A federal judge in Mobile has handed down what I think to be a very needed ruling. U.S. District Judge William Brevard Hand handed down a ruling on March 4, the results of which was that “36 schoolbooks must be removed from Alabama public schools because they advance the religion of secular humanism’ in violation of the U.S. Constitution” (The Anniston Star, March 5, 1987, p. 1A). This was the lead story in almost every newspaper in the state and on almost every local TV and radio newscast. Most of the national news outlets also quickly picked up on the story and it is easy to see why. This was a major blow to the humanists who want free access to the schools to preach their religion while they continue their fight to subvert other values being taught to our children. Of course the ACLU and other groups such as the American Way have already vowed to appeal this ruling.

This ruling and the publicity that surrounds it ought to cause Christians to come to some very strong realizations. I think that there are three basic realizations that we must come to:

1. The realization that secular humanism is a religion. One of the significant things about this ruling is that here we have a federal judge saying what many of have said all along. Secular humanism is a religion. Of course, humanists deny this. In response to the judge’s ruling Delos McKown, a humanist counselor at Auburn University and a member of the American Humanist Association board is quoted as saying, “No matter what he (Hand) says, no matter how he traces it back secular humanism is not a religion because it has nothing sacred in it” (The Anniston Star, March 5, 1987, p. 10A). What we need to realize, however, is that humanism does have something “sacred in it.” It makes man sacred and elevates humankind as the thing to be worshiped. Just as Satanism promotes Satan as its god and as idolatry promotes idols as its gods, humanism promotes man and humankind as its god. In humanism man glorifies himself and worships himself. Get a copy of the Humanist Manifesto (the humanist’s creed book) and read it and see if that’s not true. Humanism, therefore, must be dealt with as any other false religion. We must teach and exhort against its evils.

2. The realization that humanism has invaded our schools. This ruling would have never been handed down and there would not be so much publicity surrounding if this were not true. The decision was a result of a lawsuit filed by a group of 600 parents and teachers who had come to a realization of this fact. They had seen the humanist doctrines taught in some of the textbooks that were used in the state of Alabama and asked that these books be removed from the schools. Let me quote something from one of the home economics textbooks that was banned as a result of this ruling. “To strict a conscience may make you afraid to try new ventures and meet new people. It may make you feel different and unpopular. None of these thins belongs to a healthy personality” (Today’s Teen by Joan Kelly, Bennett & McKnight Publishing Co., 1981). Are you alarmed by such being in the textbooks that our children our using? I know I am. One who denies that humanism is in our schools is being naive. Take a good look at your children’s textbooks sometime. Ignoring humanism will not make it go away.

3. The realization that we must fight for our children’s minds. Humanists are making an assault on our children’s thinking throughout public schools. They freely admit this. Just read some of their writing sometime where they reveal their plans. It is well documented. What then are we to do? I think we must do what Christians have always done and what Christians are commanded to do. We need to make sure that we bring up our children “in the training and admonition of the Lord” (Eph. 6:4). Parents have always had to fight for the minds of their children. Humanism is not the first thing that Satan has used to try to draw away our young people, just the latest. We must not sit around wringing our hands and lamenting, “What are we going to do to protect our children from these humanist educators?” We must do what Christian parents have always done to protect their children from Satan’s devices. We must teach them the Lord’s way, the words which the Lord commands. “You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, when you walk by the way, when you He down, and when you rise up” (Deut. 6:7). That is how we win the fight for our children’s minds.

Humanism has been in our schools for some time, although many are only now realizing it. The most influential force upon our American educational system is the ideas of John Dewey, an avowed humanist. It has been in the schools for years, although gaining a stronger hold in the past few years. I am a young man and remember that the humanist philosophies were present in my own education. Throughout grade school, humanistic ideas were promoted. Evolution was taught, and efforts were made to influence my values. The influence of humanism became even stronger as I went on to a state institution of higher learning and proceeded through both undergraduate and post-graduate study. I encountered the philosophies that we so readily associate with the false religion of humanism. As far as I can tell, I have not been greatly affected by humanism. I hope that I have not deceived myself in this assessment. I have been bombarded with the idea that man is here by chance, yet still firmly believe that God put us here on the earth for a purpose. I have been told that values are relative, yet still firmly believe that God has given us an absolute standard to live by. Why is this so? I believe that the great part of the credit for that lies at the feet of two godly people, my Mom and Dad. They taught us children that God’s way was the right way regardless of what anyone else might say. They warned us of the dangers and threats that there would be to our faith wherever that we might find ourselves in the world. We were made to realize that we must not be deceived by the blatant attempts by the people of the world to sway our thinking or by the subtle attempts on the part of those who claim to be brethren. So whether we were in the wide open arena of state controlled higher learning or in the sheltered confines of a “Christian” school, we had been taught not to believe everything we heard, but to rely upon God and His word as our standard. I realize that holding one’s own parents up as an example is risky, but I’ll take that chance, because I’m proud of what they have done for me.

So, what I am saying is, don’t leave the education of your children up to the world. Teach them the values at home that will help them withstand whatever outside threat they might encounter, even humanism. You can win the battle for your child’s mind if you are willing to put forth the effort.

We certainly praise the ruling of Judge Hand, but must not wait for a federal judge to tell us the dangers that lie in front of our young people. We must continue to teach them diligently the way of righteousness.

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 11, pp. 334-335
June 4, 1987

By Ron Halbrook

By the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, John teaches three vital lessons in 1 John 4:4-6.

Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.

They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them.

We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error.

Lesson One. Truth triumphs over error. God works in His people through the power of truth, just as Satan works in his people through sin and error. Satan’s power cannot withstand God’s. Lesson Two: False teachers appear to have great power because of worldly success. They are more popular than those who uphold the simple truths of the gospel, but this popularity is based on carnality. The taproot of all false doctrine is carnality in some form: “the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life” (2:16). We must not be deceived by the trappings of success associated with error – persuasive and entertaining speakers, large audiences, big bucks, expanding power, and related success symbols. Lesson Three. The only way to know the difference between truth and error is by the standard of God’s Word.

PMA In American Society and Religion

To further the ends of his kingdom, Satan has given media ministers a powerful tool – the positive mental attitude or PMA approach to religion. Religious historian Sydney Ahlstrom traces the steps in the development of a religion of health and harmony during the last 100 years. It is “a vast and highly diffuse religious impulse that cuts across all the normal lines of religious division” (A Religious History of the American People, p. 1020). Man is taught to look inward to find the solution to life’s problems, to find God, to find peace or health or wealth or whatever he seeks. Mind control is the key to all.

This rising impulse included the techniques of mind-cure in “The Science of Health” as represented by Christian Scientists, and parallel but broader concepts called “New Thought” emphasizing man’s infinite possibilities to attain all his needs by the power of constructive thought. Such notions found new variety in both secular and religious forms as “Positive Thinking” until they were unified and promoted in “The Phenomenon of Peale.” Norman Vincent Peale perfectly blended the secular interpretation of PMA by Dale Carnegie with a religious accent to highlight peace of mind for middle-class Americans who had health and money but suffered from materialism’s emptiness of spirit. Positive thinking had become a form of psychological therapy.

The PMA movement had so saturated American religion by 1960 that its prescriptions were “as common as aspirin” (Ahlstrom, p. 1031). A major study of the American pulpit entitled Ministry in America (Harper & Row, 1980) confirms what any alert observer can see: strong Biblepreaching and otherworldly concerns have taken a backseat to pop psychology, salesmanship jargon, “interpersonal relationships and group dynamics” (Time Mag., 29 Sept. 1980, p. 85). Among modem-day variations of positive thinking promoted on TV, none is so well known as Robert Schuller’s “Possibility Thinking” – the good things of this life are available on an unlimited basis to all who truly believe they can have them. Both material prosperity and psychological fulfillment can be found by faith in faith, faith in one’s own possibilities, faith in oneself! The answer lies within.

The positive thinking and the charismatic or neo-pentecostal movements share much in common. Each has focused on healing and health, then expanded to include other this-worldly concerns such as wealth. Each causes man to look within himself to find God or a divine potential at work. Neopentecostal religion as represented by Oral Roberts attracts middle-class people seeking peace with God or some assurance of His presence in the midst of prosperity and plenty. In short, the PMA philosophy was an idea whose time had come. It is closely associated with a culture of plenty and and prosperity – it is an effort to sustain a sense of optimism and inner peace in a society aching with the emptiness and dissatisfaction of materialism. The PMA message comes in many versions and packages, but none meet man’s true needs. Its positive platitudes about prosperity and peace are false to the core and will leave man emptier still.

Robert Schuller and PMA

Robert Schuller’s “Hour of Power” and Oral Roberts’ “Expect a Miracle” are two of the most popular TV ministries which reflect the positive thinking movement. Schuller grabbed onto Peale’s coattails (both are members of the Dutch Reformed Church) and held on until the prophet’s mantel fell on him. His Garden Grove, California ministry began in 1955 and the $18 million Crystal Cathedral which opened in 1980 near Disneyland now claims some 10,000 members. Dennis Voskuil, a professor at Schuller’s ahna mater (Hope College in Holland, Michigan), surveys and analyzes the Schuller phenomenon in Mountains Into Goldmines. Central to Schuller’s “possibility thinking” or positive philosophy is the concept that man’s problems of sin, guilt, and failure are all rooted in poor self-esteem, too little love or self. We inherit this sinful nature and it is not wilfull rebellion. Therefore, all true gospel preaching affirms a positive self-image to prop up man’s insecure ego. Schuller’s theology of self-esteem is “the North Star of his entire system” (p. 139).

Schuller’s “Hour of Power” TV ministry began in 1970. Its format explained below is built around positive thinking (pp. 49-69). (1) Offer trinkets as incentives for people to write in and make a donation. “The minute we stop offering gifts, our revenues go down dramatically,” an advisor noted. (2) Always speak of health, happiness, and success. (3) Be as broad as possible, never narrow, in message and appeal. (4) Entertain to overcome the idea that church is boring and negative. Sermons must be short and make people “feel good” rather than guilty. Songs and sermons avoid reference to such “negative” things as penitence, confession, or the church. Positive preaching stresses the heart rather than the head, makes generous use of “personal experiences,” and abounds in “success stories.” Above all, it avoids controversial subjects such as adultery, the second coming of Christ, or even Christ himself (who can be mentioned “at the end of the message” as a matter of distrategy”).

In short, Schuller’s PMA approach “tells people exactly what they want to hear in the manner which pleases them most. He doesn’t insult people by telling them they are sinners” (p. 68). Schuller believes Jesus was the greatest possibility thinker of the ages – “positive and nonjudgmental. ” “Jesus never called any person a sinner!” Never would he preach, “You are sinners. Repent and be baptized” (p. 104).

Schuller spreads his concept of church growth through seminars, films, and books such as Your Church Has Real Possibilities. Voskuil summarizes the plan for growth (pp. 37-47). (1) There must be no “negativism” – we must dream of such great successes that nothing is impossible. (2) The leader is the preacher-pastor and he cannot leave leadership “in the hands of the lay people. ” (3) The whole ministry of the church must be geared to attract people. The end justifies the means. Affluent people do not want the emphasis on “biblical preaching” but prefer stress on immediate “human needs.” Voskuil further explains Schuller’s view that though unbelievers need “salvation from sin,” they are not interested in “biblical pronouncements” and a “God-talk” but are more attuned to the language of social scientists, psychologists, and psychiatrists (pp. 94-97). Says Schuller,

I don’t deliver Biblical expositions. I don’t jam the Bible down people’s throats. I believe in the Bible, but if people want Bible preaching, they can get it elsewhere (pp. 128-129).

(4) If the church is to grow, we must be non-controversial. Grant that sincere people may disagree on a wide range of issues. “The possibility preacher must therefore be a positive preacher – inoffensive, uplifting, and affirming,” Voskuil notes (p. 43). (5) The church needs a staff that can administer a wide array of social and community service programs in keeping with the above objectives. Programs for counseling, literacy, day-care, relief, senior citizens, single and divorced persons should be included.

Oral Roberts and PMA

As old-line holiness and pentecostal people began to taste the sweets of prosperity, in the middle 1950s and the 1960s, Oral Roberts “expanded his evangel . . . to include ‘God’s Formula for Success and Prosperity … (Donald Meyer, The Positive Thinkers, p. 256). In fact, as Roberts “increasingly associated health with a positive mental attitude and the belief that ‘God is a good God,”‘ he was perfectly in tune with the multiplied thousands of successful middle-class Americans all across the religious spectrum who suffered from a growing sense of anxiety and emptiness (David E. Harrell, Jr., All Things Are Possible, pp. 156, 148). Oral was ordained in the Pentecostal Holiness Church in 1935 and joined the Methodists in 1968, reflecting the broadening of his appeal from the dispossessed to the affluent. His healing campaigns began in 1947 and he has effectively used the media to build his empire. Tents, journals, books, radio, and TV have been utilized. He has been on TV since 1954, with a brief absence during part of 1967-69.

Aspects of the PMA approach are apparent in his constant claims of healing, divine revelations, and other miracles. His message has increasingly proclaimed immediate happiness, wealth, and success to his followers especially his contributors! The old-time message of salvation and healing are still intact, but he has expanded the idea of healing to embrace “the whole man” – body, soul, mind, finances, and every other aspect of life. God wants us to prosper in every way avers Oral, though he concedes some cases of sickness and failure to the mystery of God’s sovereignty (Harrell, Oral Roberts, pp. 461,455).

Since at least 1954 Roberts has promised that God will financially reward those who give to his ministry. This is called a “blessing-pact” or “seed-faith.” The seed-faith gospel blossomed as Oral’s main fund-raising appeal in the 1970s, fmancing the huge expansion of his ministry later in the decade. Oral says his September 1980 report of a 900-foot-tall Jesus and his January 1987 report that God would take his life by late March unless $8 million were collected offer projects for people’s seed-faith and so do not constitute crass fund raising (Harrell, Roberts, pp. 418, 460-63). Was Simon the sorcerer or Satan himself ever shrewder than that?!

Speaking as a TV writer and producer for Roberts during 1975-78, Jerry Sholes notes that Oral’s sermons play upon “the desires we all have to succeed, get ahead financially, and live healthy lives,” rather than stressing traditional Bible themes such as sin and guilt (Shoals, Give Me That Prime-Time Religion, p. 47). Oral himself says, “I don’t believe in the judgmental gospel that Billy [Graham] preaches,” “I can’t go around preaching against alcohol all the time. I preach Christ,” and, “I’m determined that I’m going to preach a positive gospel” without fighting the errors of Mormons, Baptists, Catholics, or the World Council of Churches. The ecumenical “inclusiveness” of Methodism was his main reason for joining it (Harrell, Roberts, pp. 442-46). He endlessly dispenses the elixir of a “positive and joyous mental attitude” as God’s power for man’s wholeness (p. 452). His sermons are light on Scripture but heavy on personal experiences, anecdotes, illustrations, and stories holding out the promise of healing and happiness to the whole man.

Roberts’ brand of PMA religion is reinforced in other ways. Typical prayers at the end of his programs say,

. . . and I pray that as I stretch forth these hands which I’ve given to God, that a miracle in your finances, in your health, in your marriage, and in your relationship with people will begin to happen now, this very day, at this very moment. Amen and amen (Shoals, p. 57).

He accents blessings here and now rather than suffering, service, and sacrifice followed by blessings in eternity. His slogans exude “Possibility” and “positive thinking” by “appealing to people’s universal desires to improve their station in life” (Shoals, pp. 58-59). “Miracles from Heaven in ’77,” “God won’t be late in ’78,” “Miracles will be mine in ’79,” “Our God is a Good God,” and best of all, “Something Good is Going to Happen to You.” That last one, a Roberts’ trademark, is a public relations man’s dream, no matter what the product, message, or medium. It perfectly captures the yearning of people in our culture to “feel good about yourself.”

Objections to the PMA Gospel

PMA error is rooted in carnality and the elements of this world (1 Jn. 4:5).

1. Carnality as religion. The PMA gospel sanctifies covetousness, glorifies selfishness, and makes religion a way of gain (I Tim. 6:5). It is an idea whose time has come in an age when men are “lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, . . . lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof” (2 Tim. 3:1-5). Success is wrongly defined as wealth, health, power, prestige, status, and happiness in the sense of prosperity and pleasure. True success means serving God without regard to such symbols and not one of them is included in Jesus’ description of the man truly blessed (Eccl. 12:13; Matt. 5:1-12).

2. Carnality as worship. Worship services are remade to appeal to the carnal mind. Rather than deep devotion arising from the inner man and finding expression in ways ordained by God, the carnal appetite for entertainment is gratified in the name of worship (Eccl. 5:1-7). Testimonials of “success,” celebrity appearances, musical extravaganzas, theatrics, dancing, and every possible enticement to the eye and ear are offered. “The people sat down to eat and to drink, and rose up to play” (Ex. 32:6). The mood is not one of humble devotion, penitence, and thanksgiving. A circus, carnival, or party atmosphere is created. The scene is punctuated with clapping and laughing. People go to church to “have a good time.” Such “worship” pleases and satisfies man, but does not please and glorify God (Gal. 1:10). The god of navel gazers is their own belly (Phil. 3:19; Rom. 16:18).

3. Carnality as preaching. PMA preaching is more concerned with what man wants to hear than with what God wants him to hear. So-called “felt needs” are not always true needs as defined by God. “After their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears” (2 Tim. 4:3). The vague generalities and inspirational vaporings of pop psychology may meet man’s “felt need” to “feel good about himself,” but such teaching does nothing to address his real need to be convicted of sin, righteousness, and judgment to come (Jn. 16:7-11). True gospel preaching exposes sin, pricks the heart, and causes people to tremble, while pointing to Christ as our only hope for eternal salvation (Jn. 4:16-18; Acts 2:36-38; 24:25). When sinners are made to feel “accepted” and “comfortable” in their sins, they may fill church houses and media ministers’ coffers, but they will not be converted to Christ.

Voskaills Views

Though Voskuil is sympathetic to Schuller, he admits that “positive thinking” has many weaknesses (Mountains Into Goldmines, pp. 139-60). With slight modification, the same criticisms apply to Oral Roberts’ promises of endless miracles, healing for the whole man, and seed-faith. (1) The gospel of success centers man upon self rather than upon God. True success is not measured by this-worldly terms such as fame, wealth, or physical comfort but by doing God’s will. (2) The gospel becomes a vehicle for self-love rather than for giving of oneself to serve God and our fellow man. (3) Possibility thinking says sin is rooted in man having too little self-love and self-esteem, when actually the root is too much! Man’s problem is not a lack of ego but the constant tendency to glorify or deify himself (Rom. 1:23).

(4) Presenting psychology as religion distorts the gospel because psychology views man as absolute and autonomous, not in his relation to God. Psychological tradition and its terminology obscure and deny many biblical principles. It replaces Bible concepts such as duty, sin, and judgment with more fashionable “felt need” notions such as “fear, frustration, and anxiety.” (5) PMA is made a panacea for all life’s problems, but it is fatally flawed. It is not grounded in teaching on man’s limitations and finiteness before an infinite God. One symptom of this error is its evasion of the enigmas and negative realities of fife. (7) Fascination with the PMA, possibility thinking, and felt needs approach is cultural captivity – subjection to a worldly mind set. It lets the world rather than the Word set the agenda for the church and for gospel preaching.

“Pence, Pence” vs. “The Old Paths”

Prophets sent from God were not PMA men. They were persecuted and castigated, not prosperous and comfortable. they were, both positive and negative, preaching a message which would both pull down and destroy, build and plant (Jer. 1:10). When the culture was saturated with materialism and covetousness, and people cried for someone to meet their “felt needs” with a positive message of “peace, peace, Jeremiah instead addressed their real needs:

Thus saith the Lord, Stand ye in the ways and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein (6:16).

Such preaching was out of season and such prophets out of date. How boring, what a “burden” to listen to them. More popular men arose to proclaim, “Ye shall have peace,” but God said they spoke from their own imagination, stole the truth from people’s hearts, and “perverted the words of the living God.” “Is not my word as a fire? saith the Lord; and like a hammer that breaketh the rock in pieces” (23:16-40). Those who “seduced my people, saying, Peace,” built an attractive wall with a positive image, but God promised to expose its defective workmanship and materials by tearing it down (Ezek. 13:10-16). The beautiful walls built by Schuller, Roberts, and other PMA preachers serve the Devil’s purpose by soothing the troubled conscience of sinners, but God will raze these gleaming walls to the ground (Matt. 15:13).

Jesus Christ did not promise endless miracles ofpleasure, profit, power, and prestige for the whole man. As to the seed-faith theory, Jesus invested his fife by serving others, suffering at the hands of others, and sacrificing himself for others (Matt. 20:20-28). Our Lord was born into a carpenter’s family, laid in a manager, conducted his work in borrowed houses because he had none of his own, and died on a cross, leaving no earthly inheritance for his loved ones.

Jesus was not oriented toward rewards in this life nor did he teach such crass materialism. This world rewarded him with hate and he promised his disciples no better fare (Jn. 15:18-21). The blessings of the Beatitudes are spiritual, not carnal, and are promised to those who empty themselves of self to please God, not to those who abound in self-love (Matt. 5:1-12). Jesus warned that torment in the next world awaits people whose hearts are set on the material things and comforts of this world (Lk. 12:13-2 1; 16:19-3 1). In fact, Jesus redefined success, showing that the rich ruler forfeited heaven for earthly treasures while followers of Christ forfeit earthly gain in serving God to “inherit everlasting life. But many that are first shall be last; and the last shall be first” (Matt. 19:16-30).

The Master Teacher cared nothing for the methods of positive thinkers but balanced the beautiful promises of heaven with severe and repeated warnings of hell (Matt. 5:10-12,22,28-29; 6:20; 25:34,41,46). No one ever confronted sin or debated the merits of truth and demerits of error more directly than the Son of God (Jn. 8). Rather than flocking to sit on a platform of unity-in-diversity with Jesus, false teachers were offended by his condemnation of error. Even the disciples of Christ advised him to break out of such growth-restricting negativism and to project a more positive image, to no avail (Matt. 15:1-20). He never expected to draw great masses and majorities, but said, “Few there be that find it” (7:13-14). The Holy Spirit came to reveal the truth in fulness in order to perpetuate the message and the method of the Master (Jn. 1:7-13). We cannot improve upon it today!

Is “positive preaching” more powerful or motivational than negative? God’s Word to Adam was both positive and negative, as was his Law to Israel (Gen. 2:16-17; Ex. 20). The Psalms of worship reflect the same rich balance, as can be seen in Psalms I and 2. The spirit of praise for God and of hatred for error are one and the same. “Let the high praises of God be in their mouth, and a two-edged sword in their hand” (Psa. 149:6; cf. 119:103-104, 127-128). The device of antithesis or opposites which characterizes Proverbs makes the difference between right and wrong crystal clear (cf. v. 1 of chapts. 10- 15). Do we need any less teaching on the dangers of “the works of the flesh” than on the benefits of “the fruit of the Spirit”? Are the “put off” passages any less imperative or powerful than the “put on” passages (Gal. 5:19-23; Eph. 4:17-32)? “Positive preachers” cannot declare “all the counsel of God” (Acts 20:27). They mutilate and emasculate the gospel.

True gospel preachers take their cue not from positive thinkers but from truth lovers, not from crowd pleasers but from soul savers, not from the Schullers and Roberts in the world but from the inspired Apostles in the Word. The charge of 2 Timothy 4 was never more needed than it is today:

Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.

For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;

And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry.

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 12, pp. 355-358, 367
June 18, 1987

By Irvin Himmel

A talebearer revealeth secrets: but he that is of a faithful spirit concealeth the matter (Prov. 11:13).

To “bear” something means to carry it or convey it. The ring bearer carries rings, usually on a small pillow, at a wedding. A standard bearer is one assigned to carry the banner or flag as might be done in a military parade. A pallbearer originally was one who carried the pall (a covering for a coffin) but is now one who helps to carry the coffin. An armorbearer (Judg. 9:54) is one who carries weapons or armor for a warrior.

The Bearer Who Beres All

A talebearer is an informer, a peddler of gossip, a tattler, a revealer of secrets, a newsmonger, one who hunts secrets, whether true or false, to broadcast, a slanderer. He is “the walking busybody, the trader in scandal” (A. Clarke).

“A talebearer revealeth secrets . . .” One who comes with tales about others probably will reveal our secrets and relate tales on us. It is unwise to confide in him. “Such a man is so eager to have something to talk about that he will reveal things that should be kept within his own knowledge” (E. M. Zerr). He may even tell things about himself that ought to be kept secret.

Ways of Talebearing

(1) Careless communication. Sometimes people get carried away in a lively conversation and say things without thinking. Perhaps the tongue is flapping faster than the thought processes are working. Words are allowed to slip which carry rumors and reports that could be damaging to someone’s reputation. The speaker did not enter the conversation to become a talebearer, but through carelessness he does in fact engage in passing along gossip. Reckless words can reveal secrets and do harm just as quickly as words deliberately chosen for that purpose.

(2) Sly insinuation. In a lot of cases, the talebearer drops subtle hints that naturally arouse curiosity. He makes allusions that stimulate questions. He whets the appetite of the hearer. For example, he may say, “It would not be in order for me to tell you all I know, but I can tell you this much.” The tale-bearer begins probing until the whole matter is out in the open.

(3) Confidential communication. The tale maybe carried by one who pleads that what he is about to relate must be kept in confidence. “This is strictly between you and me,” he insists. He breaks another’s confidence while urging someone not to follow his example! He may even punctuate the need for “keeping this under your hat” by speaking in the tone of a whisper. “You must not breathe a word to anyone about this,” he warns as he spills the whole story.

(4) Open blabbing. Then there is the talebearer who loudly announces everything, no matter how personal and confidential it may be. To give him information is like putting it on the six o’clock newscast. He acts as though it is his role to tell all he knows whether it needs to be told or not. He thrills in being the first to inform another of something, even if it is slanderous. He is addicted to telling whatever he has heard. And in many cases, this person pries into matters that are none of his business, spends a lot of time on the telephone (it’s his hotline!), and asks a lot of questions.

Whatever the talebearer’s technique, he is engaged in a rotten practice. The law of Moses said plainly, I ‘Thou shalt not go up and down as a talebearer among thy people. . . ” (Lev. 19:16). The New Testament warns against our being busybodies and whispers and backbiters (2 Cor. 12:20; 2 Thess. 3:11; Rom. 1:29,30).

Keeping Secrets

While the talebearer reveals secrets, “he that is of a faithful spirit concealeth the matter.” The individual who is of a “faithful spirit” is trustworthy. He respects the confidence that another has placed in him. He is “one who proves himself faithful and true” (F. Delitzsch). He has the capacity which seems all too rare – the ability to keep a secret!

All should cultivate and maintain a “faithful spirit.” “But a should be cautious,” as Ralph Wardlaw states in his Lectures on the Book ofProverbs. “It is very wrong, generally speaking, to come under an obligation to secrecy, without knowing what it is that is about to be imparted.” Wardlaw adds, “Hence one strong objection on the part of Christians to the system of Free-masonry, which withholds its secrets till those who seek initiation take solemn oath never to reveal them.” He further points out, “We may thus bring ourselves into a snare . . . for the secret may be something which ought not to be concealed. It may involve the interests of others; it may involve the cause of religion and the honour of God. Beware, then, of rashly receiving secrets.” This is good advice. Keeping personal matters secret is one thing; a blind pledge to secrecy is something else.

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 11, p. 331
June 4, 1987