Staying True to the Gospel Because of the surprising response I received from the article I wrote for the Californian on January 27, I have decided to write a follow-up to those comments. If this article stimulates even further interest, then I will continue to address the issue in future articles. Part of what I touched on previously, is the significant impact the church growth movement (particularly, Bill Hybels’ Willow Creek Community Church) has had on churches in this country, and that because of this movement, the church is—even if unintentionally—allowing in a level of sin not previously experienced by the church in its history. What I would like to add to that, is the follow observations. A little over a hundred years ago, Charles Spurgeon, the most well-known pastor in England, involved himself in an issue which became a major concern for him. It was called "the down-grade controversy." The issue was over the increasing worldliness which was creeping into the church. One of the points which Spurgeon pointed out, is that when churches begin to make concessions in their attempt to become more appealing to the world, what starts out as an effort to attract the unbeliever to the church, will eventually lead the church into compromises which become so grievous, that given enough time, the church ends up becoming apostate. However, this is so subtle that when the shift from orthodoxy to apostasy occurs, it is often times undetectable, and sometimes it is even defended by those who claim to be orthodox. Typically, the bottom-line for these "concessions" is a pragmatic end. In other words, the ends justifies the means. This approach usually gets worked out like this: If we can "help" our church to grow by implementing more entertainment, and avoid heavy doctrinal messages which unbelievers do not understand anyway, is this not then a good thing? The obvious downside is that rather than keeping the standard high for the sake of spiritual maturity—and grooming the church to become more like Christ—the standard is lowered in order to make unbelievers feel more "comfortable" when they come into the church. The question that must be answered, however, is this: Is the church responsible for making itself attractive to unbelievers, or is it responsible for feeding and grooming the sheep? The problem which is occurring today, is that the sheep are not being fed, and this is happening because of an interest in trying to make the church more appealing to the unbeliever. Consequently, many of those who are more mature in the faith are feeling as though they are no longer being challenged from their pastor’s pulpit; meaty teaching has been exchanged for unnourishing substitutes. The Baptist historian, David Benedict, wrote the following words which sound like a description of many pulpits today: "The kind of preaching now much in vogue" is "mere milk and water, instead of the strong meat of the gospel . . At present, the modes and manners, and the eloquence of their ministers, engage more of the attention of the people, than their doctrinal exposition; and most of all, they look for attractions which are pleasing to young people, and which will collect large assemblies, and enable them to compete with their neighbors in numbers and style. With this end in view, nothing that will sound harsh or unpleasant to very sensitive ears must come from the preachers; the old-fashioned doctrines of Predestination, Total Depravity, Divine Sovereignty, etc., if referred to at all, must be by way of circumlocution and implication. . ." Although this hits the mark of where the church growth movement is taking the church today, these words were first written in 1860, when the church at that time was being sold the same reasoning which has become so popular now: lower the standard so as to attract the unbeliever. Although the church growth movement appears to be a modern-day novelty, the truth is that this type of thinking has been around for at least the last two hundred years. The church growth movement is just a 21st-century attempt to make the gospel more "appealing," by those whom I am convinced do not truly understand the faith, once and for all delivered unto the saints (Jude 3). Again, Hybels’ Willow Creek sets the example. As G. A. Pritchard was examining the libraries of the pastors of Willow Creek Church during his research period prior to writing his book on Hybels’ ministry, he noticed something which I believe should cause the church to seriously reexamine the driving force behind this movement. As he browsed through the titles to see what Willow Creek staffers were building their "Christian" world-view on—in order to be better able to serve the church, he noticed what I would consider a rather horrifying fact: "I found many volumes of business management and pop-psychology on staff members’ bookcases, but I never found a volume of classical theology. The vast reservoir of two thousand years of Christian wisdom is virtually untapped at Willow Creek." I personally believe firmly in the sovereignty of God: He will build His church. My charge from God is not to make the church I shepherd as large as I can possibly make it, and do that through making the church—or the gospel—more "appealing." My charge, from Jesus Himself, is to feed the sheep which Christ has placed in my care (John 21:17).