Fundamental
Evangelistic Association
selected
articles from:
©FOUNDATION
A MAGAZINE OF BIBLICAL FUNDAMENTALISM
Dennis W. Costella, Editor; Karel Beyer, Production Manager; Matt
Costella,
Copy Editor
M.H. Reynolds, Jr. (1919-1997), Founding Editor
Lausanne II In Manila
Evangelical Changing of the
Guard
by Pastor Dennis Costella
©FOUNDATION Magazine, May - June 1989
(although first written in 1989, this material is just as timely
today)
"Calling the whole church to take the whole
gospel to the whole world." This was the ecumenical theme of the Second International
Congress on World Evangelization, held July 11-20, 1989 in Manila, The Philippines.
Commonly referred to as the Lausanne II Conference, it was publicized as being one of the
most, if not THE most, important and influential meetings ever held by evangelicals. It
was indeed big-4,336 in attendance. It had a large geographical representation (190
nations), more than the United Nations. And, it was costly-10 1/2 million dollars.
What every believer needs to know, and what this
report will document, is the fact that, in the name of "evangelicalism," extreme
pressure was exerted to break down Scriptural walls of separation between truth and error,
and to build bridges of understanding and cooperation with the enemies of Jesus Christ and
the Gospel.
In the name of evangelicalism, the apostate
ecumenical movement (WCC, NCC, CCC, etc.) was promoted. In the name of evangelicalism,
cooperation with those who preach a false gospel (Roman Catholic, Orthodox, etc.) was
advocated. And, in the name of evangelicalism, the dangerous doctrines of the
Pentecostal-charismatic-power evangelism movement were openly advocated for the very first
time in any major evangelical gathering.
At Manila, they called it evangelism, but it was not
Biblical evangelism. Great emphasis was placed upon social action, ecumenical evangelism,
feminist theology, charismatic gifts, and an openness to change. The sub-theme of this
Congress was: "Proclaim Christ Until He Comes," but so many different
eschatological views were represented that precious prophetic truths could not be clearly
presented for fear of causing division. And, make no mistake about it, the last thing the
Lausanne leaders want is to hinder the unscriptural unity to which they are committed-a
unity based on compromise, not Scripture. A failure to recognize and delineate the
difference between the Church and the Kingdom produced further confusion.
The Lausanne II International Congress on World
Evangelization in Manila did not just "happen"-it was very carefully planned to
further the goals of its leaders. Those who came as speakers, observers, consultants, and
participants were not there by accident, nor by their own choice-they were meticulously
screened and selected by Lausanne II leaders. Speakers at plenary and seminar sessions did
not choose their subjects; they spoke on themes assigned by the Lausanne II Committee,
which will have to accept responsibility for the ecumenical/charismatic/compromising
brainwashing to which participants were subjected.
Registration statistics were impressive: 3,586
participants, 231 staff and stewards, 154 from the international press, 314 official
observers, visitors, and guests, and 51 speakers and Executive Committee members for a
grand total of 4,336 in attendance. Another statistic which was of great significance was
the fact that 1,041 women attended (24% of total), and the number of women who were
officially registered as participants was set at 717 (20% of participants).
The denominational affiliation of individual
participants was not made available to the press, but percentage breakdown by denomination
was of interest: Baptist-25%; Anglican-20%; Reformed-15%; Lutheran-10%; Pentecostals-10%;
Methodists-5%; Other Denominations-15%.
The Lausanne II official Fact Sheet explained that
the "4,000 participants from 190 countries" had been invited as "world
religious leaders," not "evangelists," and that "they attended as
individuals, not as official representatives of churches, denominations, or
ecumenical/para- church organizations."
This Lausanne II Fact Sheet also made the following
very revealing statement explaining the nature of the Lausanne movement, stating that it
is a "network of Christians committed to cooperation in world evangelization under
the Lausanne Covenant. It has been described by some leaders as }ecumenical evangelism'
based not on an exclusive, rigid theological basis; but on an open, inclusive approach to
cooperation among Christians with the widest-possible theological perspective within the
Lausanne Covenant."
It was further explained that "The Lausanne
Committee for World Evangelization (LCWE) is an international committee composed of 80
religious leaders from 45 countries. It is not an 'organization' with members who 'join,'
nor is it a council of official representatives of churches, denominations or para-church
organizations. Members of the Lausanne Committee are individuals representing only
themselves. All committee members are required to sign the Lausanne Covenant." Key
leaders of the Lausanne movement were listed as Rev. Billy Graham, Rev. Leighton Ford,
Rev. Thomas Wang (LCWE international director who is resigning effective Aug. 11, 1989),
and Tom Houston, who succeeds Wang as the new International Director. Houston is the
former president of World Vision International.
The Lausanne II Fact Sheet has this to say about the
churches and denominations involved in the Lausanne Movement: "The Lausanne movement
is inclusive rather than exclusive. Individuals who are members of virtually every
Christian church and denomination in the world are involved in the Lausanne movement. It
includes members of the mainline Protestant denominations that are a part of the World
Council of Churches, such as Methodists, Presbyterians, Anglicans, Episcopalians,
Baptists, Lutherans, Disciples of Christ, etc. It also includes members of more
conservative churches that are a part of the World Evangelical Fellowship, such as the
Christian and Missionary Alliance, Pentecostals, Conservative Baptists, Independent
churches, etc. There are many para- church organizations involved in the Lausanne
movement, such as Campus Crusade for Christ, World Vision International, the World Bible
Societies, African Enterprise, Youth with a Mission, Youth for Christ, InterVarsity
Christian Fellowship, etc."
"OFFICIAL OBSERVERS AND SPECIAL GUESTS AT
LAUSANNE II IN MANILA" were identified as coming "from the Vatican of the Roman
Catholic Church in Rome; from the Russian Orthodox Church in Moscow; from the World
Council of Churches in Geneva; from the Greek Orthodox Church in Athens; as well as
special guests from many other churches, denominations, and para-church organizations
which usually are not part of the Lausanne movement."
Lausanne leaders repeatedly emphasize that they are
a "movement," not an organization. But, by whatever name they choose for
themselves, they are certainly moving in the wrong direction. Unlike the World Evangelical
Fellowship which has a constitution, doctrinal statement, and elects its own leadership,
the Lausanne movement is self-perpetuating and accountable to no one except itself either
financially, doctrinally, or spiritually. Of course, because of the backing of Billy
Graham, Bill Bright, and their wealthy supporters, the Lausanne Committee can spend 10 l/2
million dollars on a meeting like this, something the World Evangelical Fellowship could
never do. Although some WEF members are also part of the Lausanne movement, and, even
though the WEF was built and is maintained on a basis of compromise identical to the
Lausanne movement, there is much deep-seated and understandable resentment by many WEF
leaders because of the way in which the well financed Lausanne movement has dominated the
field of world evangelism in the last 15 years.
Now, there's no question but that a great deal of
what was said at Manila, and the basic purpose of calling such a conference in the first
place, was commendable. Many sincere brothers and sisters in Christ manifested an obvious
desire to reach the world for Christ, and it was readily evident that a great deal of what
was said and done was motivated by a genuine desire to accomplish that purpose.
Also, unlike mission conferences held by by those
with predominantly liberal theological positions, this meeting did emphasize the fact that
Jesus Christ is the one, true Saviour to whom the lost must look for eternal salvation.
The "uniqueness of Christ," i.e., His eternal purpose in providing salvation and
His divine position as God manifest in the flesh to a needy world, were clearly
articulated. Several plenary presentations were strong, Biblical messages which would
challenge the heart of any truly born-again believer burdened with the salvation of
hell-bound sinners. Without doubt, most reports of Lausanne II in Manila will go to great
lengths to elaborate many of these positive elements of this important meeting.
SO, WHAT'S THE PROBLEM?
With considerable emphasis on worldwide
evangelization and the "uniqueness of Christ," how could this conference
possibly be considered harmful to the cause of Biblical Christianity? The answer to this
question is of utmost importance, and is sadly being ignored by virtually all who find
their fellowship within the evangelical community. The bitter fruit of this error will
become even more apparent as the new course of Lausanne II evangelicalism leads farther
and farther away from the Faith of the Bible and closer to the one-world, harlot church of
the Antichrist.
Here's the problem. Those who attended the Lausanne
II conference were continuously bombarded with an unscriptural philosophy of compromise
that inevitably will affect their ministries, and certainly not for the better. Compromise
always ends in disaster, and the Bible plainly declares that any mixture of truth and
error will meet with God's judgment, not His blessing.
In the early days of the evangelical movement, its
leaders wanted nothing to do with the theological errors of religious liberals and the
humanistic programs of the apostate ecumenical movement. These early evangelical leaders
also warned about the unbiblical and divisive doctrines of the Pentecostal movement and
refused to allow for extra- biblical revelation (prophecies, dreams, visions, etc.) and
the claimed verification of God's hand at work through signs, wonders, and the supposed
"baptism of the Holy Spirit" evidenced by "speaking in tongues."
In those days, evangelicals had a clear
understanding of what it meant to be saved, and would not allow "other gospels"
to be mixed with the Gospel of salvation through faith alone in the Lord Jesus Christ. The
false teachings of salvation by sacramentalism, good works, baptismal regeneration, and
the denial of future eternal judgment were rejected without hesitation. Churches and
churchmen who held to these views were properly and scripturally excluded from joint
ministry and fellowship. Evangelicals were fundamentalists, and fundamentalists were
evangelical at that point in time.
By the 1940's, however, some evangelicals had become
weary and discouraged in the spiritual battle against liberalism. They mistakenly reasoned
that it was costing too much to be "separatists," and they were accomplishing
too little by being "exclusive" rather than "inclusive." Softened by
Satan's lion-like blows, and deceived by his "angel of light" approaches, some
evangelical leaders repudiated Biblical fundamentalism and began following a path of
compromise.
As a result of this departure from their earlier,
Biblical position of separation from false teachers, apostate denominations, and
Pentecostal errors, the word "evangelical" took on a new and different meaning,
and the National Association of Evangelicals (USA), The World Evangelical Fellowship, and
the Lausanne Movement all came into being as practical expressions of this
middle-of-the-road position.
Billy Graham, who started out as a fundamentalist,
began following the path of compromise; and, as his evangelistic crusades grew in size and
popularity, he soon became the acknowledged world leader of the compromising, evangelical
movement. Moody Bible Institute and BIOLA, founded by fundamentalists as strong defenders
of the Faith and fearless foes of all that was unbiblical in doctrine and methodology,
deserted the fundamentalist, separatist, Biblical position and followed the compromising
path of new-evangelicalism. And, at Manila, it was all too obvious that further giant
steps of compromise lie ahead unless evangelicals get back to the Bible and reject the
deceptive philosophies and programs of men which appear to be enjoying unparalleled
"success" even though God's judgment may not be far off.
CHANGING OF THE GUARD
At Manila there were many references to a
"changing of the guard." It was said that the "torch has been passed"
to a new generation of evangelical leadership which has dramatically shifted course. Paul
McKaugan, Congress coordinator for Lausanne II in Manila, observed that Billy Graham's
decision to stay in Europe instead of flying to Manila to open the conference with the
keynote address as scheduled, signaled a "changing of the guard" in leadership
for world evangelization. But, the new direction charted for the Lausanne movement is
definitely away from a faithful, Biblical position.
One participant at Manila correctly pointed out that
there were some very real problems facing the movement. Charles Tipp, church historian
from Toronto, who chairs the Theological Commission of the U.S. and Canadian
Interdenomination Foreign Mission Association, said that the Lausanne movement is at
"a junction like Edinburgh 1910, where things could divide." He cited several
potentially divisive issues that have surfaced at Lausanne II: closer relations with the
World Council of Churches, an "overbalanced" emphasis on social concern, the
inclusion of Roman Catholics, and the role of charismatics.
Tipp's observations were very discerning, and
absolutely correct! The "potentially divisive issues" he cited are exactly what
is wrong with Lausanne II. Instead of leading the Manila participants to seek Biblical
answers to these issues, the non-traditional evangelical, non-biblical position was
force-fed the conference participant.
Broader ecumenical involvement, increased
charismatic influence, deeper commitment to social action and its supposed essential link
in preaching the Gospel, and a complete refutation of the Biblical requirement to separate
from false teaching and false teachers were stressed time and time again during the ten
day conference. Yes, indeed, the "new guard" has a new agenda from here on out,
but it is the wrong agenda and it cannot succeed.
The present leadership of the LCWE is allowing for,
and obviously encouraging, the "potentially divisive issues" mentioned above to
be fully incorporated into its efforts of global evangelization. Evangelicals of earlier
days would have been deeply concerned about this new emphasis and the direction now being
taken.
THE LAUSANNE COVENANT
The repeated claims that the Lausanne Covenant
represents a Scriptural standard for evangelical cooperation are patently false. This
Covenant is full of theological loopholes through which Lausanne II evangelicals are able
to disobey the plain commands of Scripture while still claiming to be truly evangelical.
The Lausanne Covenant has not proven to be a protection for Bible-believers. On the
contrary, the way it is being used, it is actually opening wide the door for theological
deceit, and loss of spiritual discernment comes in the package.
This Lausanne Covenant which was adopted at the
initial 1974 Lausanne meeting is said to provide the common theological ground of the
Lausanne movement. LCWE chairman Leighton Ford praised this position paper as the
"glue" that held the whole movement together, and he challenged those at the
Manila conference to go back to their respective ministries throughout the world and be
true to "the Lord, the Bible, and the Lausanne Covenant." The problem is,
however, that one cannot be true to the latter and still be true to the first two. The
Lausanne Covenant is so broad that it allows for virtually any theological position, and
opens the door wide for all forms of compromise. As was seen in Manila, the Lausanne
Covenant not only failed to stop the influx of error, but even allowed for and encouraged
the same!
The Lausanne Covenant is reproduced in full at the
end of this report and should be read carefully. The new International Director, Tom
Houston, went so far as to say, "The Lausanne Covenant is a precious gift from God
with its Biblical emphasis not only on the primacy of evangelism but to the wholeness of
the gospel. We need continually to use it as a basis on which to promote cooperation and
health in evangelization."
What must be remembered, however, is that it is the
ecumenical, unbiblical concept of the "wholeness of the gospel" that makes the
Lausanne Covenant a springboard for all sorts of strange things-social action, feminist
theology, ecumenism, charismatic confusion, compromised fellowships, unbalanced missions
programs. All can find their supposed justification by quoting some portion of the
Covenant.
If this Lausanne Covenant is to be the guiding
document for evangelical worldwide evangelism in the days to come, then we must warn that
a wide gulf exists between the Lausanne movement and the plan of God for the believer's
ministry as plainly revealed in the Holy Bible.
CO-OPERATION OR SEPARATION?
Under the heading of "Cooperation in
Evangelism" in the Lausanne Covenant, it is stated, "... we confess that our
testimony has sometimes been marred by sinful individualism and needless duplication. We
pledge ourselves to seek a deeper unity in truth, worship, holiness and mission. We urge
the development of regional and functional cooperation for the furtherance of the Church's
mission, for strategic planning, for mutual encouragement, and for the sharing of
resources and experience." The clear implication of this statement is that those who
refuse to cooperate with all other "Christians" are guilty of "sinful
individualism." This certainly is "twisting the Scriptures" since so many
people today call themselves "Christians" although they have never been born
again.
LCWE International Director Tom Houston made the
following amazing admission: "All kinds of Christians with all kinds of emphases make
up the Lausanne movement. Their diverse interpretations and styles often create tensions
as they grapple with how far they can go in cooperation without compromise." But how
far they could go without compromise was certainly not the subject of consideration in
Manila. The Lausanne leadership repeatedly stressed the need for unity of all Christians
who could subscribe to the Lausanne Covenant, irrespective of tremendous differences in
what they believed.
Houston left no doubt in anyone's mind as to the
future direction of the Lausanne movement under his leadership when he said: "We've
had tensions in these last ten days, but we have survived them.... I discovered in my
experience that one of the gifts that Christians have is the gift of polarization. They
are very good at it; better at it than probably any other community I know. I don't know
why, and I used to be pretty good at it myself, and I don't know if I have unlearned it
yet.
"Indeed, I was a separatist as a young pastor.
And when there were two poles of emphasis, I wanted to destroy or exclude the other pole.
And then I learned...that God usually works with two poles, magnetic poles, the north and
the south; they create a field of tension within which things can happen and where things
can be done. There is no way you can remove the opposite pole from the one where you like
to be. It's not in the nature of things...."
Houston continues (and here we see exactly who he
has in mind when he speaks about the need for working with, instead of separating from,
those holding differing theological positions): "There are six saving acts of God in
Christ. The first is the Incarnation; the Word became a human being and lived among us.
This is the controlling truth for Anglicans and Roman Catholics. They tend to concentrate
on the presence of Christ [in the Eucharist]; that provides continuity in the life of the
people of God.
"The second saving act is the cross; the
atonement....now the Lutheran and the evangelical churches are the ones who tend to center
on the Atonement. They concentrate on the pardon of Christ, and emphasize the
discontinuity of conversion.
"The third saving act of God is the
resurrection.... This is the paramount truth for the Orthodox churches, and I'm told that
their Easter services are deeply moving, and their theology centers on the risen Christ.
They emphasize life in Him.
"The fourth saving act is the Ascension....
Christ is King. This is the great truth of the Presbyterian and the Reformed churches....
"The fifth saving act is Pentecost, the sending
of the Spirit. This is the essential truth of the Pentecostals and the charismatics. They
are always talking about the power of Christ.
"And the sixth saving act of God in Christ is
the Advent, the second coming of Christ. This is the theme of the Seventh Day and other
Adventists. They present Christ coming again as the Lord of Glory..., and figure out signs
of the times....
"Now, all of these churches believe in all of
these six saving acts, but they tend to emphasize one, and seem to attract people whose
need is met by that truth.
"Ideally, we should all emphasize all. But no
one group is big enough to do that. So, it takes all of us, and all of these to tell, and
show, the whole gospel.
"There are tensions between them. For example,
those who emphasize the Lordship of the reigning Christ over all things want to see things
changed now! The Adventists, on the other hand, tend to think that is a hopeless effort
and that Christ must return first to set it right.
"These views clash. The Incarnation people
[Roman Catholics and Anglicans] emphasize the gradual growth in the Christian life,
beginning in baptism, and often in infancy. Those who preach the cross [evangelical
churches] are impatient with that, and pursue the discontinuity of dramatic conversion.
But both are necessary.
"So God gives us each a torch to carry, but it
is one procession. We do not need to apologize for our torch. We can hold it high. But
let's not imagine this is the whole truth. Let us affirm the whole procession and the
others in it, and let us maintain our commitment to show to the world the people of God as
one....
"Let's be a force for fusion, and not send out
sparks that ignite inflammatory division. Let's make our unflinching goal to stay together
under the banner of the Word of God as reflected in the Lausanne Covenant and show the
world the fullness, together, of the saving acts of God! Amen." [Applause] There you
have it. The leadership of the "new guard" is totally committed to the belief
that the "whole church," made up of evangelicals, Roman Catholics, Seventh Day
Adventists, Anglicans, Orthodox, etc., is supposed to take the "whole gospel"
(necessarily including, at least at times, the damnable heresies taught by many of the
above) to the "whole world," and that this should be done TOGETHER "under
the banner of the Word of God AS SET FORTH IN THE LAUSANNE COVENANT"! Every true
believer must separate from such heresy even though it comes in the name of
"evangelicalism."
EVANGELICALS AND CATHOLICS!
Houston is not the exception when it comes to the
expressed goals of evangelical leadership. Dr. Leighton Ford, in the opening day's press
conference, responded to our question concerning Roman Catholic involvement in Lausanne II
by noting that more Catholic participation would have been possible had it not been for
conflicts between Catholics and Protestants in the local situation in Manila prior to the
conference itself-misunderstandings which gave the local Roman Catholic bishops the false
impression that the Lausanne evangelicals were in Manila to proselytize the local Roman
Catholics.
"Not so," said Ford. "Our policy is
to build bridges instead of walls; we want to be friends." He went on to say that
there would be official Roman Catholic observers from the Vatican and from the
Philippines; and, that Lausanne's purpose was "not to draw as narrow a circle, but as
wide a circle as possible." And, lest members of the press might get the impression
that he did not believe Catholics were welcome, he referred to warm private meetings that
members of the Lausanne Committee have had with local Roman Catholic leaders, and
inserted, "There is a Roman Catholic layworker who is one of the most effective
soul-winners I know "! Soul-winner? With a Roman Catholic gospel of salvation through
the sacraments and the continual offering of the Saviour? Strange words indeed from the
lips of the chairman of the Lausanne II Committee!
Pressure from Latin American participants upon those
who were drafting the "Manila Manifesto" resulted in there being no direct
statements favoring working with Roman Catholics in joint evangelism programs. An
Argentine reporter who attended the Latin American national meeting revealed that
participants from Latin American countries would have walked out if cooperation with Roman
Catholicism was favorably referred to in the Manifesto. They knew first-hand what Romanism
was really like in their respective countries, and knew from first-hand experience that
Roman Catholicism was certainly no friend to the cause of Christ.
It was obvious that there was internal pressure by
special groups such as those from Latin America which forced LCWE leaders to soft-pedal
their proposed cooperation with Roman Catholics. Yet, it must be remembered that Catholics
were scheduled to speak in conference tracts; a workshop dealing with evangelical/Roman
Catholic dialogue was conducted; "Evangelization 2000," which is the Catholic
program of worldwide evangelization, was presented as a viable model for evangelicals to
consider; and many statements were made by evangelical leaders during the conference which
clearly indicate that the majority of evangelicals are, indeed, favorable to working with
Roman Catholics more and more in the days to come.
For example, Michael Cassidy and Vinson Synan were
featured speakers in Manila. These same men are scheduled to play prominent roles in the
big charismatic meeting to be held in Indianapolis next year, a meeting in which Roman
Catholic priest Tom Forrest, head of the Catholic's Evangelization 2000 program, will be a
main speaker. Many of the same men and women who attended the Manila conference were part
of the '87 New Orleans Conference on the Holy Spirit and World Evangelization at which
over 50% of the 50,000 plus in attendance were Roman Catholics. (FOUNDATION, May-July,
1989, "Lausanne II in Manila", part 1, pp. 5-9)
A.D. 2000 EVANGELISM
At Manila, there were probably more references made
to "A.D. 2000 EVANGELISM" than any other subject. There were few, if any,
plenary sessions or afternoon seminars where this program was not praised and promoted. It
is obvious that this theme has great appeal to all evangelicals. After all, what believer
wouldn't like to see the world evangelized by 2000 A.D., or even before?
The problem is that very few evangelicals realize
all that is involved in this appealing A.D. 2000 EVANGELISM program. The goal itself is
commendable, but the proposed means and methods of reaching that goal are deplorable and
unscriptural. It is said that this goal of world evangelization by the year 2000 A.D. can
never be reached without the cooperation and participation of the "whole church"
and by the preaching of the "whole gospel." (Both of these expressions
originated with apostate ecumenism and are now being mimicked by evangelicals).
"Christians" are urged to "forget their differences and work together in
evangelism."
But, the differences believers are being asked to
forget are not minor matters involving church polity or practices, but rather matters that
lie at the very heart of the Christian Faith and the Gospel message. The A.D. 2000
EVANGELISM program is so broadly framed that even those who preach a false gospel are
welcomed as fellow-evangelizers. True believers are being asked to join in evangelism with
Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and liberal Protestant Churches, all of which preach
"another gospel" and are therefore under God's curse. Gal. 1:6-9. Be sure to
read our 32-page booklet warning about the dangers of A.D. 2000
ECUMENICAL EVANGELISM.
It is also important to know that the label
"A.D. 2000 EVANGELISM" does not refer to a single organization but, rather, to a
network system which seeks to coordinate the evangelistic programs of a great number of
churches and organizations using various titles. The largest of these is the Roman
Catholic program called "A.D. 2000 Evangelization." Roman Catholic leaders are
quite willing to work with evangelicals, using evangelical language and evangelical
methodology, but with a goal of gaining new converts for Roman Catholicism and restoring
"lapsed" Catholics.
Gino Henriquez, a Roman Catholic priest and leader
in the Catholic charismatic movement as well as in ecumenical relations with non-
Catholics, was on the official program and scheduled to present the Catholic program for
global evangelization to the Manila participants. But due to the local friction between
the Catholics and many non- Catholics in the Manila area, the Manila Catholic hierarchy
did not allow him to attend. Vinson Synan replaced him at the last minute and presented an
informed and glowing report of the zeal of "Spirit-filled Catholics" who were
set on doing exactly what those in the Lausanne movement were working for.
Later in a press conference, Luis Bush, an A.D. 2000
leader, tried to play down the Catholic presence in the program, saying the Catholic
program of evangelism was only presented as a "model" to be considered by those
working on ways to reach the world for Christ. But the obvious question arises-Why use as
a model what is so terribly inconsistent with the model God has given us in His Word?! Why
does LCWE choose to allow soul-damning doctrines to be held up before Manila participants
as a viable "model" they should consider?
Second in size is the Campus Crusade program headed
by Dr. Bill Bright and called "New Life 2000." Fantastic claims are being made
concerning thousands of conversions supposedly resulting from a single showing of their
JESUS film, which they claim is the greatest evangelistic tool ever developed in the
history of the Church.
Paul Eshleman, in presenting the Campus Crusade
program to the A.D. 2000 track, explained how those who responded to the Jesus Film would
eventually be turned over to whatever denomination happens to be predominate in that
particular area. Later, we asked Mr. Eshleman how Campus Crusade policy could allow for
this if the major denomination in the area happened to be Roman Catholicism, or another
liberal denomination. In effect, his answer was that it was their desire to present Christ
and those kinds of problems were secondary. The Holy Spirit could sort out the fish later.
Also, it was brought to the attention of those
attending this seminar that Tom Forrest, the Roman Catholic priest in charge of the
Catholic Evangelization 2000 program, thought the Jesus Film was excellent and that they
would be using it. Obviously, many who are "introduced to Christ" by the Campus
Crusade program will eventually find themselves in the Roman fold.
Of course, they have no problem in working with
Roman Catholics, defending this disobedience to the Word of God by saying that they will
work with anybody who calls Jesus, "Lord." However, Jesus Christ Himself refuted
this test of orthodoxy. Read Matt. 7:21-23.
The Southern Baptist evangelism program called
"Bold Mission Thrust" is probably the next largest effort. While the words
"A.D. 2000" are not a part of this title, two of their main mission leaders, R.
Keith Parkes and William O'Brien, its chief promoters of A.D. 2000 EVANGELISM and see no
problem in joining hands with those who preach a false gospel in order to win the world
for Christ by A.D. 2000. In fact, they have made their extensive research and computer
systems available to all A.D. 2000 groups, and this necessarily includes the Roman
Catholics if they should care to avail themselves of this generous offer.
With nearly 4000 key evangelical leaders assembled
at Manila from around the world, the false, unscriptural program of A.D. 2000 EVANGELISM
was given a tremendous but undeserved boost. Our prayer is that this factual report may
serve to enlighten, inform, and warn about this deceptive program, while at the same time
encouraging every true believer to preach the one, true, pure Gospel without compromise as
to message, methods, and fellowships.
BRIDGES TO THE CONCILIAR MOVEMENT
When referring to LCWE's policy of building bridges
instead of walls, Ford also made reference to official World Council of Churches'
observers present in Manila, mentioning Dr. Eugene Stockwell by name. We had the
opportunity to interview this important leader of the WCC, and appreciated his openness
and candor, something which was noticeably absent when questions concerning LCWE and WCC
relations were put to members of the Lausanne Committee. The latter were consistently
evasive.
We asked Dr. Stockwell about the communique to
evangelicals meeting in Manila issued by "evangelically-minded ecumenists" who
were in attendance at the San Antonio WCC Conference on World Mission and Evangelism. This
open letter expressed appreciation for the general objectives expressed by LCWE, and even
suggested a joint international meeting of the two bodies in the future. He was also asked
to comment on any possible further WCC contacts with the LCWE. Dr. Stockwell responded
with the following: "We were surprised that letter was produced in San Antonio, but
very grateful for it. It was a very generous letter commenting on some of the aspects of
the conference there, and it also pointed out some of the divergences that exist. But
basically, it is the basis for continuing dialogue, continuing discussion. In a way, that
letter seemed to us to echo an open letter from the evangelicals that was written in 1983
at the Vancouver Assembly and one that we tried to build on.
"There have been some very good contacts-some
of them rather quiet contacts-over the last few years with the leadership of the Lausanne
Committee and with the World Evangelical Fellowship. Most recently in February, we had a
meeting with official representatives of those two bodies and the World Council when they
met in Stuttgart, Germany. It didn't produce any document, but we agreed to continue
meeting and I am sure that will happen. It will be interesting here in Manila to see what
the response of this Congress will be to that letter issued by the evangelicals....
"Also, we are specifically arranging to have
persons related to Lausanne present at some of the World Council meetings. I heard just
yesterday that Ron Sider will be at the meeting in March of the Convocation on Justice,
Peace and the Integrity of Creation, and we hope there will be others. We are grateful to
have been invited here, so that there are quite specific things happening. ...I anticipate
that within the next year there will be some formal meetings." A word of explanation
is needed here to explain how this open letter from WCC evangelicals at San Antonio was
handled in Manila. An official workshop, composed of many "ecumenically-minded
evangelicals" in Manila, studied the open letter from the WCC San Antonio meeting,
and drafted a letter in response. This draft expressed appreciation for the evident move
of the WCC to a more evangelical stance concerning world evangelization, but suggested the
need for the WCC to deliberate more in depth in future meetings on the "uniqueness of
Christ" (that Jesus Christ is the only Saviour and only way of salvation), and that
evangelical scholars be allowed to participate in those deliberations.
That letter was then submitted to the thirteen
member Lausanne Executive Committee for further consideration, after which it could then
be forwarded to the WCC. At least, this was the enthusiastic expectation of the majority
of those who drafted the response.
In the concluding press conference, we asked for an
official comment on the status of the suggested letter of response. Saphir Athyal of
India, a member of the LCWE Executive Committee, said quite flatly that because the San
Antonio letter was not addressed to the LCWE but rather to the Manila participants in
general, they would be taking no action on it, giving the impression to the press that the
LCWE was not nearly as excited about the desire for improved relationships with the WCC as
were the workshop participants. But, this too is extremely misleading, for many
evangelical leaders certainly are planning to work more closely with ecumenical leaders in
the future. They try to keep this as quiet as possible, however, so true-to-the-Bible
supporters will not be upset.
We asked Dr. Stockwell if he senses a change of mood
by the evangelical community toward the conciliar movement itself since, historically,
evangelicals have been wary of what was perceived to be liberal theology and a wrong
emphasis on the "social gospel" by the WCC. Dr. Stockwell responded: "I
think there is a change. Also, there is in the [Manila] Manifesto a comment about how the
WCC has been giving more importance to evangelism which is a welcoming spirit to the WCC-I
appreciate that very much. I think the most difficult period of relationships in recent
years was following the 1968 Upsala assembly of the World Council which was very much
focused on the whole question of social action, and also the Bangkok Conference in 1973
which was seen (I think a bit unfairly) to identify the Kingdom of God with the social
order....But in the last 15 years or so, there has been a decided shift.
"It is now clear that the World Council is not
identifying simply physical improvement with the Kingdom of God, and it is also clear that
the evangelical movement, I think as evidenced in the Lausanne Covenant, is struggling
more with what it means to be responsible in society in human relationships and in the
whole area of human rights, in the identification of the poor as having a 'preferential
option' before the Lord, and we have something to learn from them. I think the evangelical
world is learning from that, and it is helping us all." This last statement does,
indeed, seem to be the standard answer given today by evangelical and ecumenical leaders
alike-"We are learning from each other; evangelicals are gaining a social
consciousness, the ecumenists are becoming more interested in the spiritual well-being of
people." The line of demarcation between Biblical Christianity once held by
"evangelicals" in the best sense of the word and the liberal, apostate
ecumenicals, is quickly being rubbed out. The Manila meeting did a lot to speed up this
process by seeking to convince even the old-line evangelicals of the need for working with
ALL who are interested in global evangelization no matter what gospel is being preached.
Rev. Roberta Hestenes' sermon preached during the
communion service serves as yet another example of how evangelicals are being enticed to
embrace ecumenical error. The fact that a woman preacher addressed the conference even
though the Bible clearly forbids women to serve as pastors was sad in itself, but what she
had to say only provided further evidence that she was out of place. Her great emphasis
echoed the theme that was heard many times-the theme that "unity among all
'Christians' is essential for the task at hand. If the 'whole church' is to take the
'whole gospel' to the 'whole world,' then there must not be bickering and fault-finding
among God's people." That's the false thesis of most evangelicals today.
Here is what Hestenes said as she sought to instruct
the evangelical leaders seated before her: "One obstacle we must face is our attitude
as evangelicals toward those whose traditions are other than our own. And there are great
difficulties, and burdens, and problems here. But toward those who are fellow Christians
in the Roman Catholic and Orthodox traditions, to those fellow Christians in the Conciliar
and Ecumenical movement, to those fellow Christians in the Pentecostal and charismatic, or
non-Pentecostal and non-charismatic movements- we must acknowledge that God, Who is Lord
of the whole Church, is doing astonishing things among many parts of His Church. We must
find our way forward in truth and in love with sincere Christians of whatever label.... We
must resist the temptation to remain fixed in past quarrels and
misunderstandings...."
No doubt about it, the program of the Lausanne II
conference was calculated to further the cause of ecumenicity, and to re-educate
evangelicals to abandon their Biblical foundations and embrace fellowships and doctrines
forbidden by God's Word.
Such evangelical change is dangerous. God says
"Evil communications corrupt good manners" (1 Cor. 15:33), and the future
conduct of those who experienced the compromising fellowships and unscriptural teachings
of Lausanne II will most assuredly be affected. A believer cannot join with those who are
committed to compromise without also reaping the sad consequences of compromise
personally. God requires separation from error and from those who hold to it; He never
calls His servants to disregard sound doctrine for the sake of a supposed unity (2 John
10-11; 2 Thessalonians 3:6, 14-15; 2 Corinthians 6:14-18; Romans 16:17).
SOCIAL CONCERN AND INJUSTICE
Another major shift in emphasis between Lausanne I
and Lausanne II was the greatly increased emphasis given to issues of social action and
justice. "At Lausanne I, we had to sneak in the concept of social action; now, here
in Manila, that's all we're hearing." That was the astute observation of one of the
reporters who covered both meetings. Leighton Ford plainly stated the preaching of the
personal gospel could not be divorced from social implications. Both required attention.
Yes, many dangerous ideas are being "slipped
into" the evangelical movement today, and this liberal idea that "social
action" is a necessary part of "The Gospel" is one of them. Older
evangelical leaders have either forgotten or choose to ignore what the ecumenical emphasis
on "social action" really involves. Of course, most younger evangelicals are
simply unaware of the past activities and present deceptions of ecumenical liberalism, but
they need to be informed and warned lest they fall into the ecumenical trap.
To understand what is really happening today, it is
essential to know the tactics of religious liberalism in the past. Most religious liberals
in bygone years were very bold in their repudiation of the fundamentals of the Christian
Faith. Since they didn't believe in the inspiration and inerrancy of the Scriptures; since
they denied the virgin birth and deity of Jesus Christ as well as His sinless life,
substitutionary death, bodily resurrection, and personal return; and, since they denied
the existence of a real heaven and a real hell, they obviously could not preach the one
true Gospel of salvation by grace through faith in Christ alone. Their teachings and
programs centered around the supposed betterment of mankind and working toward a
"Kingdom-of- God" society on earth, produced by human efforts.
The gospel these early religious liberals preached
became known as the "Social Gospel" in contrast to the historic, Biblical,
personal Gospel which has always been preached by true believers. In those early days, no
informed believer and no genuine liberal even claimed that their messages were two parts
of the same gospel-all recognized that these two gospels were opposites and
Bible-believers correctly held that the "social gospel" was a false gospel to be
repudiated.
Today, it is important to recognize that liberals
are still preaching the same false "social gospel" even though they have
slightly modified the label and now refer to it as "social action," "social
concern," or "social justice." However, whatever label it may wear, it is
still the same man-made program which, under careful scrutiny, turns out to have the same
dangerous, unscriptural basis as that of humanism, socialism and communism. No wonder,
then, that religious liberals have always been and continue to be among the best friends
socialism and communism have ever had.
Let it be clearly stated that liberalism has not
changed its ultimate, unscriptural goals, but it has changed tactics in three very
significant ways. (1) Today's liberals have discovered that they can promote their cause
far more effectively by being less strident about their public denials of the doctrines of
the historic Christian Faith. (2) Today's liberals have learned that they can win far more
friends and create far fewer enemies by using more evangelical terminology and claiming
that their previous statements and positions have been misunderstood. (3) Today's liberals
now claim that their "social gospel" and the evangelical "personal
gospel" are not only compatible, but that both are necessary parts of "The Whole
Gospel."
At Manila, it was obvious that most of the
evangelical leaders there have swallowed these new ecumenical deceptions hook, line, and
sinker. It is sad to realize that older evangelicals either have forgotten how deceitful
religious liberalism is, or else they are blinded to this new deception by years of
compromise.Of course, most of the younger evangelicals are completely unaware of
liberalism's consistent track record of deceit and deception; therefore, these younger
leaders urgently need to be informed and warned. We plead with all evangelicals to face
the facts and refuse to join hands with those who are really enemies of the Gospel
regardless of how attractive the new liberalism may appear. (FOUNDATION, May-July, 1989,
"Lausanne II in Manila", part 2, pp. 9-12)
CHARISMATIC BREAKTHROUGH
The accelerating movement of the Lausanne Committee
toward the apostate ecumenical movement is ominous, but it is nothing new. Its growing
rapprochement with the Roman Catholic Church presents a very serious future danger, but as
yet, many evangelicals, especially those saved out of Romanism, are justifiably refusing
cooperation with Roman Catholics. However, the Lausanne Committee's public promotion of
charismatic errors in Manila is the most immediate and potentially catastrophic danger of
all. What began as a trickle at Lausanne I in Switzerland in 1974 became a torrent at
Lausanne II in Manila in 1989. What a change in just 15 years! And, next will come a
charismatic tidal wave unless evangelicals recognize the dangers of the
Pentecostal/charismatic/power evangelism teachings and immediately begin reconstructing
Scriptural walls instead of building ecumenical/charismatic/Roman Catholic bridges.
In previous evangelical gatherings there have been a
few seminars and some "fellowship" gatherings of
"evangelical/charismatics" as part of the program but never before has an
"evangelical" conference been held in which so obvious a major effort was made
to openly indoctrinate evangelicals with charismatic teachings as we shall document in
this report.
That this "charismatic breakthrough" was
planned and not just accidental is conclusively demonstrated in two things. First,
remember that, as previously stated, every speaker and every subject was selected by the
Lausanne Committee in advance. Second, the following statement made by Dr. Leighton Ford,
chairman of the Lausanne Committee, offers conclusive proof that this "charismatic
breakthrough" was carefully planned and welcomed by its top leadership. Dr. Ford
said:
"Perhaps one of the historic marks of Lausanne
II in Manila will be that it was where, in a new way, Pentecostal and Charismatic
Evangelicals, and Non-Pentecostal and non-Charismatic Evangelicals came together in Christ
and covenanted together to advance His Gospel as never before. If that happens, it would
be a major justification for holding the Congress."
Space does not permit us to fully explain here why
the charismatic movement presents such an immediate and overwhelming danger. These dangers
have been set forth in detail in past issues of FOUNDATION [July/Sept 1987; July/Sept
1988; and Oct/Dec 1988 (on Power Evangelism)] However, the major reasons for our special
concern are briefly set forth as follows:
First, the language of charismatics is predominantly
evangelical rather than liberal; therefore, uninstructed believers are more readily drawn
to their teachings than to those of liberal Protestants and/or Roman Catholics.
Second, charismatics are actually adding to the Word
of God by claiming to receive information, instruction and commands direct from God
through the so-called "revelatory gifts of the Holy Spirit" such as tongues,
interpretation of tongues, prophecies, visions, dreams, word of wisdom, word of knowledge,
etc. The charismatic insistence that "all" the gifts of the Holy Spirit given to
the early Church are in operation today automatically leaves the door open for such
dangerous teachings. All such messages are antibiblical because they are extrabiblical,
and many of them flatly contradict God's instructions in His written Word, the Bible.
Third, the charismatic movement, though claiming to
be evangelical in doctrine, is actually one of the strongest ecumenical forces in our day
and acts as a catalyst in developing an unscriptural unity. Charismatics are willing to
work with anyone who claims to have had the "baptism of the Holy Spirit." As a
result, those who are enticed into accepting the false teachings of the charismatic
movement are immediately subjected to great pressure to work with Roman Catholics,
Orthodox, and liberal Protestants, something evangelicals historically have refused to do.
Fourth, Bible-believing evangelicals, therefore,
must not only separate from Roman Catholics, Orthodox, and liberal Protestants, but they
must also refuse to fellowship with, and warn against, charismatics. Failure to practice
Biblical separation from all these groups endangers the spiritual welfare of any child of
God.
To comprehend the new dangers facing evangelicals by
the pleas being heard to "forget our differences and work together," it is
necessary to take note of the history of the Pentecostal/charismatic movement.
The teachings and practices of the early
Pentecostals were rejected almost immediately and completely by all mainline
denominations, both evangelical and liberal. As a result, Pentecostals established their
own new churches and denominations. However, in the 1940's, when evangelicals left the
fundamentalist camp, some of the Pentecostal bodies wanted to become members of the
National Association of Evangelicals, and it was decided at that time to welcome
Pentecostal denominations as members, it being felt that the differences which had
previously separated them, especially concerning the ministry of the Holy Spirit, were no
longer of sufficient importance to prevent full fellowship.
However, whether on the basis of a "gentlemen's
agreement" or a secret pledge on the part of Pentecostals not to use their special
gifts in the meetings, there has been no attempt until now to go beyond this barrier and
actively pursue a policy of attempted proselytization. Through all these years it causes
one to wonder how genuine gifts of the Holy Spirit can be turned on or off at the
discretion of the user. It is interesting to note, however, that on at least three
occasions during plenary sessions, "tongues/prophecies" outbursts proved quite
embarrassing to the speakers, and on two of the occasions charismatic leaders themselves,
Jack Hayford and Floyd McClung of Youth with a Mission, had to firmly silence the one
rambling on from the floor. A few charismatics evidently missed their cue to keep quiet.
In the 1960's, another incongruous factor was added
when the charismatic movement first made its appearance. There was one major difference
between it and the early Pentecostals. Charismatic leaders claimed to have new revelations
from God which instructed them to remain in their churches, whether Protestant, Roman
Catholic, or Orthodox. At first, this created some real problems. A great amount of
dissension resulted and some divisions occurred. But, with the passage of time, and as
additional supposed messages from God were delivered by charismatic leaders accompanied by
healings and other miraculous gifts, the movement was accepted by Roman Catholic, Orthodox
and most Protestant churches so that it grew by leaps and bounds-and is still growing.
The latest development in the
Pentecostal/charismatic advance is the movement known as "Power Evangelism." It
has obviously been designed by its leaders to promote the Pentecostal/charismatic errors
under a different title so as not to offend individuals and churches which feel
uncomfortable about the Pentecostal/charismatic label but who are willing to experiment
with its unscriptural teachings. The two main leaders of this new Power Evangelism
movement are Dr. Peter Wagner of Fuller Theological Seminary and Dr. John Wimber, founder
and director of the Vineyard Christian Fellowship. Both of these men were present in
Manila and conducted seminars promoting Power Evangelism.
Although a comparatively small percentage of the
participants in Manila would have actually called themselves "charismatic," the
impact of key Pentecostal and charismatic leaders delivering plenary addresses and
conducting well-attended workshops could hardly be overestimated. Not only was the
charismatic renewal movement set before the conference as the most successful model of
dynamic evangelistic ministry in the world today, but an appeal was even given to those
evangelicals who were not themselves charismatic to seek a Pentecostal experience. This
latter ploy caused no small stir, and rightly so!
On the second day of the conference during the
evening plenary session, two addresses were given, one by Dr. J. I. Packer, who does not
personally go along with many of the charismatic teachings, and the other by Dr. Jack
Hayford, a classical Pentecostal/charismatic leader. Supposedly by having these two
speakers, the participants would be given a "balanced" teaching concerning the
ministry of the Holy Spirit.
What actually happened, however, was that Dr. Packer
gave a good, positive, Scriptural message on the ministry of the Holy Spirit without once
touching on any of the questions raised by the charismatic teachings. But, when Hayford
spoke, he presented these erroneous teachings in a most attractive, persuasive manner.
Make no mistake about it, the exhortation of this message was for all to experience the
"fullness of the Spirit," and by the supportive illustrations and arguments
Hayford used, this "fullness" was understood as nothing other than the classical
Pentecostal definition.
A video tape shown before Hayford spoke featured
testimonials from Pentecostals worldwide who had received the "baptism of the
Spirit," and embarked on incredibly successful ministries, at least numerically
speaking, where signs, wonders, miracles, etc. became commonplace. The obvious inference
was that these were a necessary requirement to success in evangelistic ministry .
Although Hayford claimed later that his message was
not intended to gain converts for the charismatic position, that was certainly how many
perceived it. His message even included a typical Pentecostal "invitation" at
the end where those in the audience were invited to step out and accept that which they
had been afraid of, or skeptical of, and experience the "fullness of the
Spirit."
Also, in speaking to one Pentecostal leader
concerning Hayford's strategic opportunity to present charismatic doctrine and experience
to an overwhelmingly non-charismatic, evangelical audience, he mentioned the excitement
felt by all the Pentecostals present who knew Hayford would "really let them have it
tonight." Dr. Vinson Synan, noted Pentecostal authority and historian, spoke in
glowing terms of the significance of Hayford's address in expanding the acceptance of
Pentecostalism by the Lausanne movement.
Although the response to Hayford's address was
mixed, many old-line evangelicals were greatly upset, and some predicted that this would
split the Lausanne movement and bring it to a grinding halt. Of course, some
non-charismatic evangelicals were already conditioned to be open to variant theological
positions, and, together with the 10% Pentecostal representation, spoke favorably of
Hayford's address. But, the overall tempest was so great that a special Lausanne executive
committee meeting was held to consider the crisis, and a statement was prepared and read
by its chairman, Leighton Ford the next evening in an attempt to still the troubled
waters. Said Dr. Ford, "The 'Spirit of Lausanne' also applies to various issues. Two
brothers, both committed to the Lausanne Covenant, were asked to speak on the same
topic-The Holy Spirit - Some felt there was a fine balance-- others felt the program was
not balanced.
"What is Lausanne's position on the Holy
Spirit? It is expressed in paragraph 14 of the Lausanne Covenant - read last night - a
statement drafted carefully to recognize differing positions." We interrupt Ford's
statement to quote a portion of paragraph 14 which was read by the conference in unison
early in the plenary session, and referred to specifically by Hayford in his message. The
Lausanne Covenant reads, "... We therefore call upon all Christians to pray for such
a visitation of the sovereign Spirit of God that all his fruit may appear in all his
people and that all his gifts may enrich the body of Christ...."
Those who know what the Bible really teaches about
the gifts of the Spirit understand that certain of these were given by God to the early
Church only, and they ceased after the final revelation of God was given in the form of
the written Word of God (1 Corinthians 13). On the other hand, the Pentecostal/charismatic
movement insists on the continuance of all these gifts to the present day, even claiming
that God is still giving revelations in addition to the Bible by way of prophecies,
tongues, visions, etc., and that Christians should consider such extrabiblical revelations
as authoritative.
Ford was correct when he said the Lausanne Covenant
allows for "differing positions" on this subject, but this sad fact is not
something to boast about! Any document which purports to give a Biblical, God- honoring
basis for a fellowship of believers, and yet purposely allows for variant interpretations
is not only worthless, it is dangerous! Let's continue Ford's attempt to quiet the
controversy raised by Hayford's sermon: "Within the Lausanne Movement some hold that
we should expect signs and wonders as a frequent accompaniment of evangelism. Others - not
out of timidity but because of their understanding of Scripture - do not hold that view.
[Note: That latter position was definitely NOT presented at Manila as it should have been,
but evidently Lausanne's leadership feared the whole truth would be too divisive.]
"The Spirit of Lausanne has always been to love
and affirm one another, tho' at times we differ on ways of ministry.
"Jim Packer and Jack Hayford and I have
discussed this at some length today, and we are agreed that our Lausanne fellowship that
we now have will continue, as we have mutual acceptance and trust based on God's Word and
our Lausanne Covenant." At a press conference the following day, the moderator made
the following comment before opening the session for questions from members of the press:
"Many of you press people were present [at Lausanne I] in 1974. I was just a young
journalist in 1974, and had I experienced in '74 what I experienced yesterday evening, I
would have walked out! I think that this indicates a changing situation. No, that doesn't
mean that we can't pose questions as to what happened yesterday evening, but it does show
how the stream among evangelicals has been moving."
Yes, indeed, things have changed since 1974, and the
moderator was correct in his appraisal of the shift in how evangelicals perceive the
charismatic movement. Fifteen years ago there would have been many Bible- believers who
would have "walked out," and undoubtedly many would have voiced their Biblical
convictions as to why they could not go along with the dangerous errors of a subjective,
unbiblical Pentecostalism. As this moderator stated, attitudes have changed through the
years, and certainly not for the better. Tolerance of error has sadly displaced
"contending for the Faith."
We asked Dr. Packer, who supposedly represented the
evangelical, non-charismatic position, why he did not articulate in his plenary address
some of the "serious theological concerns" concerning charismatic doctrines
which he had previously voiced elsewhere. It would seem that if the Lausanne program
committee had really wanted to give a "balanced" presentation of the ministry of
the Holy Spirit at the Manila conference, then such a rebuttal of the charismatic's pitch
would be a must.
Dr. Packer's response was that he did not have the
option to decide the subject matter of his address, the program had previously been set,
and it was not his purpose to "start a theological debate." He stated that he
did not view Hayford's presentation as an "imperialist Pentecostal mission," and
he saw himself more as a peacemaker whose it was to avoid polarization rather than further
it. Dr. Packer succeeded in that task. However, as a result, all of the participants heard
charismatic error from the pulpit and in the workshops with absolutely no warning
concerning its dangers.
John Wimber commented also on charismatic
authenticity: "...We are going to see rapid change as the century closes, and with it
in the aftermath will come some good clear thinking." Imagine that-God would
supposedly have the church pursue a course of "Power Evangelism" where signs,
wonders, miracles, healings, etc., determine whether what is going on is of God or not!
Then, according to Wimber's reasoning, "some good clear thinking" would later
produce a theology to explain what has happened.
At Manila, the incredible statistics and testimonies
of "Power Evangelism" were set before the participant as THE way to get the job
done. Sound doctrine was to be set aside for the time being. Sound doctrine, they were
told, will catch up with reality later.
It was also interesting to hear a brother from India
who mentioned in another press conference that EVERY ONE of the "Power
Evangelism" style miracles of healings, tongues, wonders, signs, etc., can be
duplicated by the heathen native religions of his land! Yes, satanic deceptions abound!
Are we to follow Wimber's counsel and believe that the miracles worked in pagan faiths
authenticate their veracity before the one, true God? That's foolishness, but it is a
fallacy very close to that which the charismatics are wanting the world to believe-if a
miracle is worked under the banner of Christianity, then it must be of God. Not so!
The afternoon Conference workshop track (seminar)
"Holy Spirit and Evangelization" was actually a mini-charismatic conference
within the Lausanne II conference itself. Remember, the vast majority of evangelicals
present were non-charismatic, yet the emphasis in this workshop was totally charismatic!
Notice the following titles of these workshops:
"The Worldwide Holy Spirit Renewal," led by Vinson Synan, Pentecostal leader;
"The Holy Spirit in Church Growth," with Peter Wagner from Fuller Seminary;
"The Holy Spirit's Work in Power Evangelism," with John Wimber; "The Holy
Spirit's Presence in Worship Produces Evangelism," led by Jack Hayford; "The
Holy Spirit in Two-Thirds World Mass Evangelism," where William Kumuyi recounted how
"Spirit-filled evangelists" drew crowds of from 50,000 to 500,000 through
prophetic gifts and miracles; "Open Session for Reports on Power Evangelism,"
where American Baptist charismatic leader Gary Clark presided; "Spiritual Conquest
Over Evil Spirits," with Marfa and Omar Cabrera, where attenders were taught how to
"take authority" over evil principalities and release "people groups"
in geographical areas so they can "enter the Kingdom of God through new spiritual
birth"; "The Spirit's Ministry of Healing and Evangelism," led by Paul
Yonggi Cho, charismatic, occultic pastor of the world's largest church in Korea.
Top Pentecostal/charismatic power evangelism leaders
did their best to promote their unscriptural teachings concerning the ministry and gifts
of the Holy Spirit. As far as I could tell, no public word of Scriptural refutation was
officially given to the participants. The charismatic movement, therefore, received a
gigantic boost in Manila!
CONCLUDING CONCERNS
At Manila, there was more in the way of ecumenical
influence, language, precepts, and concepts in evidence than at any previous major
evangelical meeting in the history of the Church. Oh yes, as already noted, there were
some splendid, Biblical messages given and materials distributed, but that could never
justify the great emphasis given to the promotion of deceptive, ecumenical, charismatic
error.
But, there were also speakers like Dr. Robert
Schuller, world-famous deceiver who has the largest weekly TV audience in the USA.
Schuller was there, as he has been at so many evangelical conferences, to tell those
interested in evangelism how he had found he could reach more people for Christ without
quoting the Bible since they didn't understand it anyway. God's program of using faithful,
true-to-the-Word local churches to evangelize the world had a strange apologist, Robert
Schuller, the most deceptive liberal one could imagine!
t Manila there was more pressure exerted to
encourage women to disobey the Word of God as to their own places of ministry and service
than would be found in most ecumenical gatherings. Lausanne leaders were "sorry"
that they couldn't find more qualified women as plenary speakers and workshop leaders. The
ecumenical remarks of one woman speaker, Roberta Hestenes, were quoted previously. She is
an ordained Presbyterian pastor who is now president of a Baptist college. Another
well-known woman speaker was the General of the Salvation Army, Eva Burrows, who, in 1988,
was a major speaker at Congress '88, a conference on evangelism, a major purpose of which
was to "demonstrate Christian unity." On that program with Eva Burrows were two
top Roman Catholic leaders, Alvin Illig and Joseph Cardinal Bernardin. And, the closing
message of this ecumenical/charismatic/evangelical congress was brought by none other than
Dr. Leighton Ford.
It is important to note that the main drafter of the
Lausanne Covenant of 1974 was Dr. John Stott, who fulfilled the same function in the
preparation of the Manila Manifesto. Both documents represent a masterful use of words
designed to satisfy evangelicals whose theological views differ greatly. Dr. Stott has
made it clear that he no longer holds to the historic evangelical position as to the
eternal punishment of the lost. Instead, he believes in the ultimate annihilation of the
wicked. He admits that his views on this subject differ from what he formerly believed.
One cannot help but wonder how many other important doctrines he may question before he
admits to further change.
Just as ecumenical apostates have done for decades,
evangelical leaders at Manila boasted of their "diversity," claiming that much
good resulted from "creative tension," which would eventually "enrich"
all concerned and result in a wonderful "unity in diversity." What duplicity!
What double-talk! What deception!
There was also a great amount of "ecumenically
acceptable worldliness" in this "evangelical" meeting. There were
"Thai Dancers" whose performances were said to "link culture and
worship" and, interpretive dancers in filmy, flowing, white gowns who supposedly
aided an evangelical "spirit of worship." Many evangelicals were astounded. Some
were uneasy, but gradually all was accepted.
The following excerpts are from an article entitled
"Potpourri Manila," which appeared in the closing-day issue of the Lausanne II
in- house paper, The Daily News. It reveals the confused musings of an evangelical
reporter. What better evidence could be found to illustrate and confirm the strange,
ecumenical-evangelical-worldly mixture which characterized all ten days of this meeting,
which was widely heralded as the "conference which would shape the future of
evangelism in the next decade."
"The Whole Church. The Whole Gospel. The Whole
World. One out of every four a woman. Charismatics. Non-Charismatics. Two-Thirds World.
Emerging Missions. Passing on the Torch. Until He Comes. Unreached Peoples. Social
Justice. Proclaim Him...The fulfillment of a vision. 1974. 1989. Networking...Building
Bridges...Cory Aquino...The Russians are coming! The Chinese are not...Prayer. Laughter.
Dance. Communion. Caucus. Discussion. Disagreement. Mutual respect. And
understanding...Ten days fly by. Did it all happen? Yes, it did...And will it change the
world? We hope so. The covenant did. At least it united us. And the Manifesto?" What
a pitiful but truthful summary of Lausanne II in Manila!
Everyone received a ten-day ecumenical brainwashing
in the name of evangelicalism. Those who were not entirely deceived must surely have left
Manila very much confused. The Lausanne II leaders will not release the names and
addresses of the participants, to the press or anyone else. Most publications, both
secular and religious, have already come out with glowing reports of the Manila meeting.
But we ask your prayers and help ing these words of warning out to true believers all
around the world. Unless the truth is known and acted upon, further compromise is
inevitable.
(FOUNDATION, M/J, 1989, "Lausanne II in
Manila", part 3, pp. 13-16)
FOUNDATION Magazine is available from the Fundamental Evangelistic Association. Click
here 
to go to the ordering form / price list.
Return to FOUNDATION
Magazine Index Listing
