AVOID THE “ONE WORLD CHURCH” CONCEPT

AVOID THE “ONE WORLD CHURCH” CONCEPT;

CLING TO THE FUNDAMENTALS OF OUR FAITH

In prophetic portions of the Bible, the concept -- even

the reality -- of a “One World Church” in the future

is clearly set forth. In the reign of the Antichrist it

will have great power, but that is in the prophetic

future. Today Liberals within the Christian community

have become excited about a “One World Church,”

which they are willing --even eager-- to help bring

into being. In this “One World Church” there will be

a unity of worship, but it will not be based upon, nor

will it include any recognition of, the deity of Jesus

Christ, His incarnation as the only begotten Son of God,

or His sacrificial death for the salvation of believers.

That concept is already being promoted today by

those who are willing to sacrifice the basic elements

of the Christian faith to join other religions under the

ecumenical banner of unity.

In mid-October, at the end of the month of Ramadan,

American Christians, as well as fellow Christians all

over the world, were made aware of a letter from 138

Islamic scholars, titled “A Common Word Between

Us and You.” The letter set forth what those scholars

portray as the similarities between Christianity and

Islam. They endowed their concept of unity between

the two religions with profound significance, using

this statement, almost as a threat: “The Future of the

world depends upon peace between Muslims and

Christians.”

Their analysis of this principle was expressed in these

words, “The basis for this peace and understanding

already exists. It is part of the very foundational

principles of both faiths: love of the One God, and

love of the neighbour. These principles are found

over and over again in the sacred texts of Islam and

Christianity. The Unity of God, the necessity of love

for Him, and the necessity of love of the neighbour

is thus the common ground between Islam and

Christianity.”

Almost immediately, the Yale University School of

Divinity responded to the message from the Islamic

scholars in a letter titled, “Loving God And Neighbor.”

Their response appeared in a full page advertisement

in the New York Times on November 18, supported

by the signatures of some 300 religious leaders

representing a broad cross-section of the Liberal

theological viewpoint.

Included, however, were a few signatures from other

individuals who are usually considered to represent

the Conservative, or even the Evangelical viewpoint.

For example: the Provost and President of Wheaton

College; the President and Dean of Fuller Seminary;

the President Emeritus of Gordon Conwell Seminary;

the President and Vice President of the National

Association of Evangelicals (NAE); the Editor in Chief

of Christianity Today publications; and these much

publicized “mega-church” pastors, Robert Schuller of

the Crystal Cathedral, Bill Hybels, of Willow Creek

Congregational Church and Rick Warren, best selling

author and pastor of Saddleback Church.

Of those signatures, Albert Mohler, President of

Southern Baptist Seminary (who did not sign the Yale

response) said that he recognizes that those people

signed the letter as an act of goodwill, but holds that

such an action is unwise for Christians.

“Unwise” may be an extremely mild term. Mohler went

on to say, “”When Christians enter into a conversation,

we must enter the conversation as Christians.” He is

right. What the composers of the Yale response -- and

those who signed it -- failed to understand is that the

Quran which is quoted so freely by the Islamists, in 5:17

states that all who believe in the divinity of Christ are

unbelievers; in 4:171 says Jesus was not crucified; in

9:30 says that those who believe that Jesus is the Son

of God are accursed; in 9:29 mandates war against Jews

and Christians; and in 112:1-4 denies the Trinity, and

that Jesus is God’s Son. It is difficult -- no, impossible --

to enter into a serious dialogue with scholars who hold

firmly and unchangeably to those views.

The Yale response even went so far as to apologize for,

and to ask Allah’s forgiveness for the acts of Christians

during the Crusades -- which is at best a fawning

capitulation to the Muslims for events which took place

more than 500 years before the American Declaration of

Independence was written or signed.

The attention the media has directed to this exchange

of letters is premature and unwarranted. Before any

realistic or substantive discussion with Islamists can

ever take place, the Allah-directed persecution and

slaying of Christians has to be addressed, and the false

assumption that Allah and Jehovah are one and the

same God has to be abandoned by both sides.

Rather than yielding to the Liberal desire for a “One

World Church,” this is a time for Christian believers

to return to a firm adherence to the basic elements

of the Christian faith. In the late 19^th and early 20^th

century these basic elements were promulgated under

the term “fundamentals.” Those who adopted and

emphasized those basics were called “Fundamentalists.”

That movement was instituted as a response to the

growth of an extremely liberal trend in theology called

“Modernism.“ The “fundamentals” were essentially

these basic Christian beliefs: the inerrancy of the
Bible, the virgin birth of Christ, the substitutionary
atonement, the bodily resurrection of Jesus, and the
imminent return of Jesus Christ.

Unfortunately, some “fundamentalists” over-reacted

and became divisive. The term and the concept took

on a not-undeserved derisive connotation. Then in the

mid-20^th century, the distinguished theologian Carl

Henry wrote a definitive treatise titled, “The Uneasy

Conscience of Modern Fundamentalism,” and the

Evangelical movement was born.

Today, in a time when once again there is a liberal move

toward a “One World Church” and an ideological union

with such a diverse religion as Islam, the answer for

American -- and world -- Christians is to return to the

basic elements, the fundamentals , of the Christian faith.

IS EVANGELISM REALLY IMPORTANT?

The Liberal critics may argue that “evangelism”
or “evangelical” are really not important, because
those words are not found in the Bible, or, as the
“Red Letter Christians” would put it, “Jesus never
used those words.”

That argument makes as much sense -- i.e. none --
as those same Liberal critics insisting that there is
nothing wrong from a Scriptural standpoint about
abortion or homosexuality, because those words are
not found anywhere in the Bible. And, of course, the
“Red Letter Christians” will join in by pointing out
that Jesus never used those words.

Their arguments are so pitiful, and their positions
so untenable that we should probably ignore them,
and hope that they will go away. But they may not
do that, so let’s take just a few minutes to look at the
facts, hoping that there aren’t many still around like
the fabled old lady who said “I’ve already made up
my mind -- don’t confuse me with the facts.”

The word “evangelist” does appear three times in the
New Testament, twice as singular usage, and once as
plural: Acts 21:8, “Philip the evangelist;” 2 Tim. 4:5,
“do the work of an evangelist;” Eph. 4:11, “and some,
evangelists.”

In each of those usages, the Greek word phonetically
is euangelistes meaning “a messenger of good,” denoting
“a preacher of the gospel.” There are in the original
language of the New Testament, two other forms of
that same word: euangelizo, a verb meaning “to preach
good news,” and euangelion, a noun meaning “good news”
or the “gospel.”

Thus the words “evangelism” or “evangelize,” while not
appearing directly in the New Testament, clearly carry
just one meaning: to preach the gospel.

It is interesting that Jesus’ final words before He left this
earth and ascended into heaven, were “Go ye into all the
world and preach the gospel.“ (Mark 16:15) The original
language used here included kerusso, meaning “be a herald”
or “preach” combined with euangelion which means “the
gospel.” Thus the basic meaning of evangelism in
New Testament usage is clearly to preach the gospel.
In recent years, let us say in the Twentieth Century,
debates arose over whether evangelism embodied
simply the preaching of the gospel, or did it imply
a ministry beyond preaching, a follow-through? In
1946 the Archbishop of Canterbury authorized a
Commission and its findings were published in the
volume, “Toward the Conversion of England.“

In that report this definition of evangelism appeared,
and it has stood, unchanged and accepted, for the past
60 years: “To evangelize is so to present Christ Jesus in
the power of the Holy Spirit, that men shall come to
put their trust in God through Him, to accept Him as
their savior, and serve Him as their King in the
fellowship of His Church.”

In even more recent years there have been attempts to
broaden the meaning of evangelism so that it becomes,
for example, working toward a cure for AIDS in Africa,
compassion and justice for the poor, global human rights,
and even promoting the global warming theory. Good
works, from a Scriptural standpoint, are the outworking
of the Christian faith and are not a substitute for it. Taken
to an extreme, for example, Kay Warren, wife of the best
selling author and mega-church pastor Rick Warren,
describes the AIDS program as “the greatest opportunity
for the church to be the church.“

In a recent issue of Christianity Today magazine,
author Mark Dever excerpts a passage from his
book , “The Gospel and Personal Evangelism.”
He outlines “What evangelism Isn’t” and very
clearly sets forth five examples, including The
Imposition of our Beliefs, Personal Testimony,
Social Action and Public Involvement,
Apologetics, and the Results of Evangelism.
He comments: “To be evangelism, he gospel
must be clearly communicated …” Good works
however important or necessary they may seem
to be, are not evangelism.

Paul directed us: “Do the work of an evangelist.”
(2 Tim. 4:5) Jesus commanded us, “Go ye into
all the world and preach the gospel (evangelize)
to every creature.“ (Mark 16:15)