Televangelicalism - Robert Wurtz II

...rather than the Word of His grace in the midst of a local assembly. That is to say, rather than hearing what the Spirit is saying to the local church, ministers were now preaching sermons, etc. that would be regurgitated into local assemblies... Soon they would be quoted and imitated in almost every way. We will watch slowly as the radio evangelists and the televangelists begin to dictate trends and fads within the local churches. This is very sobering.

Thanks Robert. We often lament the coflation of the gosepl with politics, but i think that political fusion is really just a part of a larger problem you are touching on here. Under the hegemony of American pop culture, our local congregations have lost a sense of Christ walking in their midst. Even the smallest local churches rely on mass produced media tools to keep current with trends and tastes. They mean well, but many can't imagine life without fitting in to the larger radio and television streams.

I believe the topic you have touched on here merits expanded research. This is the kind of post modern confrontation that the emergent church missed, as they merely replaced one flavor of mass celebrity with another.

Blessings,

MC

Thanks dear brothers for the support and kind words.

I believe the topic you have touched on here merits expanded research.

I believe you are right bro. Mike.

For those that may be interested the article has accompanying pictures that help give a visual of what is talked about. We are being flooded with so much compromise today and in so many areas that it can almost be overwhelming. But I believe God has a solution.

Robert,

The reason your analysis works so well for me, is the way you have used the post-modernist perspective to deconstruct belief in a "faulty tower", rather then to negate faith in Christ. (The opposite of the what emergent religion has done..they have simply commandeered the broadcast tower.)

Also, you have managed to resist being dumbed down without becoming elitist. I didn't sense any anti-cultural snobbery, but rather an attempt to understand how passive we like sheep have become.

Over 100 years ago, Samuel Morse demonstrated how long distant communication would soon become mass communication. The invention he used to anticipate mass communication was not the telegraph but the repeater. Morse's telegraph had an upper range of less then 300 miles, and so every 200 miles the railroads would hire a man to sit in a remote outpost to receive and resend the incoming messages. It wasn't long before they realized this repeat could be achieved just by mechanically linking the receiver coil to another sender coil, to begin a new 200 mile loop. In this way a single message was able to criss-cross a national network.

So the telegraph enabled long distant communication, but it was the invention of the relay or the repeater that opened the door to mass communication.

We human beings often overlook, or can't see, that we can be just another type of relay or repeater in the circuitry of mass communication if we aren't careful. I find that many people can hardly tell the different between someone else's mind and their own.

The implications for Christians are worth considering. I hope you keep going Robert...I think you have the best framework and approach I've seen for this issue from a biblical perspective.

Blessings,

MC

We human beings often overlook, or can't see, that we can be just another type of relay or repeater in the circuitry of mass communication if we aren't careful. I find that many people can hardly tell the different between someone else's mind and their own.

Very sobering thoughts here brother. Not wanting to be a 'repeater', but I may incorporate this concept into my next article as I believe it contributes to the conversation. ;-)

An excellent article, Robert. It's deeply ironic to think that the messages of the great preachers that are so readily available to us because of modern technology could actually be causing the present famine of the word that is so widespread in the local churches. Why so? Because it is the local churches (not the great preachers) that God means to be the loaf of sustenance for the hungry. "For we, being many, are one bread, and one body..." (1 Cor. 10.17).

I mean... I am thankful for these men. But something is wrong when you compare that menu (the messages of the great Christian personalities) with what is on the plate of the ordinary local church.

"Let us search and try our ways, and turn again to the Lord."

Allan

I mean... I am thankful for these men. But something is wrong when you compare that menu (the messages of the great Christian personalities) with what is on the plate of the ordinary local church.

"Let us search and try our ways, and turn again to the Lord."

I believe you are right Allan. I am thankful for these men as well, but we must realize that God wants to speak to us from His word directly and in the local assembly. The Lord has a present word to say to us there if we will have ears to hear.

This is a great article. Great statements.

Thank you Robert for writing this very informative article on this important subject.

There are actually only a few programs that I even watch on Christian T.V. any more.

There is a whole technology out there of advertising that uses the methods of the world to draw numbers. Man is only building another tower of Babel to make a name for himself.

If we had more prayer meetings in our churches, and the presence of the Holy Spirit in our services then the hungry seekers after God would come. You don't have to advertise the fire of God, it will be it's own advertisement.

Mike

Hi Robert,

I certainly didn't mean to imply that repeating is bad in itself:) I only was pointing out how repeating is as necessary a component of mass media as broadcasting or publishing is. So, i don't think we should, or even can avoid repeating, but only that we should be aware of our tendency to contribute to mass media by our own efforts.

When I said some people have a hard time telling their own minds from others, i feel this is easily demonstrated by how quickly people's minds are shaped by other peoples narratives.

And in the case of the church, if people have a hard time telling their own thoughts from someone else's, then how much harder is it for people to tell Gods thoughts from their own? Considering this, I feel that "media theory" is not just a topic for philosophers to consider. The topic is for anyone wanting to follow the Holy Spirit in a century when every waking second the human mind is bombarded by dissonant voices and perspectives without rest.

Blessings,

MC

Thanks everyone for the input. It has been very helpful.

Bro. Mike's: The topic is for anyone wanting to follow the Holy Spirit in a century when every waking second the human mind is bombarded by dissonant voices and perspectives without rest.

I had a thought that it seems that people are getting so consumed with communication that there may well be a point when they reach a sort-of "full saturation" where they are unable to absorb what God is saying to them. There is simply so much information passing around that nothing has time to set in the mind or rest on the heart long enough to make any kind of lasting impact. Why? Because the next thing comes and its a different thought process. Almost like in C.S. Lewis's Screwtape Letters. The sheer volume of information is becoming the means by which people are being completely distracted from God. The boy yelling and selling newspapers or the city bus belching out smoke is replaced by the volumes of information as the means by which the heart turns its thoughts away from God. It is like a huge tophet session.

Brother Robert,

I agree with you that there is an information overload going on. There is a mental search for more information, and now with the internet, this knowledge is right at our fingertips. The problem is that just getting information can be dangerous because it can put us in a false postion of thinking that we know God but in reality it is really mental assent. We need to get quite before God, hear the voice of the Holy Spirit, and allow the Holy Spirit to open our eyes and give us revelation.

Mike

The sheer volume of information is becoming the means by which people are being completely distracted from God.

Perhaps this is why we are seeing a chilling dismissal of critical thinking in the West. People are exhausted or overwhelmed. Or perhaps we no longer believe there is a truth to be found at the end of all our thinking.

300 years ago the Enlightenment began as a critical thinking project in which the collective focus was to liberate society from the "enthusiasm" of uncritical religious thought.

Now we are seeing the emergence of the post-modern project in which the collective focus is to liberate society from the burden of critical thinking.

The West turning is turning back to uncritical enthusiasm, but this time for their concept of man, not of God.

And so, just as religious enthusiasm did 300 years ago, there is a new kind of humanist enthusiasm that will protect itself violently from critical thinking. I call this a "new kind" of humanist enthusiasm, because it no longer believes in the universality of humanity held together by the idea of a final model of the world, but rather in a fragmented humanity, divided by fragmented ideas in group or individual identities. The New Humanism has replaced the old, by replacing rational criticism with Identity Criticism.

The Evangelical, who previously managed to synthesize their faith in scriptural revelation and the critical thinking of the enlightenment into a rational biblical faith, finds themselves in a world makes no sense to them. The reason the post-modern era doesn't make sense to the modern evangelical is not because Western thought has abandoned historical Christian belief in biblical revelation, but because it has abandoned historical Enlightenment belief in rational truth. In this context, the "televangelist" they had supported 30 years ago only adds to the absurdity. They have also abandoned critical thinking years ago, and become so aesthetically or economically preoccupied, that they can offer little spiritual or intellectual content or to the urgent conversations of our day.

MC

Thanks again to everyone for the input.

The reason the post-modern era doesn't make sense to the modern evangelical is not because Western thought has abandoned historical Christian belief in biblical revelation, but because it has abandoned historical Enlightenment belief in rational truth. In this context, the "televangelist" they had supported 30 years ago only adds to the absurdity. They have also abandoned critical thinking years ago, and become so aesthetically or economically preoccupied, that they can offer little spiritual or intellectual content or to the urgent conversations of our day.

I am focused on this point because I think it may be a lot of the reason why teaching can almost become a waste of time in some cases. If folks are not thinking rationally about the subject you lay out before their minds, what hope do we have of ever teaching truth. Could some of this be what theologians refer to as the noetic effects of sin? I'm not sure who all understands the concept, but it deals with how sin can corrupt our ability to think rationally.

Could some of this be what theologians refer to as the noetic effects of sin?

Certainly I believe sin dumbs our minds down by harming our sense of cause and effect. Even a Christian may be clear on what the correct "result" of their life should be, but if they estrange themselves from the correct principles and process that produce their correct product, all of life will seem to them as an irrational mystery.

I've experienced this firsthand!

MC

Hi Andrew,

Faith may be reasonable to a reasonable and inquiring mind. But in the end it is in truth a gift of God which if exercised produces the most reasonable outcome. Hope this does not interfere with your efforts Robert.

I don't think it does. I see faith as response to revelation. God, by His grace, brings revelation to the mind and heart and then leaves us to respond in faith. When I think of the noetic effects of sin, I am thinking primarily on man's ability (or willingness) to agree with the revelation they are given. To me it is irrational not to believe God exists based upon the revelation (light) we have all been afforded; but what I believe is in play is summarized in Romans 1:21:

“For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened.” (Rom. 1:21).

There is a sense in which a person, desiring to break the tension between their evil heart and their conscience, is prepared to entertain a lie. Once the heart is determined to believe that lie the conscience begins to sear. Over time the person will believe that lie in such a way that it despells any truth related to the same subject. They have simply "believed a lie". This is their contribution to the problem and constitutes part 1 of the noetic effect.

We then have the enemies contribution. He has solicited a lie to replace the truth of God, the person has believed that lie, and are moving in it as if it were truth. This brings about part 2 of the noetic effect.

In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them. (2 Cor. 4:4)

If the person refuses to respond to the dealings of God; or as the writer to the Hebrews says, "Today if you will hear His voice harden not your heart", then we move into part three of the noetic effect and I suggest, the most dreadful.

And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness. (2 Thess. 2:10-12)

Although I recognize the eschatological implications of this passage, I believe the principal is always in play. The person refused to receive the love of the truth, being deceived by unrighteousness (the deceitfulness of sin that hardens the heart towards God). The consequence is that God adds the final delusion in order to give the person what they want.

Although God in His grace must speak to us in order for us to have faith, I believe our response to that "revelation", that is to say, "the hearing of His voice" has a direct effect on how we reason out spiritual matters. I'm not so sure it is a matter of understanding truth in an intellectual sense, but rather the mind can become so fixed on a lie(s) that it will not acknowledge truth. Why? It loved unrighteousness.

Blessings,

Robert

[Certainly I believe sin dumbs our minds down by harming our sense of cause and effect. Even a Christian may be clear on what the correct "result" of their life should be, but if they estrange themselves from the correct principles and process that produce their correct product, all of life will seem to them as an irrational mystery.

This is another vital truth. I want to come at it from a different direction though to make a point. Many people today have learned how to "play the part" without going through the process of truly being born from above. Leonard Ravenhill deals with this in his interview. Although different from your experience, I have seen the emptiness of folks that are trying to imitate faith, but are devoid of the inward reality.

Blessings,

Robert

It may seem we are detouring more then the subject of the thread should be stretched, but there is a reason here to dig a little deeper into the history of American religous thought. The idea or scheme I would like to lay out here is that American Evangelicism was really a synthesis between prior church doctrine and new Enlightenment doctrines.

I think Armkelly has pointed out the difficultly of talking about ideas like enlightenment and post-modernity, while at the same time putting her finger expertly on the essence of the matter in bringing up Isaac Newton. Newton is, in my little scheme, a perfect example of someone who tried to synthesize scientific thought with elements of faith...albeit some of his faith was directed outside of Christian doctrine, to such subjects as Alchemy.

Perhaps this seemed "reasonable" to him because ultimately he believed that, with enough diligence, all types of human knowledges, both natural and revealed, could be unified into one body of human truth.

So, again in my scheme, this belief or assumption in the certainty of knowable truth was what allowed 18th century emerging evangelicalism to cherry pick from the Enlightenments natural knowledges, without feeling an insurmountable contradiction in their own faith. The common link was belief in truth.

Much of this synthesis between natural and revealed truth was achieved by learning from science but not adopting scientism. An example of this synthesis can be found in Wesley, who cultivated himself with a broad reading habit, and Jonathan Edwards, who to this day is regarded as the colonies first true naturalist.

Evangelical Christianity could make good use of enlightenment political theory as well, sharing a mutual appreciation for religious tolerance, as well as a disdain for unchecked government power.

This synthesis culminated politically in the Constitution of the newly formed United States, where for almost 200 years, various evangelical forms of Christianity from Methodism to fundamentalism, to Pentecostalism, could exist with historically relatively low tension as part of the fabric of the nation...more or less. This is how many American Christians today have come to feel their nation was more or less founded on Christian principles,...because it partially was...And this is how liberals today feel America was founded on the idea of secular liberty...because it partially was...

Yet even after taking onto consideration the Enlightenments athiestic conclusions, it's philosophies still offered religion a more genteel posture of disagreement when compared to the barbaric persecutions of kings and popes in prior centuries. This tolerant temperament also invited synthesis between Christian belief and Enlightnement Philosophy.

Consider this gospelesque quote from the Enlightments exemplar book, the Encyclopédie...
"Reason is to the philosopher what grace is to the Christian... Other men walk in darkness; the philosopher, who has the same passions, acts only after reflection; he walks through the night, but it is preceded by a torch. The philosopher forms his principles on an infinity of particular observations. He does not confuse truth with plausibility; he takes for truth what is true, for forgery what is false, for doubtful what is doubtful, and probable what is probable. The philosophical spirit is thus a spirit of observation and accuracy." (Philosophers, Dumarsais)

By the early 19th century the synthesis of christianity and enlightnement produced a millennial theology in which the gospel and science would go hand in hand in bringing the light of Christian civilzation to a dark primitive world. Reason and Grace became the single shared light.. Americans both religious and non religious were enthralled as Sameul Morse successfully tested hisscientific invention of the telegraph with the enthusiastic expression "What hath God Wrought!"

But after the horrors of the American Civil war, and Darwin's Origins, the synthesis became strained. Evangelicalism entered into the 20th century disenchanted with "progress" and became stretched to the breaking point between two poles. And soon after, by the latter half of the 20th century everyone else was also growing disenchanted with "progress"

And so, having first been disenchanted by religion, and then by scientism, modern western man became "post-modern." convservative Evangelicals are of course mostly disenchanted with the ideologies of science, but not disenchanted with their own biblical faith...and in that sense we are not fully post-modern....but we feel adrift in our own age and culture..

If I seemed positive about either the enlightenment or post-modernism, I apologize; I was trying to affect ambivilance. These things simply are as they are. However, if there is one thing in Post Modernity to be positive about, it is the disenchantment with unreasonable faith in mans own self certainty.

Part of what I saw Robert achieving, with his review of the history of televangelism, was to help the last few remaining practitioners in the experiment of mass evangelism to face the music, and finally accept the spiritual impotence of technology and political connections. The synthesis Is over.

Blessings,

MC

I think that's a word there bro. Mike.

Lastly it is not my intention to continue contributing to this thread as I would myself like to see where it is going beyond perceptions about the foolishness of building a tower for God in the dessert.

When I originally published this article in 2009 it was part 8 of a series I entitled, "None now live that remember." http://realrevival.blogspot.com/2009/07/none-now-live-that-remember.html

In this series I have tried to show as best as possible some of the root causes for the de-emphasis of genuine regeneration. Here in the US, in a period of 35 years we went from using the language "hopefully converted" to "got saved" to describe a person's outward response to the Gospel. This took place during the time of Billy Sunday. And because of the way people associate popularity and number with authority, his methods were employed as if they were right. Billy Sunday had built on the foundation of Charles Finney's "new measures".

What I am gleaning from you brothers posts is that it is human nature to want to "build" things; particularly to build upon man made means of reaching God. I cannot lay the blame for the sinners prayer at the feet of Finney, but we are warned in scripture that the foundation of the Gospel has been laid and we are to take heed as to what we build upon it. I said before that we have lost or are fastly loosing continuity with the past due to popular culture. I am intrigued with how many can discard the old paths of holiness and righteousness, but keep on recycling the nonsensical methods of evangelism and "leading a person to Christ" that is the source of much of our problems in the churches of God. I tremble to say it, but we are seeing the churches filled with goats and are trying to disciple them into sheep. It is impossible.

Televangelicalism in the U.S has built upon the foundation of Billy Sunday, who built upon DL Moody, who built upon Finney. P. Reidhead discovered in the 60's that the invitation to come to Christ had shifted to an appeal to selfishness. This was added to A.W. Tozer's observation that people were coming to Christ based on logical deductions drawn from proof texts. This is a very serious problem.

Where I see this problem manifesting over and over is in the area of the fruit of the Spirit. In my view, we have lost our means of identification. Ministers are now 'judged' not on how they walk in the Spirit and exhibit love, joy, peace, gentleness, temperance, etc., but how large their program audience is or how eloquently they can craft catch phrases that tickle the ears. And if a person purports to move in the supernatural they are almost idolized. It is a recipe for deceiving the masses. Authority must find it's roots in a different evidence than this; otherwise we have lost Christianity in the mainstream.

It is my view that we must return to the most basic thing; every tree that does not bring forth good fruit is cast into the flames. That which bears thorns and briars is rejected, it is near unto cursing, whose end is to be burned. We need the things that accompany genuine salvation (love, joy, peace, gentleness, temperance, meekness, etc.). We need fruit unto holiness. We will never see the tide turn so long as men and women are on TV spilling out all manor of falsehood and nonsense. The TV preacher all too often dictates the direction and emphasis in the local churches. The quickest way to get a ministry is to preach physical healing, but God is wanting to heal the soul and spirit of men that are terminally ill with Sin itself. But this does not sell. It does not increase the ratings or the mailing list.

sorry so long... blessings, Robert

My sincere apologies Andrew, for my confusion about your identity. I'm not sure how I came to my misperception, but it wasn't anything you said. The fault is entirely my own, and I thank you for the friendly clarification:)

You have presented new information and insights on Newton then I previously had. My take on that period was indeed that these men were in a transition period between superstition and science, but as you have pointed out there have been strong cultic underpinnings even in the most scientifically progressive western societies. So it would be a mistake on my part to continue seeing Newton's involvement with these things as innocent artifacts from the superstitious scholarship of this day, just as it would be incorrect to see Nazi cultism as oddly retro-progressive.

If I understand at least partially what you are driving towards, it is that from the days of Babel, there as always been a satanic design on the imaginations and methodologies of men, including men like Newton, or Jefferson, and it is this influence and these same types of methodologies that is "informing" the motives and strategies of present day televangelists.

Thanks again,

MC

I said before that we have lost or are fastly loosing continuity with the past due to popular culture

It is producing a fragmented culture of conflicting narratives about the past, and feelings of confusion about who we are. (Babel again...)

It is my view that we must return to the most basic thing...We will never see the tide turn so long as men and women are on TV spilling out all manor of falsehood and nonsense.

I wonder if men can comprehend the most basic thing. I remember reading, I think it was a writer named Walker Percy, who said that scientific paradigms have so much altered our modern consciousness, that we can scarcely comprehend things like sin and atonement. Somehow, without any reference or mental framework to these things, the most basic thing becomes something else...such as "Your Best Life Now," or something else just as indicative of the time.

Without a truly miraculous intervening revelation and conviction, I don't think even many in the Church can see the basic things.

And I wonder if the only way to break free of this cycle of worrying about numbers, is to determine to preach like Noah, measuring the faithfulness of our words, rather then the numbers. Perhaps this is an old discussion...

Well, on this issue I'm thinking I'm better at coming up with questions, then answers!

Blessings,

MC

My comment about not posting further into the thread was also based on an expectation of further parts which I wanted to read, before sharing further. Now I am at a loss to know what to do other than to apologise.

No offense here my friend. Please feel free to contribute as you feel to add to the discussion. The subject is always close to my heart and I enjoy dear brothers and sisters adding to the discussion.

I posted a follow up on my blog here. http://realrevival.blogspot.com/2013/01/commercial-christianity.html

I must apologize here too as I have not addressed post modernism directly. I have tried to stay zoomed out and show what I see as two narratives going down two parallel lines.

1. On the evangelical side I examined the use of "new measures" in evangelism beginning with Finney up until Billy sunday. This opened the door for a merger with something that was going on almost simultaneously:

2. On the secular side I see Edward Bernays (father of public relations), around the end of Billy Sunday (ca. 1920's), utilizing his uncle Freud's research on psychoanalysis to effect the masses by appealing to their unconscious desires. Not a lot of people know this man, but he taught the business world and the media how to exploit the sin nature for monetary gain. Long story, but the BBC has a great introduction to the man here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmUzwRCyTSo

Just a little backstory here for those wanting to really grasp where I am coming from. Blessings, Robert

And I wonder if the only way to break free of this cycle of worrying about numbers, is to determine to preach like Noah, measuring the faithfulness of our words, rather then the numbers. Perhaps this is an old discussion...

This reminds me of something bro. Paul West said as it relates to street preaching. I can't reconstruct it exactly, but it dealt with how we have to preach and leave the results to God. I think so long as were target the conscience in our preaching we are in a best position to see folks repent and believe the Gospel. I know that sounds like Finney, but it seems like the wisest approach. If we alter the Gospel to appeal to the person's impenitent heart we risk rejection from the conscience.