Is There a Baby in the Bathwater?

By Don Veinot Jr.

In an interesting article by Colum Lynch in the June 17, 2002 Washington Post, titled Islamic Bloc, Christian Right Team Up to Lobby U.N., Lynch writes: “Conservative U.S. Christian organizations have joined forces with Islamic governments to halt the expansion of sexual and political protections and rights for gays, women and children at United Nations conferences.”

The new alliance, which coalesced during the past year, has received a major boost from the Bush administration, which appointed antiabortion activists to key positions on U.S. delegations to U.N. conferences on global economic and social policy. But it has been largely galvanized by conservative Christians who have set aside their doctrinal differences, cemented ties with the Vatican and cultivated fresh links with a powerful bloc of more than 50 moderate and hard-line Islamic governments, including Sudan, Libya, Iraq and Iran.

As I have reflected on Evangelical Christians setting aside doctrinal differences in order to ‘cement ties’ with the Vatican and assorted Muslim groups I had to ask myself, “What is the guiding basis for what they are attempting to accomplish?” The answer of course is the battle against the expansion of sexual (homosexual) and reproductive (abortion) rights. But from where does the moral authority spring to address such issues as ‘sexual expression’ and ‘reproductive rights’? Is it what is regarded among Evangelicals as the inspired, inerrant Scripture known as the Bible and if so, how will their worldview be informed to make their case? Is it Papal authority and the Teaching Magisterium of Rome? Is it the Qu’ran of Islam?

The setting aside of ‘doctrinal differences’ implies that it is none of the above. If someone questions the wisdom of such alliances they are very often told, “Well, we can’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.” The battle for a particular morality becomes the basis rather than the worldview which one holds that informs their moral code. This is a dangerous trend indeed, for morality with no particular basis in truth simply becomes mob rule. The mob with the biggest voice and most clout makes the rules by which others must abide. In such cases, if we look in the ‘bath tub’ we soon discover there is no baby, just various groups joyfully sloshing around in dirty bath water.

In many ways, Evangelical Christians have redefined the faith. The new working definition is “Niceness is the closest thing to godliness.” Saying someone is wrong is decidedly ‘not nice’ and therefore ‘not godly.’ After all, to question someone’s beliefs, whether inside or outside the Church and, even though they may be nice people, may imply that they are wrong and therefore we are accused of throwing out the baby (their niceness) with the bathwater (their false beliefs). We witnessed this with Dr. Richard Mouw, President of Fuller Theological Seminary on November 14, 2004 in his opening remarks at the Mormon Tabernacle in Salt Lake City: “Our public relations between our two communities have been – to put it mildly – decidedly unfriendly. From the very beginning, when Joseph Smith organized his church in 1830, my evangelical forebears hurled angry accusations and vehement denunciations at the Mormon community – a practice that continues from some evangelical quarters even into this present day. …I am now convinced that we evangelicals have often seriously misrepresented the beliefs and practices of the Mormon community. Indeed, let me state it bluntly to the LDS folks here this evening: we have sinned against you. The God of the Scriptures makes it clear that it is a terrible thing to bear false witness against our neighbors, and we have been guilty of that sort of transgression in things we have said about you.”

Mormons are on the whole, a very moral and family oriented people. However, the core of their belief system is in direct conflict with biblical teaching regarding the nature of God, nature of man, nature of sin, nature of salvation and God’s revelation to man on these topics. The bath water of where we agree (morality, family, connection to community) now over rides the baby (biblical truth in essential areas) and the baby is thrown out or at least set aside in an effort to save the all important bathwater (acknowledging they are very nice, very moral people).

A number of years ago we at Midwest Christian Outreach, Inc. had to ask ourselves a very difficult question. We had been focused on training Christians in how to defend the Christian Worldview, researching, writing on and evangelizing cults, new religious movements and false world religions. In the process we would receive phone calls, letters and emails about questionable and false teachings and teachers within the Church. Our difficult question was, “Do we address this area?” As we prayed and searched the Scriptures for the answer to this we realized that if we didn’t have the integrity to address false teachings, false teachers and dangerous trends within the Church, we didn’t have the right to address them outside the Church.

In addressing a particular sin, which was not only being committed in the Corinthian church but which was also being defended by the church, the Apostle Paul makes a profound statement, “For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church? But those who are outside, God judges…” (1 Corinthians 5:12-13a). We also realized that there is by far, more material on false teachers, false prophets and false and harmful teachings in Scripture than nearly any other subject. Is this because it is more important than any other area of life? Probably not, but rather that it is more easily forgotten, set aside or dismissed altogether. This did not seem to leave us with much of an alternative. We realized that this decision would severely limit our ability to raise mission support since addressing such issues within the Church would invariably cause consternation with most everyone on one favored teaching/teacher or another.

This proved to be true as we began to deal with the teachings of Bill Gothard and his Institute in Basic Life Principles. After meeting with him to no avail in an attempt to correct his false teachings (such as circumcision being a moral requirement and grace being something we earn) we took the next step and addressed these issues in our Midwest Christian Outreach, Inc. Journal (MCOI). Ultimately we ended up addressing this in our book A Matter of Basic Principles: Bill Gothard and the Christian Life. We soon began receiving phone calls, letters and emails from very dear and very distressed folks who were followers of Bill Gothard. As we would point out some of the very egregious errors, by far the most common response was, “You can’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.” “But what if there IS NO baby in the bathwater?” I wondered. Or, worse yet, “What if the bathwater has become more important than the baby?” The issues which motivated these dear people were issues of pragmatism rather than discernment and truth. “How do we protect our young from the world?” “How do we inculcate a strict moral behavioral code, dress code and at least the external appearance of godly living?”

In many ways the ‘Baby and Bathwater Syndrome’ has created an entirely new religion which operates within the Church nearly unchecked to the same degree it operates outside the Church in culture. In his excellent article titled Moralistic Therapeutic Deism – The New American Religion, Dr. Albert Mohler, Jr., President of Southern Baptist Seminary in Louisville, KY outlines the work of Christian Smith and gives something of a creed for this new religion: “As described by Smith and his team, Moralistic Therapeutic Deism consists of beliefs like these: 1. A god exists who created and ordered the world and watches over human life on earth. 2. God wants people to be good, nice, and fair to each other, as taught in the Bible and by most world religions. 3. The central goal of life is to be happy and to feel good about oneself. 4. God does not need to be particularly involved in one’s life except when God is needed to resolve a problem. 5. Good people go to heaven when they die.”

This really helps to explain some other things we are seeing. The lack of biblical literacy within the Church is staggering. In George Barna’s 2003 book Think Like Jesus he pointed out that 98 percent of born-again teens and 91% of born again adults do not have a biblical worldview in one or more essentials of the Christian faith. “In essence,” writes Barna, “…three out of four Christians overlook the Bible as their shaping worldview influence.” The sad conclusion of his research is, “…the bottom line is that only 14 percent of born-again adults – in other words, about one out of every seven born-again adults – rely on the Bible as their moral compass and believe that moral truth is absolute.”

In January of 2004 Barna demonstrated that 49 percent of pastors are deficient in one or more areas of essential orthodoxy. Without a working acceptance and knowledge of the truth there is no basis for testing truth claims, practices or programs whether outside or inside the Church. ‘Discernment’ becomes little more than a troublesome divisive word and those who attempt to practice biblical discernment can expect to have a finger or many fingers waggled before their noses with the oft used mantra, “You can’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.”

This has increased exponentially in the last two or three years with the advent of being “Purpose Driven.” My initial response was, “Has the Church had no purpose or at least not known its purpose for the last, nearly 2,000 years?” Due to the vast amount of people who had been ostracized or kicked out of their churches contacting us looking for answers as to why this has happened we decided to read Rick Warren’s book, The Purpose Driven Life. After reading it, we came to three conclusions, two of which we comment on in our article The Purpose Driven Claim (MCOI Journal, Issue 10, No. 4, Fall 2004). I will restate all three here in brief but will not treat them in depth.

1. Rick Warren probably understands exegesis and hermeneutics, but it is not apparent from the book. Even when the points he makes are biblical ones, the passages he uses very often do not support them.

2. There are some good things in the book. For example, his opening line in chapter 1, “It’s not all about you” is right on target! However, the things that are good are so basic that anyone who has been a Christian for more than six months should already understand them, which leads us to the next point.

3. The popularity of the book probably says more about the state of the Church than it does about how good the book is.

In our Purpose Driven Claim article we demonstrate that although it may be a fine thing to set aside 40 days to God for a particular reason, the premise of his book, “Whenever God wanted to prepare someone for his purposes, he took forty days,” based upon the examples he gives, is just plain false. It must be admitted that nearly all, if not all pastors, teachers and writers on occasion will misuse or misapply a passage of Scripture. But Rick Warren does it so often that it leads one to wonder if he is studying God’s written revelation to man or using a concordance to find proof texts in an attempt to support an idea he is passionate about. (Which is very reminiscent of Bill Gothard’s method of Bible teaching.) An even more serious problem, it seems to me, is what seems to be Warren’s newest theme - his call for a “new reformation.” This is something which seems to come out in many of his television and radio appearances, written publications and talks. It was the core of his talk, “The Stewardship of Leadership,” at the Willow Creek Leadership Summit on August 11-13 of this year.

Warren is indeed calling for a “new reformation,” however it is not one of getting back to doctrinal truth, but of moving that ‘musty old stuff’ to the back burner in favor of ‘empathy’ and ‘good deeds’. He communicates that we have had (in centuries past) the reformation of creeds and what we need now is a reformation of deeds. His claim is that what the Church believes was solved 500 years ago (creeds) and we need to focus on alleviating human suffering (deeds). He states unequivocally, “We know what we believe.” I don’t know if I can state strongly enough how utterly false this claim is! The almost utter lack of doctrinal discernment within the Church has been demonstrated by George Barna in survey after survey. In fact, what we need now, and desperately, is the same thing that was needed in the first century, as indicated by the scores of scriptural admonitions to teach sound doctrine, and to be diligent in doing so on a regular and ongoing basis as stated in 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus and other books of the Bible. According to Acts 20:27-31, it is the primary job of the pastor and elders to guard the flock. From what? From the savage wolves (false teachers and false worldviews) that will come in from the outside, as well as from the wolves that will arise among the brethren. Paul states, “…from among your own selves men will arise speaking perverse things to draw away disciples after them. Therefore be on the alert….”

Warren’s passion for ‘empathy’ is so great he builds on what he claims is true by stating that Christians know what they believe and there is no longer a need to address those issues. He then goes on to misuse Scripture to support the idea that Jesus taught the disciples to set aside doctrinal differences. According to Warren, Jesus taught to create alliances with any and everyone who is “a person of peace” in order to solve the sufferings of humanity on a global basis. The proof text Warren uses is Luke 10:6. Beginning with the words “If a man of peace is there…,” Warren points out that at the time this was spoken there were no Christians, therefore, like the 70 disciples, we simply need to find the “man of peace” even if “they are a Muslim” in any and all villages in order to make alliances which will facilitate solving AIDS, poverty, hunger and illiteracy. Is this the point of Luke 10:6?

In looking at the text in context we observe several things: 1. Jesus was Jewish and the prophesied Messiah to the Nation of Israel. 2. The 70 (v:1) were His Jewish followers. 3. They were sent “in pairs to every city and place where He Himself was going to come.” These were Jewish villages, containing people who already accepted monotheism and the Old Testament as God’s written revelation of Himself to man. 4. They had been sent out to prepare communities for His coming to proclaim the Gospel. “The harvest is plentiful, but the laborers are few…” (v:2) 5. When they arrived in a Jewish village, they were to find the monotheistic, Torah believing Jewish “man of peace.” 6. If the “man of peace” didn’t receive the disciples and their message they were to leave and shake the dust off their sandals on the way out as judgment against the village.

Am I saying that addressing hunger, poverty, AIDS and illiteracy is wrong? Absolutely not! Empathy with the sufferings of others is an important part of believer’s biblical responsibility while living in this world. But does this passage demonstrate Warren’s point? Most definitely not! In fact, it would seem to militate against it. Why? For the simple reason that if acceptance of the message (the Gospel) is a qualifier for remaining in the village to minister, then the Muslim would have to (by what this passage in context teaches) receive the Gospel message in order to be considered a “man of peace.” By misusing Scripture in this way Warren reinforces biblical illiteracy as proof texts are lifted in support of someone’s particular agenda.

Are church growth and/or social action are bad? The answer will be an unsatisfying one for many. Yes and no. ‘Yes,’ it is bad if those things serve to distract from the essential faith. In 1 Corinthians 1, Paul begins castigating the church with their competing claims of “‘I am of Paul,’ and ‘I am of Apollos,’ and ‘I am of Christ.’ Has Christ been divided?” (1 Corinthians 1:12b-13a). At no point while the Apostle developed and interacted with this theme did he indicate that what was being taught was false, but that it had been elevated to a point which displaced what was most important. “For when one says, ‘I am of Paul,’ and another ‘I am of Apollos,’ are you not mere men? Who then is Apollos? And what is Paul? Servants through whom you believed, even as the Lord gave opportunity to each one. I planted, Apollos watered, but God was causing the growth” (1 Corinthians 3:4-6). Christ should be our ultimate focus and foundation (1 Corinthians 3:11) which informs and shapes what we believe and how we live that out. Doing these things are not bad provided they emanate from a biblical worldview with Christ as the center and focus.

The Apostle Paul in writing to the young pastor Timothy said, “As I urged you upon my departure for Macedonia, remain on at Ephesus, in order to instruct certain men not to teach strange doctrines” (1Timothy 1:3). He did not say they were not nice guys. They may have been. He does say they have developed some odd and unbiblical understandings and teachings of biblical truth. The Apostle doesn’t say, “Now Timothy, don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater,” but rather he says: “For some men, straying from these this, have turned aside to fruitless discussion, wanting to be teachers of the Law, even though they do not understand either what they are saying or the matters about which they make confident assertions. (1 Timothy 1:6-7 NASB)

I suspect that if the Apostle were alive today he would ask, “Is there a baby in the bathwater and if there is why not get it out of there?” We really don’t need dirty bathwater. What we desperately need is pastors who themselves possess and in turn teach a biblical worldview faithfully and regularly to their churches who in turn will possess a biblical worldview. Hmmm, that reminds me of something someone who had a very solid worldview said once, “And the things which you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, these entrust to faithful men, who will be able to teach others also.” (2 Timothy 2:2). Now that would make a relevant church!

L.L. (Don) Veinot Jr. is co-founder and President of Midwest Christian Outreach, Inc., a national apologetics ministry and mission to new religious movements based in Lombard, IL. He, along with his wife of 35 years, Joy, have been involved in discernment ministry as missionaries to new religious movements since 1987. Don is on the national Board of Directors for Evangelical Ministries to New Religions (EMNR), a consortium of discernment ministries. He is a frequent guest on various radio and television broadcasts as well as being a staff researcher and writer for the Midwest Outreach Journal and is co-author of A Matter of Basic Principles: Bill Gothard and the Christian Life as well as articles in the CRI Journal, PFO Quarterly Journal, Campus Life Magazine and other periodicals. He was ordained to the ministry by West Suburban Community Church of Lombard, IL, at the Garden of Gethsemane in Jerusalem, Israel in March of 1997.