Customer Reviews

This Little Church Stayed Home: A Faithful Church in Deceptive Times

5 star:		(8)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

It is sad to realize that Pastor Gary Gilley's new book will never come close to outselling Rick Warren's book "The Purpose Driven Life." The Christian Church in America would be far better off if it did. Makes perfect sense in this upside down society and Christian church that junk outsells truth by a factor of 1,000. American wealth and prosperity has dulled the church's collective gift of discernment.

Pastor Gilley starts his book with an excellent analysis of how the evangelical church of America in 2006 has arrived at its current status of downplaying doctrine, emphasizing worldly measures, and redefining the gospel message. Pastor Gilley provides a historical perspective of how the church has slowly lost its distinctiveness and has adopted the practices and worldview of the society. The discerning reader should quickly recognize the slippery slope that apostasy in the church is very subtle and happens slowly over a period of time, rather than in large chunks.

The centerpiece and strength of the book are Chapters 8-11 in which Pastor Gilley so accurately describes the approach and methodology of most American pastors. These pastors will utilize any pragmatic, secular marketing device in order to attract numbers and a crowd. They fail to recognize that the gospel is inherently offensive (1 Corinthians Ch. 1:18 and following). They use paraphrases of the bible that are highly suspect and claim them as authoritative scripture. In their quest to evangelize the world to the gospel, they end up changing the gospel. My biggest misgiving about the entire seeker-sensitive movement is that pastors may be providing false assurance to millions of people who attend church, but never really hear the offensive gospel of the necessity of God becoming a man who had to die to redeem those who chose to believe in his death, burial and resurrection.

The book ends with big challenges facing the church, namely the mysticism that has invaded the church. Typically, the mystics are Catholics or Gnostics who deny that rational bible study is possible and God can only be known through some form of feelings, imagination, personal visions, inner voices, or some repetitive practice that will provide enlightenment.

The emergent church is also described in the book. These are "churches" or groups in which there less organization and structure. Many of these meetings are avant-garde groups informally discussing spirituality and drinking their lattes. These groups are hard to describe clearly but they basically say that the bible is not to be relied upon and that truth is more of an individually determined process. Like Gilley writes, if there is no truth, then everyone's version of the truth is correct. Take that tenet to its logical conclusion and the outcome is scary.

Clearly, the American church is waist-deep in apostasy as predicted in both 1 and 2nd Timothy, among other places in the bible. The American Church of 2006 is best represented by the church of Laodicea (Revelation Ch. 3:14-22). Will the American church turn the tide and get back to the bible, or will the remnant holding to biblical truths be raptured out of the world first?

If you have attempted to read through books like the series David Wells wrote (No Place for Truth, God in the Wasteland, Losing Our Virtue, and Above All Earthly Pow'rs), but found them cumbersome and difficult, a shorter and easier-to-read option is Gary Gilley's two works This Little Church Went to Market and This Little Church Stayed Home. The second of these two is what this reviewer has recently completed. Gilley has subtitled this book, A Faithful Church In Deceptive Times. Good choice. Let me say at the outset that both books should be read. They will open your eyes. While not as in-depth and thorough as the work Wells has done, the audience Gilley will speak most effectively to is the average lay person, not the scholar or professional minister who is more the target of Wells. That being said, many pastors who have been caught up in "fad Christianity" would benefit from This Little Church Stayed Home.

This Little Church has four sections dividing up fifteen chapters. Section 1 (chapters 1-5) explains postmodernism and how this philosophical outlook has impacted the church's view on propositional truth. Section II (chapters 6-8) deals with the church's responsibility to build up the body of Christ, giving attention to biblical church growth. Section III (chapters 9-11) has to do with the Bible, specifically, and how that is currently being misused and misinterpreted by some in order to push their distorted concepts of the gospel. Section IV (chapters 12-15) explains current challenges to the church: mysticism and the Emergent Church. There is more to these chapters than I have touched on, but these descriptions are only broad summaries.

Not enough good things could be said about This Little Church. Gilley takes on the dangers of the current fad of mysticism sweeping through the church, and calls the Emergent Church movement what it is: false teaching. Most commendable is his absence of fear in naming some of the biggest names in evangelicalism (and some not so big) in an effort to warn the church of heretical teaching. Some examples include Robert Schuller (p. 74), a poster boy for false teaching, Rick Warren (pp. 89-100), Dallas Willard and Richard Foster (p. 117), Karen Mains, wife of radio teacher, David Mains (pp. 137-38), David Seamand, who has appeared on Focus on the Family with James Dobson (pp. 138-39), Greg Boyd (p. 139), and George Barna (pp. 174-78). Other names are mentioned as well, but are not as readily recognizable. I wish there were more Christian leaders like Gilley who had the backbone to say what needs to be said and point out who specifically has strayed away from orthodoxy. Leaders are so often afraid to do this for fear of being accused of being judgmental, that they cower away from carrying out their God-given responsibility. Examples of this in Scripture include 1 Timothy 1:20, 3 John 9, and 2 Timothy 2:17, where Paul compares the influence of Hymenaeus and Philetus to the spreading of gangrene.

An example of his straightforward style is found in this quote: "Celebration of Discipline alone, not even referencing [Richard] Foster's other writings and teachings and ministries, is a virtual encyclopedia of theological error. We would be hard pressed to find in one so-called evangelical volume such a composite of false teaching" (p. 119). Bold and accurate! Other examples are found when he confronts Rick Warren's The Purpose-Driven Church and The Purpose-Driven Life: "Both, for instance, offer some good sound advice, helpful biblical insight and practical suggestions---and both are riddled with errors throughout" (p. 89); "In Warren's gospel presentations no mention is made of sin, repentance or even the Cross" (p. 90); "I found forty-two biblical inaccuracies, eighteen out-of-context passages of Scripture, supposedly used to prove his point, and another nine distorted translations" (p. 91). In the chapter in which these quotes are found, Gilley has a subsection entitled "Torturing Scripture," where he lists ten specific examples where Warren has clearly misrepresented the Bible.

This is a great read for any Christian who wants to understand some of the modern winds currently blowing through the church. It would be highly profitable to use this book for a Sunday School class or mid-week group discussion. Buy it, read it, pass it on. - Ray Hammond, www.ChristianBookPreviews.com

I must admit that I was intrigued by Dr. Gilley's book from my reading of his first two books THIS LITTLE CHURCH WENT TO MARKET and I JUST WANTED MORE LAND (a book on the prayer of Jabez). Both books were excellent in both their content, they were short but detailed reads, and Dr. Gilley always seeks to help the reader grasp what the Scriptures teach against the tide of error.

In this book, Dr. Gilley continues this biblical tradition by exposing both the errors of false exegesis from postmodernist to the errors of mysticism (charismatics) and the emergent church movements. Throughout his book, Gilley is seeking to point the reader (and the Church) to the authority of Scripture. In fact, in this book you won't find a book full of Dr. Gilley's thoughts but you will find sound biblical teaching (1 Timothy 4:16).

Ovearll I highly recommend this book especially to church leaders (Titus 1:5). In an age full of false doctrines and misleading voices, we must stay grounded in the Word of God (John 10:27-29). Thankfully Dr. Gilley's book helps us do just that.

I purchased this book after reading it at the library. I was very impressed with the viewpoints expressed and the insight into current religious trends. I have recommended it to several friends and family members.

Gary Gilley's treatment of difficult issues within evangelicalism is both objective and well documented. Gary means no harm when he points to the critical issues we are facing and the path we are taking which meanders further from the scriptures all the time. Gilley is equally occupied with providing constructive biblical answers. A good read for both pastors and believers in general.

Brilliant book by Gary Gilley. John Wicklund's review of this book is dead on. Rob Bell, Brian Mclaren, Rick Warren, and many others have "crept in unawares" and have changed the Gospel of Christ into lasciviousness and "serving community" instead of winning souls to Christ for eternity. They do this through twisting Scripture to fit their own personal worldviews, instead of our worldviews being formed by Scripture. Now unfortunately, they have many many versions that they can pick and choose from to try to back up their unbiblical claims. The worst is without a doubt "The MESSage."

I'll stick to the "old rugged cross" and take all of my chances with Jesus Christ !

Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved.-- Acts 16:31

I found this book an excellent source of background information and whats-in-the-head of the younger church goers. I have read a number of books promoting the post modern mindset and was looking for something which gave the other side of the picture using the Bible as a source of direction and worldview.

This book is very good at that pointing out that the integrity of the church and the gospel delivered must remain true to the Bible or otherwise become the fabrication of mere men. Giving women and men "what they think they need in hope of giving them what they really need" is touched on from several angles by this book. Experience as the measure and substance of truth is discussed as to the mindset of some persons today who are in or looking for a church home. "what does it mean to me" many persons ask rather than looking to an objective standard that rises above the cultural winds of today. The book covers a lot of aspects of the baby busters "who do not want to be lectured; they expect to be entertained". The book will lead the reader to the conclusion that post modernism applied to religous doctrine (various mutually exclusive subjective assertions) are contradictory and irrational. One can read the book and think that at some point a future generation may well dismiss much that is religous for this point alone.

Market research is discussed showing how this approach to head counting and budget success is flawed and that the true issue is sin, "not felt needs". A good number of points are made about the adaptation of marketing ideas being the souce of church growth experts and their ardent followers. A great point is made by the author in that who we listen to and follow is who we want to please. The conclusion of a Bible student working through the scriptures and this book would easily be that unless we are for him we are against him. I know of no church growth expert that has suffered the hardships or loss of life for the church as did the apostles and Jesus himself. Loyalties should go the the most deserving or the most educated?

Another good discussion in the book is the idea that the church(s) have "drunk from the well of secular psychology for decades....." and this has influenced the message and attendant communication in a negative self destructive way.

It is a good discussion of the irrational drive to the conclusion that if nobody is right then everybody is right.

My conclusion is that the author was thinking along the lines of the ancient Bible hero Joshua who said that If Jehovah be God then follow him.

I can't say enough good things about this book in the light of the major failures of New Evangelicalism in 2007--from the defection to Romanism of the President of the ETS to Ted Haggard and Richard Roberts and the Grassley investigation. The exchanged gospel has its consequences, and we're only beginning to see the cracks last year. Gilley ably traces the false gospel that's penetrated the Evangelical world and turned it on its head, and he does so with a pastor's heart. You can sense that he's upset to see that wolf among the sheep, just as the Lord was when He saw the multitudes as sheep without a shepherd--or worse.

Having said that, I see two shortcomings in the book:

1. Although intended to be a portrayal of the positive, of the church that didn't go to market but stayed home, the book seems to have wandered back to the market perspective of Gilley's earlier work. Other than the well-flogged quote fr that Liberal Kirsopp Lake (p. 14), he doesn't really list the names of the obedient churches. D.A. Carson is cast in good light (and deservedly so for his stand against mysticism and pluralism), but Gilley needs to pay more attention to leaders n seminaries that do take a "stayed home" stance in the midst of rampant compromise. It's a pity he wound up using the book as an excuse to extend his tirade against the "went to markets" although that's an important theme, too. Maybe he could write a third book on what was missed!

2. Gilley's attack on Dynamic Equivalence lacks the kind of evidence that he produces for the other points in the book. Yes, Rick Warren's Purpose Driven Life and many pastors rip verses out of context to bolster their theses. No question of that. But that's totally different fr how DE is usually parodied. Fact is, the Scriptures themselves exhibit DE rather than Formal Equivalence (FE) with startling regularity, which shouldn't be startling if one acknowledges that languages map differently (in terms of syntax, semantics, semiotics--i.e. word order, vocab n meanings, significance of certain expressions in society) from one another. That so, good translations should bear but happenstance correlation in form to the original text. In other words, a sentence in Chinese, for instance, Duolonduo juowan fashenle dianduan (lit. "Toronto previousnight happen electricchop") wld sound better in English using DE than Formal Equivalence: "There was a black-out in Toronto last night." So in many passages where the NT quotes the OT, or the LXX does so, the Greek bears scant resemblance to the Hebrew, but Christ ( e.g. in Luke 4) and the Apostles regarded DE translations as "the Scripture" no less. Interestingly, that was also Luther n the Authorized Version's translators' position, as seen in his Open Letter and their 1611 Preface, respectively.

Case in point: in Gilley's comparison of four versions on p. 85, the FE's "you are not in the flesh" communicates images that are alien to the original text, e.g. Roman Christians were disembodied spirits, or had a dualist hatred for their bodies, or were not yet swallowed by wild animals in the Colosseum. What Paul means, using the Greek form (sarx) that he chose under inspiration, has nothing to do with animal meat but has to do with the sinful nature. Nor does he mean by "in" one's physical location but one's being controlled--by that sinful nature. So comparing the KJV and NASB vs LB and the Message, the latter pair (DEs) actually come out being more accurate and faithful to the meaning of what Paul and the Holy Spirit wanted to communicate, had they spoken in English.

Despite my protests above, Gilley should be congratulated for taking a strong stand against the knock-off gospels out there. Better yet, save those congratulations and pass your copy of the book to your key contacts and pray for some much-needed Holy Spirit conviction and repentance.

I would have appreciated a more even-handed approach that offered a fair representation of the positions Gilley critiques and a more accurate use of the Scriptures in critiquing them. The author's methodology is suspect and his mistakes are plentiful. The following points are representative of the methodological weaknesses and point to some of the misuses of Scripture.

1. A lack of distinctions. One example is the author's failure to distinguish between seek-oriented and seeker-sensitive churches which present different issues. By not making distinctions he builds straw men and broad brushes whole categories of Christians.

2. Guilt by association. Many names of valuable Christian authors and artists are listed in the chapter on Mysticism leading to a sense that they all should be avoided. The Church would be much weaker if we did so.

3. Building a case by using extremes. The chapter on the Emergent Church references the extremes (constantly quoting Brian McLaren) of the movement whereas the movement is amorphous and has much more balanced representatives. This is a common trait of the book.

4. Disingenuous use of a Scripture. In his effort to discredit seeker-sensitive churches the author says, "absolutely nothing (according to Scripture) is done (in a worship service) with the seeking unbeliever in mind." He makes this statement after quoting 1 Corinthians 14:23-25. Only when he quotes these verses he leaves out the words that directly contradict his point. He leaves out "and (if) all speak in tongues and outsiders or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are out of your minds?" Why did he leave out the very words of God that undermines his position?

5. Judgments which do not recognize Scriptural truth that contradict his point. The author presents the felt-needs approach of sharing the gospel as though there is no Scriptural support or it. In fact, Jesus used a felt-needs approach to unbelievers regularly. He spoke of living water to the Samaritan woman before He pointed out her sin. He healed a blind man before He said He was the Light of the World. He fed 5,000 before He offered Himself as the Bread of Life. Anyone can easily come up with many more examples. Elsewhere he criticizes those who think that all conflict arises from a failure to have felt-needs met as Freudian and Rogerian, and says that this concept is nowhere in the Bible. He overlooks James 4:1-3, "What causes quarrels and what causes fights among you? Is it not this, that your passions are at war within you? You desire and do not have, so you murder. You covet and cannot obtain, so you fight and quarrel..." The solution is to have Christ meet all of your felt needs through the gospel, not to deny this fact of human nature.

6. Judgmental non-sequiturs. When talking about the origins of Richard Foster's "mysticism", the author observes, "It was following this experience of journaling, an experience not taught in the Bible but common in the occultic world..." The problem is that the author then concludes that Richard Foster used occultic techniques of meditation. This is quite an unfair leap.

7. Judgments focusing on the origins rather than the content of a movement. In his critique of the Contemplative Movement, the author often looks at what might be the suspicious origins of contemplative disciplines. He has a right to focus on origins, but should be more gracious to those who don't. Romans 14 addresses a conflict that arises over origins. There are those who did not eat meat because it might have been sacrificed idols, but in God's mind it was alright to eat the meat even if there was the chance that it had been sacrificed. The author fits the category of the former who focus on the origins. These are warned about judging others. People who support the contemplative movement fit the latter category of those who look at the content. These are warned to not look down on whose conscience is disturbed by origins. Both groups are called to try to be gracious with the other. I wish the book had taken that call to heart.

Gilley has done us a favor in reminding us that we must measure every spiritual movement by the Word of God. Some of his criticism should be taken to heart. He has not done us a favor when he throws out the baby with the bathwater. Every movement in Christianity (like those criticized in this book) offers a corrective to weaknesses within Christianity. These corrections often go too far in the other direction. One approach is to listen to the corrections and eschew the flaws. The other approach is to ignore the corrections and focus on the flaws. The former can lead to dialogue and unity. The latter can lead to self-righteous judgment. The author doesn't mean to lead us down the path of self-rightousness, but unfortunately many will take that path when using this book against others.