By Reese Currie, Compass Distributors

Idolatry is literally a worship of images, but sometimes the word can be used figuratively. For instance, Paul once figuratively referred to covetousness as idolatry (see Colossians 3:5). In this loose sense, idolatry can refer to anything that takes the place of God in one’s life and thinking.

The verse that made me start thinking about the figurative idols in the modern church was Ezekiel 14:3, "Son of man, these men have set up their idols in their hearts, and put before them that which causes them to stumble into iniquity. Should I let myself be inquired of at all by them?" (NKJV).

The church has set up things in their hearts that have taken the place of God and His Word. A comprehensive discussion of all of these things would be an enormous undertaking. For the purposes of this article, I would like to discuss four main "idolatries" of our era that work together well, and are proving to be most detrimental to the church and God’s purposes for it.

I believe it was David Otis Fuller who coined the term "scholarolatry" and doubtless provided a definition for it. My own definition would be, accepting the words of scholars over the Word of God. This is expressed in the attitude, "If <insert scholar name> says it, that’s good enough for me."

Modern scholarship has attained its vast power by casting much doubt on the Word of God. People who believe the scholars often do not know what to believe in their Bibles, because they aren’t sure which texts might be "authentic" and which are "not authentic." They are left having to turn to the scholars for moral and spiritual guidance instead of turning to the Bible, because they don’t know which texts they can trust.

As a result, for example, if a scholar says, "The Bible says nothing against homosexuality," that’s good enough for a "scholarolator." If you point out Leviticus 18:22, Romans 1:24-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9, 1 Timothy 1:10, Genesis 19, etc., you will be told that somehow these verses don’t count; they "aren’t authentic" or "those are just the thoughts of Moses and Paul, not God’s Word," and so forth.

Modern scholarship truly "trumped" the Christian world in the latter part of the 19^th century. Up until that point, as "unreliable" as they tried to make the Bible appear, there were not in fact any Bibles that really were unreliable! All were literally translated from a text representative of the vast majority of existing manuscripts.

However, using typical scholar-logic, they successfully reverted the Christian world from using Bibles based on the vast majority of manuscripts, to Bibles based on essentially two old Egyptian manuscripts (Vaticanus and Sinaiticus) that are notoriously out-of-sync with the majority of manuscripts and even each other. Even these manuscripts contain only subtle flaws. They are certainly not so flawed that the Christian message is lost, but they do introduce minor flaws that scholars can use to cast doubt on the Word of God. For instance, in Mark 1:2, Mark attributes a quotation from Malachi to Isaiah in those old Egyptian manuscripts, but Mark does not do so in the vast majority of manuscripts.

From there, having undermined the authority of the Word of God, despite the Word’s testimony to itself (for instance, "Every word of God is pure" (Proverbs 30:5a, NKJV)), they successfully introduced dynamic equivalency versions. The logic is, if the Word of God can contain little errors, why treat each and every word as if it must be translated? Why not just paraphrase?

The resulting dynamic equivalency versions are fundamentally flawed and frequently misrepresent the meaning of the Word of God. What you are reading when you read dynamic equivalency versions is the interpretations of a set of scholars.

The true Word of God can in many places be interpreted in a number of ways, but the Spirit of God is able to guide the Christian to the correct interpretation. The scholar’s paraphrases can only be interpreted one way, the way that agrees with the religious views of the scholar. People think dynamic paraphrases that agree with their views are "well translated" and ones that aren’t are "poorly translated." In fact, all dynamically translated versions are poorly translated, because they deprive the Scriptures of any deeper meanings not discerned by the scholars who translated them.

Dynamic equivalency versions give the scholars a utopian position: the Bible version in the typical home is a product of their thinking, and therefore useless for comparing what scholars say to the Word of God. At the same time, with the plethora of paraphrases and dynamic equivalency versions out there that they have produced, each with its own varying set of interpretations, the scholars have made themselves indispensable as the authority to sort out the differences between them.

Dynamic equivalency versions erode one of the fundamental tenets of Protestantism. It was part of Martin Luther’s creed that all people should interpret the Bible for themselves, while the Catholic position was that only the church officials could interpret the Bible. Today’s most popular Bible versions are dynamic equivalency versions that are pre-interpreted, returning Protestants to the unenviable position of having others force their interpretations of the Scriptures upon them. How much the church has done in recent years to claw back all of the advances of the reformation, while being blissfully ignorant of what it is giving away!

The remedy to scholarolatry is to handle scholars the same way the early Berean Christians handled the apostles. Acts 17:11 says, "Now these were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so" (NKJV, emphasis mine). All anyone ever has to do with a scholar’s words is to examine the Scriptures to ensure that what the scholar is saying is really true. Obviously one has to compare with a Bible version that is literally translated; otherwise you may simply be comparing the current scholarly view to the current scholarly view. One can tell true scholarship from false in that all true Biblical scholarship can be proven from the Bible itself.

I don’t know who coined the phrase "Churchianity," but frankly, it, not Christianity, is the religion of the vast majority of churches. Perhaps a more technical "-olatry" term for this would be "ecclesiolatry." You can know that you are in a "ecclesiolatrous" church by the following criteria: 1) Most sermons concentrate on the church with little or no emphasis on Jesus Christ. 2) There is a belief that co-operation with other churches, regardless of their doctrinal basis, will accomplish more than adherence to the doctrines contained in God’s Word.

The essence of this religion is that we cannot make an "impact on our world for Christ" unless we expunge this "heresy of sectarianism" from the church and all join together in "ecumenical unity."

Meanwhile, the Bible fully justifies such sectarianism as exists in the church today. Paul spoke of the very need of separation with the words, "Now I urge you, brethren, note those who cause divisions and offenses, contrary to the doctrine which you learned, and avoid them" (Romans 16:17, NKJV). It is not those of us who stand by Biblical doctrine who cause division; it is those who teach things "contrary to the doctrine" of the Bible who cause division.

It is perhaps true that churches differ on many minor points that aren’t worth dividing over, but there are also major doctrines that cannot be compromised. The two most important doctrines are theology (who God is) and soteriology (how God saves us).

Most churches are Trinitarian, which is the correct theology, but hardly any churches preach the Biblical salvation message of "repent and believe" (Mark 1:15). Churches typically substitute either "accept Christ" (the "repentance-free gospel") or one of many works-salvation systems. Both the repentance-free gospel and the works-salvation systems, incidentally, are the products of "scholars."

There is practically no Protestant church, apart from some independent churches, that is unwilling to co-operate with the Roman Catholic Church, which distinctly has a works salvation system.

Some churches that professors of "ecclesiolatry" seek to co-operate with do not even have the proper theology. Mormons, for example, believe that our God is only one of many gods, who assigned our God to our planet. This is in stark contrast to the Word of God, "I am the LORD, and there is no other; There is no God besides Me" (Isaiah 45:5a, NKJV). Yet, this does not stop people like Fuller Seminary President Richard Mouw, Ravi Zacharias, and other less famous compromisers (or "ecclesiolators," perhaps) from going to the Salt Lake Tabernacle seeking partnership with the Mormons in spreading the "gospel."

The sad thing is, it is more than possible to enlist the Mormons’ aid in spreading the gospel of "Churchianity," but it is impossible to spread the gospel of Christianity with the help of non-Christian sects like the Mormons.

Some people believe that the chief aim of religion is to create a more harmonious society, and this includes many professing Christians. Eager to get along with an increasingly heterogeneous society, they attempt to confer God’s blessings on things He considers to be abominable, and they attempt to mix non-Christian religion together with Christian religion. Perhaps we could coin the term "societolatry" to describe this position, putting the views of society ahead of the Word of God.

A prime example of this is the Episcopalian church that was the first to hire a Muslim cleric to serve on the staff of the church. The cleric, an Imam named Ibrahim Kazerooni, will serve in the church’s "Abrahamic Initiative", a program aimed at building bridges between Christians, Muslims and Jews. Greg Movesian, a spokesman for St. John's Episcopal Church in Denver, Colorado, said, "We hope this appeals to people who don't look upon people of other religions as a target for conversion but rather potential partners in maintaining a civil society."

Unfortunately for those who think this way, Jesus will always be a stumbling block for those who do not believe in Him. He said, "Do you suppose that I came to give peace on earth? I tell you, not at all, but rather division. For from now on five in one house will be divided: three against two, and two against three. Father will be divided against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law" (Luke 12:51-53, NKJV).

People will divide over their love for, or hatred of, Christ. Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me" (John 14:6, NKJV). No statement is more able to generate the wrath of those involved in false religion. Some scholars, eager to form ecumenical alliances with false religions, claim that this verse is "not genuine," which is their buzz phrase to omit from Christian thought everything that goes against the scholars’ goals.

As John 14:6 points out, Jesus is a unique person in human history. He is the only way, the only truth, the only life. He is the only way that any human being will ever come to the Father. On the other hand, Mohammed is no different from Joseph Smith. He fabricated an encounter with an angel in order to grant himself power over a people and polygamous relationships with women.

Another way that the church tries to blend in with society is to bless society’s evils, rather than standing apart from them. For instance, in Canada, the United Church of Canada and the Anglican Church were both performing same-sex "blessing" ceremonies long before the Canadian federal government moved toward legalizing gay marriage, despite their public objections after the federal government followed their lead.

These churches know that the Bible speaks against these things as being the way of the world, but they demonstrate their lack of salvation by continuing in the ways of the world. Ephesians 2:1-10 (NKJV) says,

Most churches show no sign of this "new life." Instead, they not only continue in the same evil ways, but also attempt to somehow convey God’s blessing on this evil. Their warning comes from Isaiah 5:20, "Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who put darkness for light, and light for darkness; Who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" (NKJV).

It is often said of those of us who hold up God’s Word as the rule of faith, that we are "bibliolators," worshippers of a book, in this case, the Bible. I reply that I am a worshiper of God, who inspired human agents to write His very Word, and so I believe and value what He has had written.

However, many churches are bibliolators of a different type. They worship course books and the writers of course books, like Henry Blackaby and Rick Warren. I recognize this sounds like an outlandish charge, but let me explain: they accept the words of these men over the Word of God. I suppose we might coin another term, courseiolatry, to describe this problem.

"Courseiolatry" is not much different from "scholarolatry," except that the writers have no claim to the title of "scholar." Instead of being academic wizards as the scholars are, these are practical wizards who have personally presided over great church growth, in terms of numerical success.

The way they have attained such church growth, however, often involves direct contradiction to the Word of God. For example, both Rick Warren and Henry Blackaby are ecumenists, which is covered in the section on "ecclesiolatry." We once studied Blackaby’s Experiencing God course and discovered fifty points at which the course’s teachings were at variance with Scripture. (You can read that study by clicking here.)

We have not published anything of a similar exhaustive nature concerning Rick Warren's work. I did start a study of the deliberate misrepresentations of Scripture in his work The Purpose Driven Life but after four chapters I abandoned it because it would take months to complete. The fact that practically all evangelical pastors see nothing wrong with Warren's horrible books betrays either extreme ignorance of Scripture or an extreme lack of concern for their flock's well-being.

You may wonder why God would bless churches following false teachings with such great numerical growth as Blackaby and Warren have experienced. In fact, numerical growth is often held up as evidence that the teachings Blackaby and Warren must be okay. The answer is given by Paul: "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables" (2 Timothy 4:3,4, NKJV).

People love to hear the things they want to hear. It’s no fun fighting with your Roman Catholic friends over doctrine, so ecumenism and the end to such fighting sounds good to people. But such cooperation comes at a very high cost. Where there are two different gospels being preached, only confusion is sown, not salvation. The purpose of every one of Satan’s plans is to prevent people from being saved, and ecumenism is no exception.

Pastors especially like Blackaby’s teachings. They can explain away bad budgetary decisions by pointing to Blackaby’s teachings on "faith-based" budgets. A person who objects to reckless budgeting can be accused of not having enough faith. There’s even a section in Blackaby’s Experiencing God course stating that people who don’t go along with the church leadership’s decisions probably just aren’t spiritual people. Experiencing God is the perfect course for the dictatorial pastor to foist upon his church.

Churches that invest themselves in these courses are unwilling to accept any Bible-based criticism of them. Anyone who points out problems in these courses risks being labeled a "troublemaker," and their criticisms rarely if ever do any good.

Such courses are the main means that the messages of scholarolatry and ecclesiolatry (Churchianity) filter down to the plain people who attend church. These people would not otherwise become brainwashed with these teachings, but courses make these teachings accessible to rank and file church members, and that is why I include the worship of courses as one of the four pillars upon which the modern heresies are built.

The only meaningful recommendation I can make is to apply Acts 17:11 to your own life. Instead of learning courses, learn the Bible, so you can search the Scriptures and know what is good. Instead of entrenching in the empty and sorrowful ways of this world, use the Scriptures to learn the way of Christ. Instead of being "blown about by every wind of doctrine" as the modern church is, stand on the rock of Scripture.

Four Modern Idolatries is © 2004, 2007 by Compass Distributors.
All Scripture taken from The Holy Bible, New King James Version (Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson, Inc.) 1982