 |
|
(Matthew 18:19,20)
Section 3 - Lesson 20
Hellenism And Romanism Today:
The Impact of Hellenist Seminaries
The profound influence of Hellenism and
Romanism on Christendom today is far greater than you might
suspect. It will be helpful for you to glimpse our Lord’s
preparation process on our own pilgrimage so that you can
discern the current condition of religious practices and forms
going on around you.
We’ve had years of firsthand
experience among clergy leaders as well as those who train
them. Before our Father took us to Israel to reveal the Hebraic
foundations, He made sure we observed what we call the
“dark underside” of Christianity.
I [Mike] attended both a Christian
graduate school as well as a seminary. I was on staff at a
prominent Christian college and worked as a consultant at a
well-known evangelical seminary. After that I spent over 10
years as a counselor to church leaders as Sue and I
administrated a retreat center where we taught over 5,000
people from various faith communities.
During the years of our Lord’s
training period before He directed us to Israel in 1993, He
wanted us to see westernized Christianity behind the scenes. How
emotionally painful it was to recognize the Hellenized and
Romanized religious systems for what they really were in His
sight, and to experience the anguish and struggle of so many
religious leaders who were serving a framework our Lord never
intended!
There was a certain fence post in the
pasture of our retreat center/farm where I spent a lot of time
in tears. I’d reached the limit of my endurance propping
up clergy and church leaders whose own families were wasting
away as they flitted from crisis to crisis managing their
religious bailiwicks. Finally, our Father in His mercy lifted
Sue and me out of the turbulence and brought us to Israel.
There He opened our spiritual eyes to that which He was
restoring to awaken especially the Gentile faith community
around the world.
In the Lessons of Section 3, we’ll
share with you our observations of Hellenist/
Romanist-influenced Christendom. We’ll also give
you an opportunity to scrutinize your own faith practices more
closely. In your own faith journey you need to discern areas in
which you may be sinning against our Lord by embracing the twin
deceits of Hellenism and Romanism. You can’t serve our
Lord’s Kingdom purposes and these demonic principalities
at the same time!
Before you began these studies in Restoring The Early Church, you may have been ignorant of these influences. But now that you’re aware, our Lord holds
you responsible if you serve them.
The admonition Jesus gave the Pharisees
who walked in spiritual blindness yet resisted the true Light
that gives life still applies to us today: “‘If you were blind, you would not be
guilty of sin; but now that you
claim you can see, your guilt remains’” (John
9:41).
In Section 4. Going Back For Our Future, we’ll provide practical and useful
recommendations for your faith journey. These, however, will be
useless to you if you’re not fully persuaded of the
following two realities. Please search your spirit about these
before you press on to other sections.
1. You must be convinced that our Father is restoring the Hebraic foundations as He restores the Jews to Israel one last time
according to His promise. Only by seeking the rhema of the Holy
Spirit for confirmation can you be assured that this
restoration is our Father’s
plan and purpose.
2. You need to be
convicted about any aspects of demonic Hellenism and Romanism
in your own faith practice, and turn
from them in repentance so
that you can walk in the path of spiritual power and relational
intimacy that our Lord is restoring.
Hellenism And Romanism Today:
The Impact Of Hellenist Seminaries
“Without a prophetic vision,
the people throw off all restraint” (Proverbs 29:18).
My [Mike] experience at one particular
seminary could encompass a spectrum of religious training
institutions. As a result of my years of counseling clergy,
there was little they shared with me to reveal that their own
seminaries were any different from the one I attended.
In one way my experience may be unusual:
the “education” I underwent extended far beyond the
classroom and library as a couple of godly, older men invested
themselves in me as spiritual fathers.
This phase of my journey in Jesus began in
1978 at the age of 32. One professor in particular, Dr. Charles
Schauf-fele, had been teaching there for years. As the semester
progressed he came alongside me for personal conversations. Two
things about my past caught his attention.
I’d been a Navy helicopter
instructor pilot, training others to fly operational missions.
This required a lot of teaching and briefing of my students
before each flight. Still, the essence of teaching flying is flying: using
the same “see and do” method as the early rabbis,
including Jesus.
Personal example blended with practical
skills as the disciples of a rabbi acquired his character in
the course of applying his teaching. Paul’s teaching
pattern followed along this line. He could instruct his
“trainees”, “I
urge you to imitate me” in his
way of life as well as in obedience to God’s Word (see 1
Corinthians 4:15-17).
Another key duty interested Dr.
Schauffele. Following my third deployment off Vietnam I’d
been an Opera-tions Analysis Officer at Naval Air Station Pt.
Mugu, California. In this position I was responsible for
evaluating the air station’s operational
capabilities— were we
prepared and equipped to fulfill our assigned missions.
One morning he asked, “Mike, would
you do a project analyzing the fruit of this seminary? I’ve been here over
thirty years, and I don’t know if I’ve wasted my
time.” I accepted his request. Through the use of surveys
and interviews I studied the nearby congregations to which some
of the seminary’s clergy graduates had gone to minister.
When Dr. Schauffele read the results of
the research, that elderly gentleman sat in front of me and
wept. Not one of the graduates
I’d surveyed had demonstrated a God-vision for what He desired for each
congregation. Instead, these men
perceived their pastoral position from the vantage point of
what they’d been taught:
• Dutifully carrying out the tasks
that the seminary had inculcated in them;
• Appraising themselves as the most
valued person in the congregation and focusing their efforts on
maintaining their central position of control over their faith
community;
• Over-esteeming the value of their
rhetorical preaching and the vast amount of time devoted to
sermon preparation;
• Nagging themselves about their
financial security and continually seeking ways to ensure
greater income;
• Making sure nothing unpleasant or
challenging “rocked the boat” of their
congregational headship.
I’d served with many courageous,
sacrificial leaders in my 10-year Navy career and was painfully
surprised by the shallow, self-serving nature of the clergy I
surveyed. In fact, I felt that the military did a far better
job in training men to be Christ-like leaders than did the
seminary!
In that office that morning across the
desk from this grieving, godly man, I was deeply touched by the
hurt and the sense of failure I saw behind those tears. Dr.
Schauffele stared at me earnestly and said, “You
haven’t been around this institution long enough to be
tainted by the system here. Would you write a paper on what you
believe God requires His congregations to be doing as the
Body of Christ?”
The suggestions in my paper called for
faith communities to improve the personal access of younger
people to older role models. How could anyone learn to do
anything if they didn’t first see someone demonstrate that
skill?
I also encouraged the seminary and
congregation leaders to use discussion as the primary means of equipping people to apply the
Bible to their lives. I’d seen the fruit of discussion as
I briefed student pilots before each flight. Through discussion
I could discern the depth of comprehension the student had
before we ever got into the air. While you’re flying
isn’t the time to find out he doesn’t even
understand the procedure he’s supposed to perform!
I didn’t realize at the time how
Hebraic my military training had been. Later, in Israel, I
could clearly see why our Lord had sovereignly prepared me in
the Navy for all those years. The training and responsibility
I’d received there far more emulated the Hebraic
foundations than anything I’d acquired in seminary
classrooms. Sacrificial leaders and personal role modeling were
the crux of training and developing effective leaders.
After Dr Schauffele read my paper, he
asked if he could give it to other faculty members. Unfamiliar
with the sacred cows of academia, I agreed. The mess I got
myself into surfaced a short while later. As I sat in the
cafeteria having a cup of coffee, a professor from the Divinity
(clergy preparation) program came up to me. He bluntly asked,
“Are you Dowgiewicz?” When I nodded, he went on,
“I read your paper and you better not show up in any of
my classes.”
Over the next few days this scenario was
repeated several times. One or two professors, though, asked if
I could meet with them privately to help change their style of
conducting class.
You see, for the most part, seminary
classes had been taught in the Greek rhetorical style
designed to convey content. Teachers stood behind podiums and students
were busy taking notes. There was no discussion. Questions were
permitted for clarification purposes only. (This is a step up from
the totally monologue sermon message on Sundays!)
The whole system was designed so that
students could be tested on their ability to cognitively grasp
the facts presented. No role modeling occurred except for the
professor standing behind the podium—modeling a behavior
which the fledgling clergy would imitate! No opportunities to
reveal personal character or to weigh alternatives rose through
interpersonal dialogue so that the students might demonstrate
application of the truth they’d just learned.
Please note:
A certain reality of learning was
understood by Hebraic sages and has been substantiated by
educational research:
People tend to connect content
with the context in which
it was learned.
For instance: If you gain information in a
formal structured environment such as a classroom or sanctuary
from an authority figure behind a pulpit or podium,
you’ll use the content of what you were taught only if
you find yourself behind a pulpit or podium. In fact, your
likelihood of using that information in a different setting or
context is close to nil.
In order for you to effectively impart
that which you desire to become a way of life for another
person, the content and the methodology by which you present it are inseparably linked. If you
want someone to make that which you share their way of life and not
just facts they’ve cognitively acquired, you must discuss the content with them and demonstrate it for them
yourself.
Jesus as well as our Hebraic forefathers
clearly realized that Bible truth as a way of life can’t
be monologued in a classroom if people are expected to live by it. Yet,
most seminary instruction is conducted through lecture, often
from behind a podium.
The impersonal, non-participatory
classroom context is the environment in which clergy have been
trained to convey biblical truths. So teaching at people from
behind a barrier is the context in which they offer Bible content. The
hearers sit silently and listen, then depart and forget most of
what they heard.
Others who have studied educational
methods in depth would say that seminaries use the Greek
academic model — content and
data to be parroted back by exam.
If it’s never applied doesn’t matter in this learning context.
This is the key lesson with which most seminary-trained clergy
are imbued: The essence of biblical
teaching is content conveyance.
What an intense need there is today for
the Hebraic early church model of interpersonal
discussion and lifestyle training by example. The biblically Hebraic
essence of teaching is personal training through role modeling. In
this manner both the content and its application are appropriated under the
caring nurture of older, wiser mentors.
Below is a spectrum of differences between
the biblically Hebraic approach to instruction that changes lives, and
the Greek philosophical focus on words
and style of oration.
Current studies have affirmed the Hebraic
view of the effectiveness of various approaches that prompt
males to alter their behavior and lifestyle:
• Role
modeling — A man is changed through role modeling as he emulates that which
he esteems in others. “For
you yourselves know how you ought to follow our example...” (2 Thessalo-nians 3:7); “...set an example for the believers in speech, in life, in love,
in faith and in purity” (1
Timothy 4:12).
• Confrontation — A man is changed through confrontation. “We ask you, brothers, to respect those who are
working hard among you, those who are guiding you in the Lord
and confronting you in order to
help you change” (1 Thessalonians 5:12,CJB).
• Education
changes no man. Fact acquisition
only adds to his knowledge, but does
not change his life. “Knowledge
puffs up, but love builds up” (1 Corinthians 8:1); “But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a
foolish man who built his house on
sand. The
rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat
against that house, and it fell with a great crash” (Matthew 7:26,27).
Women, by contrast, are changed by role
models, by education, and to a lesser extent by confrontation.
Women are wired by God to be able to make changes in their
lives if they hear wisdom in a particular context;
they’re able to apply it in another setting. (Of course,
that doesn’t mean they will!)
The Hellenist, academic teaching style
demonstrated in sermons and Sunday school classes can be effective for
women. But, their brain processes are different from
men’s. This may account for the fact that throughout
Hellenized Christendom in the United States, women account for
80% of churchgoers. The men have been driven away because of
the lack of role modeling and confrontation. That which
they’ve heard from pulpits and lecterns has had little
impact on their everyday life. The very means by which their
hearts are reached and their lives are changed are denied them!
Do you detect the subtle influence of
Satan in a system that short-changes men in the way biblical
truth is presented? If truth isn’t being lived, the enemy
has far fewer worries.
For a man to mature in his faith he must
have meaningful accountable contact with role models who are
willing to confront him. While a
number of programs draw groups of men together for a supposed
mountain-top experience, the aftermath illustrates that few
undergo permanent change—particularly of the type that
carries over into their marriages and families.
[For in-depth discussion of changing
men’s lives, see our book, Pastoring
By Elders.]
If you’re still wondering about the
ineffectiveness of the Hellenist lecture style of teaching,
consider this. Studies indicate that a person will retain:
90% of what he sees,
hears,
and demonstrates.
70% of what he sees, hears,
and discusses.
50% of what he concurrently sees and hears .
30% of what he sees.
10-20% of what he hears.
Think about the typical three-point sermon
delivered as a monologue. How much of what is delivered over
the course of 45 minutes do you think is retained by the
listener? Very little. And, if you questioned listeners about
the sermon right after they left the service, they probably
couldn’t pass a pop quiz! How much less are they likely
to apply that which they’ve heard.
Notice again what the Hebraic style of
teaching that requires demonstration or at least discussion produces— 90% and 70% retention,
respectively. From a Hebraic viewpoint:
The fruit of teaching is determined by
what is learned and applied,
not just by what is taught.
The analysis paper I gave Dr. Schauf-fele
confirmed that the seminary was using the most abstract approach, Verbal Lecture, to teach at clergy
candidates. This is the manner in which they learned, and this
is the method on which they relied in their pulpits.
Remember, the context in which the content is learned is exactly
how the content will be used. So, if the people in the pews
aren’t in a podium or pulpit setting themselves, that
which they heard is meaningless for life application.
Most congregations have also given way to
the Greek influence in the program
orientation that’s prevalent
throughout Hellenized Christendom. Compare this with the process orientation of
the Hebraic early Church.
[See A
Comparison Of The Hebraic Foundations and The Greek and Roman
Influence in Lesson 2 for
illustrations of this important difference.]
It’s evident from the Gospels that
Jesus was fully aware of humanity’s need for visual
images and living example. That’s why He used Hebraic
forms of teaching. Look closely at His use of parables, His
role modeling, His informal style, His in-depth discussions
with His disciples. Our Lord Jesus
clearly understood the manner by which people learn, and He
intended that lives be changed as He shared!
Jesus is the model Teacher for all who
would follow Him. Spiritual fruit was matured in His disciples
as they continued the pattern in which He opened up truth.
Jesus confronted His disciples with thoughts such as: “I have set you an example that you should do as I have done for you” (John
13:15); and, “A student is
not above his teacher, but everyone who is fully trained will be like his teacher” (Luke 6:40).
Later, Paul would emphasize role modeling
as key to his discipling methods as well: “Join with others in following my example, brothers, and take note of those who live according to the pattern we gave you” (Philippians
3:17).
The impersonal, oratory-lecture style so
common in Hellenized religion today compels you to be
instructed by trained professionals who have removed themselves
from you relationally. You’re not in a position to
imitate your clergy’s walk in Jesus because you most
likely don’t spend any personal time with him. Thus, no
role modeling takes place.
And, how can anyone effectively confront
you if they’re so distant from you relationally that they
never see attitudes or behavior in you that need to be
addressed? Anyone can put on a plastic “holy”
personality in public but live in darkness of spirit in their
home.
If you truly want to return to the pattern
of our Hebraic forefathers as they shared their lives and
discipled, you must weigh the fruit of a person’s life
before you listen to his teaching: “Remember
your leaders, those who spoke God’s message to you.
Reflect on the results of their way
of life, and imitate their trust” (Hebrews 13:7, CJB).
Jesus and the apostles were as much role
models as they were teachers. God wants His people to discern
the validity of their teachers by their lifestyle, not just by
their talk. In other words, if you
can’t imitate the character choices their faith produces,
don’t listen to their teachings.
As we’ve written in Section 2,
Hellenist influence brought a heavy reliance on analytical
reasoning: “All the Athenians
and the foreigners who lived there spent their time doing
nothing but talking about and
listening to the latest
ideas” (Acts 17:21). As a
result, the pattern of passing around opinions and theories about
profound spiritual matters arose.
Through this influence developed the
pattern of Sunday school classrooms and Bible study groups so
familiar throughout Christendom. People sit around and talk about Bible
truth as a subject, not realizing that that’s how the
Bible will be to them: information to talk about but not
apply.
In their endeavor to defend the Christian
faith against attacks by heathen philosophers, Greek-educated
Christian converts dealt with their opponents on a philosophical basis.
The result was centuries of rationalistic and syncretistic
practices in the church.
Christianity began to be considered on a theoretical basis. Church councils
argued over inconsequential matters, such as, “How many
angels could fit on the head of a pin?” Christianity
embarked on becoming a religion rather than a Spirit-directed way of life,
adopting the practices of other religions with their tangible
worship symbols and reasoned rationalization for compromising
with the world.
By the mid-third century the Christianity
that had once walked in the power of revealed truth fitted
compactly into the mold of human thought. Christian practice
was no longer dependent upon divine revelation. It had devolved
into a pattern of human interpretation and evaluation.
Gone was the power on which the early
Christians had once drawn to conquer an empire. Lost was
dependence on the active presence of the Spirit of the living
God. Man’s
“ability” to do God’s work for Him took
precedence.
Hellenism is fully entrenched at all
levels of Christendom. Everything we’ve shared with you
is apparent! It’s now your responsibility to
determine if you can serve our God while still living under
this pagan, worldly influence.
[For more on the effects of Hellenism see Lifebyte 22.
Obedient Trust versus Reasoning: The Hebraic Foundations
Confront Evangelicalism.]
A Sad Note:
A twentieth-century example of the
philosophical-rhetorical defense of the faith was the Scopes
Monkey Trial (1925). The biblical truth of Creation was argued
against the unproven theory of evolution in a court of law.
Greek rhetoric and human oration, not the Holy Spirit, were the
means of defending the “truth”. The reality of
Creation was by-passed as rationale outweighed conviction.
• What has most pained you as
you’ve learned the background of the seminary training so
many clergy have received?
• Have you experienced true
discipling and mentoring during your faith journey? How did
that relationship bring about changes in your life?
|
 |
|
|