William James (1942-1910) was a renowned philosopher who left a lasting imprint on societal thinking and reasoning. He was a pragmatist. By that, I mean he advanced the thesis that the meaning and truth of all concepts is to be determined by their practical results. We have heard the thought, "it is to be accepted because it is the lesser of the two evils." That's the philosophy of pragmatism. (We have a tendency to make our political choices on that basis, do we not? We tend to be pragmatists when we go to the voting booth.) Pragmatism accepts that while there is something bad about a thing, the good within lit suggests that we accept it because of that good. If it brings about some good, promote it, adopt it. Whether he intended it or not, the philosophy of Mr. James (and others of his ilk) was accepted as valid by the religious community as well as the secular.
We (all stripes and persuasions of religious folk) find it easy to accept the bad (false, biblically unsubstantiated assertions) because it is interspersed among that which is seen to be good (true). But, pragmatism in spiritual matters demands compromise!
It is the spiritual pragmatists among us who have taken an ardent stand in defense of the Promise Keepers. They believe what is bad about the Promise Keepers doctrine and their wrong posture on biblical teaching, is to be over-looked because it is interspersed with fragments of truth. Promise #5 of the seven promises of the Promise Keepers is a good example of this.
Promise #5 reads ... "A Promise Keeper is committed to supporting the mission of his church by honoring and praying for his pastors and by actively giving his time and his resources."
Every Christian committed to New Testament truth will hurriedly agree with (1) supporting the mission of the church - reaching the lost with the saving message of the gospel, edifying the saints, and benevolently responding to the less-fortunate; (2) giving time and material resource to the maintenance of the church as it undertakes its mission. And, we would agree with honoring and praying for the church's elders (I Timothy 5:17; Hebrews 13:7,17). But, the Promise, by use of the term "pastors" is referring to the preacher and not the elders, the overseers of the church. Promise Keepers promote the idea of clergy and laity within the church, a concept that is foreign to the New Testament teaching (I Peter 2:9; Revelation 1:6 - A.S.V.). The clergy-laity system went out with the Old Law. Too, the Promise Keepers give religious titles to preachers. The elders (a plurality) of the congregation have the spiritual oversight of the congregation (Acts 20:28), not the preacher, the one they refer to as the "pastor".
Promise #5 says some good things, but it also promotes false doctrine, therefore it becomes altogether wrong. Any good in #5 is tainted and negated by the false teaching promoted by the statement. There are seven promises the Promise Keeper agrees to keeping and, in the process, he agrees to keeping all of every promise, therefore the one who believes the New Testament cannot be a Promise Keeper because he is asked to accept that which is at odds with plain New Testament teaching.
NO! Christians should not be a part of the Promise Keepers movement.
A look at Promise #6 in the next article.
--Charlie T. Garner |