Many Shall Come in My Name

In his Olivet Discourse Jesus warned, “Many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ, and shall deceive many” (Mark 13:6). Seldom has this warning been so explicitly fulfilled as in our day. On every side individuals and groups are making sweeping messianic claims. Some of these plainly set themselves up in opposition to the historic Christian faith, but others—and these are probably more dangerous to Christians—claim to be legitimate developments or fulfillments of Christ’s work and teaching.

The young “guru” Maharaj Ji, acclaimed by his devotees as the “perfect spiritual master,” has always addressed himself to Westerners in the syncretistic terms characteristic of Hinduism, but recently he has begun to make so pronounced an effort to appropriate the Christian heritage for his purposes that it may be difficult, in the initial stages, for people to distinguish his message from that of Christianity. His principal collaborators, originally called “Mahatmas” (great souls), he now designates “Apostles.” Specifically addressing himself to “real Christians,” he claims to be fulfilling the work of Jesus by giving them, instead of a dead Teacher and religious theory, a living Master and direct religious experiences.

According to Michael Mildenberger, a German Protestant pastor and analyst of religious movements, “evidently even ‘post-Christian’ youth, largely estranged from the Church, from which the ‘Divine Light Mission’ recruits most of its devotees, still bears such a strong Christian imprint that it is necessary to present oneself in familiar [Christian] images and ideas in order to win them” (Materialdienst, Sept. 15, 1974, p. 282). This attempted takeover of the Christian heritage, combined with much valid criticism of the perversion of Christianity found in so many churches today, evidently persuades many people to become thoroughly involved with the guru’s Hinduism before they ever realize that they are thereby turning their backs on biblical Christianity and on Jesus Christ as the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

Even more troublesome is the Korean cult leader Sun Myung Moon, who has been making a widely publicized tour of major American cities. Mr. Moon was originally a Christian and claims to be one still, and he presents his own distinctive teaching as “based on Christian beliefs and ideology” (from the editor’s note to Moon’s magnum opus, Divine Principle, p. vi).

Sociologically, Moon’s movement resembles Moral Re-Armament, enrolling a bevy of clean-cut, enthusiastic young people. Like MRA, the Unification Church movement is very hostile to Marxism and strongly promotes many of the traditional Christian virtues. Moon himself waxes eloquent on America’s providential role in God’s ordering of history, and encourages reverence for the United States, and its institutions and leaders at a time when contempt for them is widespread. Unlike many of the other important cults that are historically related to Christianity, such as Mormonism, the Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Christian Science, Moon emphasizes major Christian doctrines such as the Trinity (but not the full divinity of Jesus), the historic, space-time fall into sin, and the second coming of Christ. Because of this marked similarity at certain points, as well as the attractiveness of his emphasis on traditional values, it is vital to recognize the major points at which he grossly perverts Christian teaching and makes himself into the leader of a non-Christian cult.

Moon teaches three stages of revelation and salvation history: the age of Judaism, that of Christianity, and that of his own movement, called the Unification Church (in full, The Holy Spirit Association for the Unification of World Christianity). While Judaism still looks for the Messiah and Christianity awaits the return of Christ in glory, Moon’s Unification Church movement believes that his “second coming” in the form of another birth took place shortly after the First World War in an Eastern nation, specifically, Korea (Divine Principle, pp. 498–532). Although Moon (born in 1920) apparently does not expressly claim to be the reborn Jesus Christ, his presentation lends itself to that interpretation. His preaching includes a considerable polemic against John the Baptist, the Elijah whose coming preceded the beginning of Jesus’ ministry and who, Moon claims, misunderstood and rejected Jesus. In a Washington lecture he alluded to the possibility that Billy Graham might be the new Elijah of the second birth of Christ; of course Graham “misunderstands” and rejects Moon today.

Teaching that the fall of both angels and man consisted of illicit sexual relations between angels and humans, Moon believes that God’s work of restoration will proceed by the creation of a Holy Family. Adam’s family would have been holy had he not sinned. Jesus, the Second Adam, was to have become a second spiritual parent to the human race by his union with the Holy Spirit, the Second Eve (Divine Principle, pp. 214–18), but this work was frustrated by the unbelief of the Jews and the crucifixion of Jesus. The reborn Christ, or the Third Adam, will also have his Third Eve and will become the “True Parent both spiritually and physically, by forming the substantial Trinity centered on God” (ibid.).

Like the adherents of many of the other cults, Moon’s followers often make a favorable impression because of their sincerity, commitment, and generally exemplary personal conduct. Unfortunately, what they promote is a radical perversion of the biblical doctrine of salvation, and the fact that Moon claims to base his teaching on Christian revelation and tradition certainly places him in the category of those against whom Jesus warns us in Mark 13.

A Un Seat For Christians?

Suppose the Christian community had a seat in the United Nations: what distinctive input could it provide? That’s the question raised by Dr. Curtis Roosevelt last month in an address to the Governing Board of the National Council of Churches. Dr. Roosevelt did not speak of a “seat” as such, but he did ask the board to think about the special way in which the churches should involve themselves in international politics. As chief of the non-governmental section of the U. N. Secretariat, he said he has yet to see any religious organization acting as if it understood its unique role. Dr. Roosevelt did not attempt to offer elaborate answers. He did say he felt that the churches should not parrot other lobbies but should concentrate on ultimate concerns such as the meaning of life. That much sounds like good advice. From our perspective, the best thing churches can do is to proclaim the Gospel.

Turning Points

For many Brazilians, the night of October 2 represented the end of an era. Pele, soccer’s living legend, played his last professional game of a seventeen-year career that made him the most famous Brazilian in the world.

For other Brazilians, that same evening meant a great beginning. They too were gathered in a stadium, but not to watch a soccer match. They had come to hear the Gospel proclaimed, and they had responded to the invitation to receive Christ as Saviour. The Gospel was sounded forth by Billy Graham and his associates for five successive days at the Maracana stadium in Rio de Janeiro (see October 25 issue, p. 30). Final tabulations showed that more than 25,000 persons recorded decisions for Christ.

Exporting Democracy

Evangelicals seem to be growing more sensitive to the need to distinguish the Gospel from the political and economic practices of their homelands. However, this necessary distinction should not make us indifferent to politics, especially in countries like the United States where God has ordained that political sovereignty resides in the people, not in some ruling class.

Because Communism has both a theoretical and a practical opposition to Christianity, many evangelicals have felt comfortable with American foreign policy to the extent that it opposes Communist states and supports anti-Communist ones. A problem with this policy is that often the staunchly anti-Communist states also seem to oppose constitutional democracy. Dictatorships, whether of the right or of the left, are still dictatorships. Moreover, America puts itself in the position of trying to fight an idea—the Communist ideology—not by exporting our own political ideology, but by supporting repressive regimes that the American people would not tolerate at home.

As citizens, Christians should be concerned that not enough is being done to convince other peoples that constitutional democracy is a form of government which, for all its faults, allows more freedom—including freedom to propagate the Gospel at home and abroad—than any other we know about. The American government may have to maintain some sort of relationship with totalitarian states of the right even as it does with Communist states. But does it have to show so much favor? Is it really in the long-term interest of the United States to seem to endorse the principle of dictatorship and minority rule? Some argue that repression is necessary at times to keep Communists from taking over. In fact, repression can lead people to feel they have nothing to lose by heeding the (admittedly phony) promises of Communist “liberators.”

As Christians, we likewise need to keep the long-term view in mind. Some right-wing governments (by no means all) do allow the Gospel to be preached, with restrictions, so long as it serves their purposes. But we should distinguish more carefully than is often done between taking advantage of such opportunities and enthusiastically endorsing a dictatorial regime.

A democratic civil government is not essential to the life of the church, but is certainly preferable to dictatorship. As Christians and as citizens let us be known for our support of truly democratic government everywhere, rather than by our opposition to only certain kinds of dictatorship.

Time For Something Different

Even when their lives and deeds were not in striking harmony with their public sentiments, political leaders in America have long honored the tradition of making an occasional ritual nod to God or religion, especially before and immediately after elections. Many observers have the feeling that with America’s new president, Gerald R. Ford, something is different. His profession certainly appears to come from the heart rather than from any calculation of political utility.

In other matters, too, President Ford seems unusually straightforward and frank: he is even willing to acknowledge mistakes. Many media representatives immediately recognized this and commented on it. It certainly seems far more in keeping with the idea of a representative democracy than the common political penchant for secrecy and dissimulation of acts and motives. Because President Ford seems determined to give the nation something different from what it had in previous administrations, he deserves a somewhat different response.

Unfortunately, in one respect at least things have not changed. During much of Johnson’s second term, and throughout Nixon’s whole presidency, it was rare that the president made a public appearance without being harassed and insulted. This type of “protest” was often excused on the grounds that Johnson and Nixon had supposedly cut off the opportunities for rational discourse and reasoned protest, and hence those seriously disturbed by their policies were forced to resort to more direct if also more boorish confrontations. And of course this type of harassment is also extended to lesser political figures: recently Senator Edward Kennedy, for instance, was met with jeers and food-throwing in Boston.

Those who would deny political leaders and others the opportunity to express their views without ruffianly interference demonstrate that they do not deserve representative government. If their tactics spread, they could make such government an impossibility. The frustration of many with the “hierarchy of oligarchies” (the expression is Dr. Helge Pross’s) that makes up modern government is understandable. Feeling that they have no way to get the ear of the powerful for their genuine and deep concerns, some try to obtain by shouting and shock the hearing that they feel they have been denied. And of course there is always a small but influential minority dedicated to the abolition of democratic institutions; their cause is clearly served by agitation that makes it impossible for those institutions to function normally.

The majority may be simply oafish, and only the minority cunning and malign, but the net effect is dangerous. At a recent appearance in Vermont, President Ford was met by a small but loud group of protesters who sought to disrupt his presentation, as earlier groups had so often disrupted those of his predecessors. Under such circumstances, Mr. Ford may lose some of his frankness and good humor.

Mr. Ford is trying to break out of the straitjacket of pretense and self-importance that so often characterizes the politically powerful. He deserves something better than the same harassment, hostility, and insult that embittered his predecessors. Christians who appreciate his frankness about his faith should join in restraining the obnoxious tendency, already in evidence, to use demonstration and disruption to prevent him from speaking freely with the citizenry, with those over whose temporal fortunes he presides.

Soldier, Athlete, Farmer, Criminal

In his exhortations to Timothy, Paul refers to four occupations with which Christian discipleship should or may be compared (2 Timothy 2:1–9). A Christian is to be like a soldier whose commander is Christ Jesus (vv. 3 and 4). When we sing “Onward Christian Soldiers,” do we solemnly recognize what this implies in the way of obedience to our Lord’s will? A soldier cannot pick and choose which injunctions he will obey.

The concept of the Christian as soldier can be misused. In saying that a soldier is not to get involved in civilian pursuits (v. 4), Paul does not mean that certain areas are off limits to the Christian, such as politics or the arts. (Curiously, those who speak against Christian endeavor in these areas rarely would prohibit Christians from being in business, which is just as much a “civilian” pursuit.) What Paul does mean is that any activities in which we participate are to be done under the Lordship of Christ. It is the person of the supervisor, not the nature of the service, to which Paul refers.

A Christian is also to be like an athlete (v. 5), not only in the sense of diligence, which Paul mentions in other writings, but also as one who “competes according to the rules.” Note, however, that it is the Lord who has established these rules, not our fellow athletes. Furthermore, these “rules” are, with few exceptions, not nearly so precise and detailed as those in the typical sports rule book. We are normally dealing with principles to which a variety of behavior can be conformed.

A Christian is to be like a farmer (v. 6), and the emphasis is placed on working hard, not to earn salvation but to express our gratitude for that which has been freely granted by “the grace that is in Christ Jesus” (v. 1).

Doing what the leader says, like a soldier, in the way that he wants, like an athlete, with the effort that is appropriate, like a farmer—this is the path of the disciple. However, conformity to these exhortations does not guarantee success as the world understands it. Consider the fourth occupation: “I am suffering and wearing fetters like a criminal” (v. 9). Being a good disciple of Christ does not mean, as some exhorters imply, that everything will always be pleasant for us.

Paul was in prison, and we should not be surprised if that or other kinds of suffering and hardship is our lot. Paul was able to endure mistreatment for Christ’s sake gladly because he kept in mind “eternal glory” (v. 10). We must do the same.

Have something to add about this? See something we missed? Share your feedback here.