Outcome-Based Religion

Part Eight


Series Conclusion


The terms “Outcomes-Based” and “End justifies the means” are synonymous. Simply defined any course of action is justified as long as the desired end result is achieved. This is the model followed and promoted by Rick Warren and his Purpose Driven minions and it is one prone to obvious error. The utilization of this method inevitably sees the sublime evolve into the ridiculous. Consider the following fruits from the Outcome-Based/ End justifies the means tree.

·         Australian Idol – professing believers aspiring not to take up the cross and follow the Saviour, but rather to seek fame and fortune in this fallen world. And with the likes of Pentecostal Paulini having no qualms at flashing her mammaries and being called a ‘Diva’ (female goddess) this is probably the most ostentatious display of wanton arrogance – of course all in the name of ‘God’ and ‘evangelism’, despite the fact that after they are ‘idols’ they no longer evangelize! Surprise, surprise!

·         Christian Wrestling Federation - sporting the words “Jesus Freak” across the backside of their costumes – what a fitting place for the Holy name of our risen Saviour – NOT!!

·         Cruisers for Christ – a vintage automobile club whose creed is apparently “We want to have fun and get a ‘Christian’ message out.” (In other words, doing worldly things in the name of God, which best sums up this whole movement.)

·         Biblical Mini-GolfWaaaay below par!

·         Holy Land in Orlando – a theme park attraction in Orlando, Florida USA boasting over 200,000 people visiting each year!

·         Drive Thru ChurchStopping at a "Drive-Thru-Church" in Richmond, Virginia USA., having listened to a brief prayer delivered by ‘Pastor’ Sharon Jones, a black woman dressed like the commander of a space ship, director of "Friends of God: A Road Trip with Alexandra Pelosi,"  Alexandra observes: "This is my kind of church. Drive through. Two minutes and I'm out."  [Fast faith for people on the go – but to where? Could you ‘upsize’ it to anything more ridiculous? – fries with that?] 

·          “Christian’s have the best sex.” says fallen former leader of the National Association of Evangelicals in the US, Ted Haggard after being pushed from the pulpit for his homosexual, drug-fueled affair with reformed hooker, Mike Jones.  Perhaps Bobbie Houston took a page from Mr. Haggard’s book in the research for her own


·         Gays for the Gospel – [link not included because of content]

·         Hookers for Christ

·         Lesbians for Christ - [link not included because of content]

·         Naked Gospel Calandar  

The Bible is emphatically clear when it states that bad fruit cannot come from a good tree, neither can good from a bad. It there for follows that because Outcomes-Based ideology is intrinsically bad, nothing that comes from it can be good. If you, the reader, have issues with this statement may I refer you to the Author, Ya’weh.

What if the wide and narrow roads spoken of do not implicate the lost and the saved per se, but rather the saved and the professing saved? Consider this; the world [unredeemed humanity] is not on a journey at all, not on a path. It is dead in its sin. Only those who are redeemed, or claim to be, are on a road and the Bible speaks of two; one populous, one scarce. If you will, picture the scene at the base of Mount Sinai. The delivered Israelites [the called out ones] had separated into two camps while Moses was atop the mountain receiving the commands of Ya’weh. Notice both groups were the “called out ones” – those delivered from Egypt. And yet imagine Moses’ chagrin upon his descent to see one group in reverent sobriety, and the other partying hearty! This is precisely what we see today. Please consider this as you read the following.

In our conclusion of this eight part series, Mac Dominck addresses the issues of Outcome-Based Religion definition and concludes with an appeal to those who take the Christian Faith seriously to come out and be separate from those who just wanna ‘cash in’ on Christ. Mac writes:


What is a “paradigm shift?” Better yet, what is a “paradigm?” The terminology of the “paradigm shift” was coined by Thomas Kuhn, in his 1962 book—The Structure of Scientific Revolutions; and according to Marilyn Ferguson, Kuhn’s ideas “increase understanding of the emergence of new perspectives and analyze the causes of resistance to new systemic changes.” 1 Marilyn Ferguson herself then relates Kuhn’s definition of the word “paradigm” as follows:

“A framework of thought (from the paradigma, “pattern”. A paradigm is a scheme for understanding and explaining certain aspects of reality…a “paradigm shift” is a distinctively new way of thinking about old problems [Marilyn Ferguson, the Aquarian Conspiracy, p.26]  2

The context of Ms. Ferguson’s remarks are taken from her infamous book, The Aquarian Conspiracy, published in 1980. This book became known as the “New Age Bible,” and is framed within a pantheistic world view that dictates that “all is god.” Ms. Ferguson has become very well known as the consummate New Ager.

It is within this framework that the New Paradigm Church and Outcome-Based Religion have emerged. The New Paradigm Church has reassessed Bible-based Christianity and developed a “new way of thinking” about the old principles of the Word of God. God does not adapt to the postmodern culture, so why should those who claim to be His followers? God has never developed a “new way of thinking,” so why should his children adopt such methodologies? If God’s Word is inspired, infallible, and inerrant, why should God’s children believe that they need to develop a new mindset when they in reality possess the “Old Story?” In essence, this departure can be termed as apostasy, but the biblical term is infidelity.

The rise of spiritual infidelity within the New Paradigm Church is just another example of mankind’s failure to learn from the lessons taught in the Old Testament Scriptures. The Old Testament explicitly records the spiritual infidelity of the nation of Israel that resulted from a moving away from God to the worship of the false gods of the Canaanite culture. The New Paradigm Church mimics these oft-condemned actions by moving away from biblical methodology and standards in order to embrace today’s postmodern culture. Therefore, the emphasis of new paradigm Outcome-Based Religion can be summarized as a transition from these “old ways” outlined in and dictated by the Word of God to the “new ways” detailed in postmodern philosophy.

It is this process of transition that is deemed a paradigm shift, and such a paradigm shift is occurring “right before the eyes” of the professing Church. This shift in consciousness has not been triggered by some cataclysmic event, but is taking place in “baby steps”—one small step at a time. In spite of this piecemeal implementation, the transition is not occurring without opposition, for many voices within Fundamental and even Evangelical circles are crying out to sound the alarm. However, the numbers of the new movement are swelling as a tidal wave that will potentially drown these voices by the dawn of the next generation. For as stated by physicist Max Planck,

“A new scientific truth (or lie –ed.) does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.” 3

To interpret this remark in a biblical context, one can certainly add as an example:

“…and there arose another generation that knew not the Lord, nor yet the works He had done for Israel.” (Judges 2:10) [simply put, he who does not engage in an argument, controls it. Which is precisely the strategy of those drunk with ‘New Paradigm’ theology. They are biblically known as cowards, though they will surely call themselves otherwise – ed.]

As with Outcome-Based Religion, Outcome–Based Education has as its core objective a complete transition of “the old” to “the new.”


Since OBE and Outcome-Based Religion share what appears to be a disproportionate number of similarities, one must question the origin of these principles and seek a common source of such similarities, or else consign them to pure coincidence. However, there exists no coincidence, because the source of these commonalities can be readily discovered, and the quest begins by looking into the life of Peter Drucker. Drucker’s “Management by Objective” is purely outcome-based. The outcome-based, systemic concepts can be traced directly to the teachings of Hegel, Marx, Nietzsche, Wellhausen, Blavatsky, and others who were heavily influenced by Germanic paganism. In turn, these same principles were then adopted by the Fabian Socialists in the early Twentieth Century and easily communicated to the likes of John Dewey, “The Father of Progressive Education” (thus the origin of OBE). 4

Total quality management directly and covertly alters the values, culture, and mind-sets within an organization. TQM establishes a carefully integrated programme of social and psychological engineering which is critical to the ‘successful’ implementation of TQM and which has a significant impact on the behavior and consciousness of both managers and workers.” 5

“General Systems Theory”

(GST) GST was originally proposed by Hungarian biologist Ludwig von Bertalanffy in 1928. He proposed that “a system is characterized by the interactions of its components and the nonlinearity of those interactions.” 6 Kuhn (the originator of the term “paradigm shift”) applied the GST to culture and society, and he saw cultures as interlinking subsystems of a broader planetary society. 7

In 1980, cosmologist Stephen Hawking then expanded systems thinking to the global platform by introducing the “Chaos Theory” 8 that claims the “interconnectedness of all things”---(i.e., the beating of a butterfly’s wings in Asia can affect the course of Atlantic hurricanes). As a result, GST becomes very esoteric when taken to its logical conclusions:

·          “GST is symptomatic of a change in our worldview. No longer do we see the world in a blind play of atoms, but rather a great organization.” 9

·           “According to GST, nothing can be understood in isolation but must be seen as part of a system.” 10

·         If one accepts the theory that the world is an interconnected and interdependent holistic system (and within that system is an infrastructure that is analogous across systems), one must logically conclude that the Gaia Hypothesis is true.

·          “James Lovelock’s Gaia Hypothesis first appeared in 1979 and evolved into Gaia: A New Look at Life on Earth, published by Oxford Press in 1982. The Gaia Hypothesis contends that the earth itself is a living organism, the source of all life, which has the capacity to regulate or “heal” itself under “natural” conditions. Lovelock’s contention is that the human species has developed the technology to overwhelm Gaia’s capacity to “heal” itself, and is therefore doomed to destruction unless the human species stops its technological assault.” 11

·         The Gaia Hypothesis is, in essence, nothing more than ancient worship of the Mother Earth Goddess of both ancient paganism and modern witchcraft.

[It is from these delusions that the myth of man-made, global warming was propagated – ed.]

Based on all of the above, one can conclude that GST is an esoteric belief system based on a merger of Darwinism and eastern mysticism—much like what one would now term “New Age.” GST contends that man is moving to the next level of evolution, but in order to reach this plateau, mankind must ascribe to a common, universal consciousness, or belief system (“old beliefs” must transition to “new beliefs”).

In his book, With No Apologies, U.S. Senator Barry Goldwater described the strategy of the Trilateral Commission, the Council for Foreign Relations, and other globalist entities as an attempt to control the “Four Corners of Power” in order to transition the world into their perceived planetary model. He described these “four corners” as political, economic, theological, and intellectual, and contended that those who control the Four Corners of Power control the world. 12

Drucker’s “3-Legged Stool” simply combines the theological and intellectual corners of power into the “private sector/ non-profit” leg of the stool. Goldwater theorized that control of the Four Corners of Power would result in a new world system, just as Drucker’s model to  achieve ‘community’ will bring forth a new society. However, the fact is that the non-profit sector –and the Evangelical Church in particular, posed the greatest threat to achieving the synthesis of “community”—or at least it did—until Hybels, Buford, Warren, and Company began to transition their constituents by the hundreds of thousands to a position that aligned with the whole systems model.


To further bring these concepts back into the context of the New Paradigm Church, the name “Peter Drucker” appears many times when one delves into the sources for the methodology of this new hybrid religious movement. According to Christianity Today, Drucker relayed to Forbes magazine, “…’pastoral megachurches’ are surely the most important social phenomenon in American society in the last thirty years.´ 13 In the same article, Drucker described “management” as a ministry for saving our society and thus directed church leaders to adopt his “Management by Objective” philosophies—in essence, Outcome-Based Religion. A Christianity Today article states that Drucker interacted with “many ‘pastoral’ churches. These include megachurches like Bill Hybel’s Willow Creek or Rick Warren’s Saddleback.” 14

Therefore, according to Christianity Today, both Warren and Hybels have been schooled in the methodology of Drucker, as promoted by Bob Buford. Actually, Drucker has called Dr. Warren “the inventor of perpetual revival” 15. Warren himself states, “I once asked Peter Drucker, the father of modern management, how often a growing organization must restructure…” 16

These evangelical Pied Pipers are using the methods of men whose holistic world view permeates their management styles and every other aspect of their personal philosophies. Once they then begin to adopt this methodology to build or transition a church, this church plays right into the hands of the globalist systems engineers who are seeking an avenue for system breakthrough and the establishment of the Church of the Paradigm Shift.

·         The phrase, “paradigm shift” was coined by Thomas Kuhn, a subscriber to the General Systems Theory. The GST, when carried to its logical conclusions, carries one on a journey into esoteric and even occult beliefs of the Mother Earth Goddess. [Gaia, Mother Nature, et al – ed.]

·         Marilyn Ferguson, author of the Aquarian Conspiracy (along with other “New Agers”) popularized the concept of a “Paradigm shift” and the breakthrough of a new system that would signal the end of the Piscean Age, the dawn of the Age of Aquarius, and the coming of the new level of human evolution, homo noeticus. [no brainus – ed.]

·         Peter Drucker bases his philosophies on the GST and uses the Hegelian Dialectical Process in formulating his theories of “community” (consensus or synthesis). His holistic approach to management principles gave rise to his system of “Management by Objective”—an outcome-based model utilizing the processes of Edwards Deming (another GST disciple) that change the values and world view of those involved to the holistic model.


An autonomous church does not generally start with a huge bank account. As a matter of fact, some mega churches relate that their founders started the work with little or no money. Some notable examples of this are Robert Schuller, and Jerry Falwell. Money is a much discussed topic in the local church, and is even discussed at great lengths in the Word of God. It also is often a source of contention when involving issues of biblical separation. For instance, the biblically sound church will not accept money from sources that range from openly hostile to the Gospel to somewhat questionable sources. Rick Warren’s Saddleback Church follows Peter Drucker’s ‘Management by Objective’. The question therefore begs to be asked if the Saddleback methodology is based on Drucker’s Management by Objective, where does the Word of God and its fundamental doctrine fit into the equation? Taking this train of thought to the next level, if the doctrines and methodology of the Word of God are subjugated to management technique---where does God Himself really fit into this scenario?

Brian Houston, Senior Pastor of the Hills Community Church Sydney, Australia often spruiks that “God’s” people need to have a vision. The Bible does not state that without a vision statement the people perish. [But rather the Word of God states in Proverbs 29:18 “…but he that keepeth the law, happy is he.” Notice that, he who keepeth the ‘law’ - not the ‘Pastor’s’ vision - is happy. – ed.] However to implement the Pastor’s vision biblical violation is necessary, for example:

·         Oaths are expressly forbidden by the Word of God. This is not only applicable to offerings, but also to signing church covenants vision statements, mission statements, and core values statements.

“But above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any other oath; but let your yea by yea; and your nay, nay lest yea fall into condemnation.” (James 5:12)

·         The biblical spirit of giving is that of the ‘cheerful giver’. Tactics of manipulation and intimidation are not conducive to the development of ‘cheerful givers’ who give to the work of the Lord from the heart.

·         Manipulative tactics only achieve conformance by instilling guilt and fear in individuals who are shamed into signing the covenant or ‘faith promise’.


One serious student of reality must ask the following question: “Why would the Association of Theological Schools in the United States have any association with the Lilly Endowment Fund and Luce Foundation?” Better yet, why would Lilly, the manufacturer of Prozac and other psychological drugs, be interested in Christian churches? The same can be asked of the Luce Foundation, for Henry Luce was a high-ranking Freemason. Theological schools are the network of contacts, relationships, and philosophies that “trickle down” through the network corridors—where do elitist philanthropic foundations fit into the mission of the church? Quite simply, they don’t. Would a pharmaceutical company see the church as a vehicle for advancing the Gospel or as a potential market? Quite possibly the latter, for according to G.A. Pritchard, Willow Creek Community Church makes hundreds of referrals each year to psychiatric care, 17 and with the rise of “Christian Psychology,” this market is expanding rapidly.



There is the danger imposed upon the eternal destiny of future generations due to the desire to “do anything it takes” to build the numbers of the church roles. Dr. Bob Jones, Sr. warned against this very principle when he said, “Never sacrifice the permanent on the altar of the immediate.” 18 Though Dr. Jones could never in his most lucid nightmares have envisioned a church built upon the outcome-based, “end justifies the means” philosophies of the Pied Pipers of the New Paradigm, today’s “Greater Evangelical Community” is sacrificing its children on the altar of postmodernism while pragmatically proclaiming great success in “building the Kingdom of God.” However, when a closer look is taken at those involved in today’s western religious scene, the appalling truth of even this generation’s desperate condition comes to the forefront.

The evidence of this widespread issue is confirmed by a survey taken by Barna Research Group of 2033 adults in a November 2003 pole. The results were shocking, to say the least:

·         4% of adults surveyed have a biblical worldview

·         9% of “Born-again Christians” surveyed have a biblical worldview

·         7% of Protestants surveyed have a biblical worldview

·         2% of mainline Protestants surveyed have a biblical worldview

·         .04% of Roman Catholics surveyed have a biblical worldview

·         13% of nondenominational Protestants surveyed have a biblical worldview

·         10% of Pentecostals surveyed have a biblical worldview

·         8% of Baptists surveyed have a biblical worldview

Barna then added:

“Among the most prevalent alternative worldviews was postmodernism, which seemed to be the dominant perspective among the two youngest generations (i.e., the Busters and Mosiacs)…For the purposes of the research, a biblical worldview was defined as believing that absolute moral truths exist; that such truth is defined by the Bible; and firm belief in six specific religious views. Those views were that Jesus Christ lived a sinless life; God is the all-powerful and all-knowing Creator of the universe and He still rules it today; salvation is a gift from God and cannot be earned; Satan is real; a Christian has a responsibility to share their faith in Christ with other people; and the Bible is accurate in all of its teachings.” 19

The information gleaned from this survey was so shocking, Barna conducted a second survey. In this survey, which utilized the same set of questions to determine worldview, 601 Senior Pastors were interviewed nationwide. The results were equally astounding:

·         71% of Southern Baptist pastors surveyed have a biblical worldview

·         59% of pastors surveyed who did not attend seminary have a biblical worldview

·         57 % of Baptist pastors (other than SBC) surveyed have a biblical worldview

·         51% of Protestant pastors surveyed have a biblical worldview

·         45% of pastors surveyed who are seminary graduates have a biblical worldview

·         44% of Charismatic and Pentecostal pastors surveyed have a biblical worldview

·         35% of pastors of black churches surveyed have a biblical worldview

·         28% of mainline Protestant pastors surveyed have a biblical worldview

·         27% of Methodist pastors surveyed have a biblical worldview

·         15% of female pastors surveyed have a biblical worldview 20

While these numbers are absolutely terrifying to any true child of God, the most horrifying of all these statistics is the fact that only 9% of those surveyed who claim to be “Born-again” profess a biblical worldview. The true believer understands that the “proof is in the pudding,” and most would question how any individual that responded negatively to any but one of Barna’s questions could possibly be Christian by biblical standards. For example:

·         Is an individual who denies the existence of absolute truth saved?

·         Is an individual who denies that absolute truth is defined by the Word of God as found in the Bible saved?

·         Is an individual who denies the impeccability of Jesus Christ saved?

·         Is an individual that denies the omnipotent power of God as the Creator of the universe saved?

·         Is an individual who believes in salvation by works saved?

·         Is an individual who denies the existence of Satan and the accuracy of the Bible saved?

The fact of the matter is that none can see the heart but God; however, the Bible clearly states, “By their fruits ye shall know them.” (Mat.7:16) Thus, anyone who denies any of these foundational doctrines is either very ignorant of the Word of God—or that individual is lost.

If barely half of Protestant pastors are doctrinally sound enough to hold a biblical worldview, what can be expected of their constituents? The lack of expository doctrinal preaching from the pulpits of this [or any – ed.] nation is yielding a new generation that is “Christian” in name only. Yet in spite of this, the Evangelical Church proclaims that there are more “Christians” in the world today than at any other time in history.

According to the Barna survey, less than one in ten professing to be born-again have the doctrinal convictions to support their contention. Additionally, if men such as Schuller, Warren, Hybels, and the others continue to communicate outcome-based methodology, more individuals will receive little or no doctrinal instruction, and thousands of New Paradigm “Christians” will be one day condemned to hear the words, “Depart from me ye workers of iniquity, for I never knew you.” The numbers on the church role will grow, the financial assets on the church income statement will increase, the old, out-dated system for “doing church” will die, and the souls of the participants in the New Paradigm Church Game will be emaciated with starvation from a lack of doctrinal nutrition.


A brief, overall analysis of Rick Warren’s The Purpose-Driven Life reveals the following:

·         Rick Warren gets in his standard “dig” against traditional (as opposed to contemporary) Christian music

·         The over-riding theme of the book is outcome-based philosophy derived not from Scripture, but rather from “Management by Objective” as espoused by Peter Drucker.

·         The presentation of the Gospel to the unsaved in this book (The prayer for salvation is simply: “Jesus, I believe in you and I receive you.”) 21 is so shallow that one must question how many individuals numbered as converts in this ministry are actually saved. There is no call to repentance, and no understanding of vicarious atonement.

·         The Purpose-Driven Life quotes Roman Catholic mystics Madame Guyon 22, Mother Teresa 23, St. Iraneus 24, and Brother Lawrence 25 ; Theosophist George Bernard Shaw 26, Communist Aldous Huxley 27, Freemasons Albert Schweitzer 28, and William Booth 29, pornographer Anais Nin 30, and Catholic priest/professor of psychology Henri Nouwen, 31 in not only positive, but instructive respects. For  a Christian to quote these individuals authoritatively in this venue is absolutely offensive to those who truly honor the Word of God. The truth is that quotations by Bible-believing men and women are readily accessible to prove most of the points Warren illustrated. The one glaring exception is the passage referencing Brother Lawrence on “Breath Prayers.” This concept is absolutely not a Christian concept in terminology if nothing else. The utilization of these individuals initiates some very serious questions. It would appear that Dr. Warren is writing his book on two distinct levels.

One must even wonder why Dr. Warren would be familiar with these individuals and where he may have gained access to these quotations. Is there a possibility that the writings of these individuals comprise the more “intellectual” material taught at Fuller Theological Seminary? Is Dr. Warren actually addressing two distinct groups of individuals (those familiar with those quoted and those who are completely unfamiliar with these individuals) in this book? In reality, this is another instance where one is forced to question Dr. Warren’s motives for pursuing such a dark, occult-based literary path.

·         Much of the book makes “building community” in the church a critical issue. There is no argument that there must be unity among believers in the assembly, but the concept and terminology of “community” is that which must be questioned at this point. This “building community” stems directly from the writings of Peter Drucker and his General Systems Theory model. The essence of the concept is that individual “communities” are interconnected subsystems of the “world system.” According to GST, in order for a new society to emerge, the subsystems must first be transitioned to influence a change great enough for “whole system transition. “ One can logically speculate that Dr. Warren’s concept of “community” is not a building block of the “Kingdom  of God,” but of the “whole system transition” and the emergence of a new planetary society. There is no intention here to accuse Dr. Warren of deliberately aiding and abetting concepts that are based in pantheistic or occult world view however, his methodologies certainly expose his motives for serious questioning.

The root cause for such an assault is simply that the Bible contends that it is in-and-of itself the source of absolute truth. A proclamation of any absolute truth is a direct affront to postmodern beliefs. The Word of God declares that the Christian is to be transformed “by the renewing of the mind.

What exactly is a “renewing”? Is something renewed by the establishment of some new thing? Is something renewed simply by the incorporation of new methodologies? Is something renewed by a transition away from the old in order to establish the new? The answer to all of these questions is an emphatic “NO.” Renewal is not about establishing something new. Renewal is not accomplished with the incorporation of new processes and methodologies. Renewal is not a systemic transition from the old to the new. Rather, in order to renew the mind, the Child of God must continually seek to go backward to the old, established, absolute truth found within the pages of the Word of God, reaffirm that truth, and reassess that very truth in his or her mind in order to recalibrate his or her thinking for complete alignment with the concepts of the Word of God.

As has been stressed many times, the fundamental doctrines of the Word of God are absolutely critical to the church. Furthermore, to forsake these “old landmarks,” to ignore these most vital ingredients of the “Old Story” in order to transition believers to a “new way of thinking,” or to subordinate the teaching of doctrine in an attempt to lure the “unchurched” into the building is distinctly antithetical not only to the teaching of these verses, but to the entirety of the Word of God. As a matter of fact, the Bible clearly gives the antithesis of this concept of transition in the opening verse of the passage when it states, “be not conformed to this world.”

Therefore, the Child of God is to live a life of transformation from conformity to the world and the old nature into conformity to the will of God based on the old precepts as detailed in His Word. The idea that Christianity is to be transitioned with a “new way of thinking” or into a new paradigm that enables the churched to reach the unchurched in record numbers while implementing a systemic approach to ministry is an absolute departure from the Word of God. This applies to both the pastorate and members of the congregation.

The following guidelines for pastors are offered to provide a type of “early warning” checklist for protection against the pitfalls of Outcome-Based Religion:

·         Preach expository sermons from the pulpit. Reserve instruction on relationships, child rearing, finances, etc. for special seminars or study groups. The assembly of believers attends church to hear from God—not for financial planning sessions, not to hear a discourse of the pastor’s personal life experiences, nor to have a lesson in Psychology 101.

·         Reprove, rebuke, and exhort. Call sin by name and make no apologies for a position that aligns with the Word of God.

·         Preach and teach doctrine. It is absolutely critical that church members know what they believe and why they believe it. This will prepare them to face the deception that lurks everywhere they turn—from the “Christian bookstore,” to “TBN,” and as well as lure of the world.

·         Take a stand on the King James Version. “A stake needs to be planted in the ground” on this issue, for the new paradigm disciples have launched a vicious cultural attack on the “Authorized Version” with claims of vague, antiquated language. As a result, a lodestone of new paradigm methodology is the wholesale use of multiple translations. Ostensibly, the use of multiple modern translations make “Unchurched Harry” and “Unchurched Mary” more comfortable –for they are theoretically uncomfortable with the “thees” and “thous” of the KJV. However, a service in a New Paradigm Church utilizes so many translations that one is not sure if text is Scripture or Time magazine. As previously documented, personal liberty should be given to the membership on this issue, but it is imperative that the KJV be the unwavering standard for pulpit ministry, Sunday school, Bible studies, youth ministry, etc. as a first line of defense against the invasion of new paradigm philosophies.

·         Music is usually the first point of transition in any congregation. It is absolutely imperative that pastors resist the pressure to use praise bands, contemporary “rock” style praise choruses, terminate the use of the hymnal, and/or implementation of a “contemporary service.” The pressure for this transition is two-fold: the pastor will get pressure from his membership who feel the church is outdated, cannot appeal to the younger generation, or will grow faster if contemporary rock music is implemented; and the pastor will be pressured by his peers who rant and rave of the successes and explosive growth they experienced when they “went contemporary.”

·         Stand on the Doctrine of Separation. Do not endorse, praise, or support ecumenical evangelists, new paradigm pastors, or charismatic Evangelicals. Even if these individuals are doing some things correctly or lead very large churches—pastors must take the biblical position and separate from them. Furthermore, do not support, endorse, or participate with organizations such as Women of Faith, Promise Keepers, Habitat for Humanity, and other ecumenical organizations permeated with compromise.

·         Do not incorporate church growth consulting firms such as Injoy, Church Transitions Inc., or others that implement new paradigm methodologies to aid in church building programs and expansions.

·         Please remember that a pastor is God’s humble servant-not a CEO. The local church must be led in accordance to the methodology prescribed in the Word of God—not the principles of Demming, Drucker, or the marketing textbook.

·         A pastor’s “vision for the church” must align in its doctrine and methodology with the Word of God. If this is not the case, the pastor’s vision is not God’s plan.

·         The shepherd of the flock needs to always bear in mind that the “good shepherd” cares for all of the sheep. Therefore, the pastor should be certain that he not fall into the trap of marginalizing certain members, or choosing who will leave the church with the implementation of a transitioning program.


Just as pastors have an obligation to remain biblical shepherds of the flock entrusted them by God, church members have similar obligations. The major issues faced by members of churches under assault by Outcome-Based Religion are usually those encountered when a pastor attempts to transition the church to the new paradigm model. Church members who find themselves in this position must consider the following strategies in defending the Faith against an outcome-based assault:

·         Apathy is a huge issue in Bible-believing churches. However, the time has come for the “pew-dwellers” to “grow a backbone” and stand for biblical principles. So many members will not do anything that “rocks the boat,” but the issues demand that lay people “stand in the gap” and defend the work of God.

·         Church members have an obligation to hold their pastor accountable to the Word of God. Those who do this in the face of new paradigm transitioning attempts will, without question, be accused of “not supporting the pastor.” But men and women who are willing to be “Defenders of the Faith” must stand firm on the truth in the face of these accusations.

·         Church members cannot allow themselves to be manipulated into “buying in” to outcome-based programs. This manipulation may begin with their being deemed part of the “church leadership” tier tapped to become the second level of support in the implementation of transitioning efforts. Such an appointment is aimed at many who are deemed as potential obstacles to the program. Making these individuals part of the “church leadership” presents a dual path for bringing them in line with the program:

1.    An appeal to the ego with the designation of “church leadership” is often enough to get dissenters on board.

2.    The designation of “church leadership” brings these individuals into specific, specialized training programs that use tactics designed to sell the concept of the program to those who are deemed as possible obstacles to implementation.

·         Therefore, church members who are opposed to transitioning efforts cannot allow themselves to be manipulated into a “church leadership” role for the purpose of marginalizing their opposition to the transitioning program.

·         Just as the pastor must remember that he is not a CEO, those on deacon boards and in true leadership positions must remember that they do not function as a corporate board of directors; but rather, they also function as humble servants of God.

·         The time may come that the biblically-based church member must follow the biblical command to separate from the church that is on a determined path of transition to Outcome-Based Religion. This may be a very difficult task in light of the fact that most new paradigm churches still claim to be “conservative” and hold to the foundational doctrines of the Faith; but obedience to the Word of God must be tantamount in all decisions made by the child of God.


More than any other theme in the Bible, the children of God are compelled to “Be ye holy as I am holy.” Holiness is the primary characteristic that God seeks in His children. This concept is finalized in the book of Titus when the apostle (through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit) declares, “Who (Jesus) gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify to Himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.” 32 This verse summarizes God’s plan for His people, and it is a plan of holiness and separation. Christians are to be pure, holy examples on earth of the glory and holiness of the Father in heaven; and holiness is synonymous with separation. In consideration of all that has been written, a most interesting aspect of the rise of Outcome-Based Religion is the fact that the one aspect of God’s directives to His children that the disciples of the new paradigm belittle most is the one thing that God makes His first priority. These same individuals have replaced holiness and separation with evangelism.

Evangelism is very important. Any individual who calls himself a Fundamentalist and at the same time ignores evangelism is no true Fundamentalist. “Fundamentalism is a militant orthodoxy with a soul-winning zeal.” 33 However, evangelism is not the primary purpose of the Christian life, and neither is it the primary purpose of the Church. The Importance of evangelism is not to be minimized, but when evangelism in-and-of-itself becomes the stated outcome in a “Management by Objective” philosophy, holiness and separation are subjugated in order to achieve a church growth outcome. In addition, when evangelism and church growth become synonymous, church methodology becomes a “numbers game” whereby evangelistic teams become sales representatives for the church other than soul-winning teams.

The local church is primarily to be a meeting of the saints for edification and training. The saints then are to go forth from the church as soul-winning individuals and teams to lead others to Christ. These new converts are then to be brought into the membership of the church in order to begin the cycle anew. When this biblical model is followed, believers are instructed in the Word of God, the Holy Spirit inspires the believer to holiness in every aspect of his or her life, many lost individuals are led to Christ, and as a result (not as a predetermined outcome) the church grows.

Though there may be those who question this contention, once again, a lesson can be learned from history—and this particular history lesson comes from the Old Testament.

After the children of Israel were taken into captivity by the Babylonians in 586 BC, the prophet Ezekiel spoke the words of God to the nation in captivity. The Lord revealed to Ezekiel the truth of the events that transpired prior to their being carried captive from their land:

“And I sought for a man among them, that should make up the hedge, and stand in the gap before me for the land, that I should not destroy it: but I found none. Therefore I have poured out my indignation upon them; I have consumed them with the fire of my wrath: their way have I recompensed upon their heads, saith the Lord God.” 34

Ezekiel reported that God sought for someone to “stand in the gap” before Him and for the land. In other words, God was looking for someone who was courageous enough to fight for the truth and turn the tide of sin—but He found none. As a result, many were slaughtered, and the remainder of the nation of Judah was taken from the land God promised to become slaves in a foreign land.

This scenario must lead individuals in the church today to ask the following questions: If God took the entire nation into captivity, will He wink at apostasy? If Bible-believing men and women today are too apathetic, too scared, too intimidated, too egotistical, or too ignorant to stand against the dialectical threat poised to destroy the truth, what will happen to the faith of their children? What will be the spiritual legacy of this present generation? Are Bible-believing pastors and church members willing to stand for the truth of the Word of God in the face of those who call themselves “conservative Christians,” but whose methods are opening the floodgates of apostasy? Are churches willing to say “no” to bigger Sunday schools, bigger youth groups, bigger buildings, and bigger offerings in order to stand on what “thus saith the Lord”? Are pastors willing to give up the prestige, the accolades of their peers, and the endearing respect of the community in order to remain humble servants of the Lord? These are the issues that come with a paradigm shift to outcome-based philosophies, and these are the issues that all who call themselves a Fundamentalist must be prepared to both face and answer biblically.

As the midnight hour approaches, that which the Bible-believing Christians do will profoundly make a difference for tomorrow and the next generation. The time has come for even the most timid to “put on the whole armor of God,” and take up arms in the fight against the deceptive forces that threaten Christianity’s very existence. For if the New Paradigm Church does not mark the beginning of the Laodicean Age, it will certainly prepare the way for the final stage of apostasy that will result in the rise of the “Man of Sin.”

Thus as the times become increasingly perilous, what will you as individuals do? Are you willing to “stand in the gap” before God? Will you be that man or woman God seeks to rescue the spiritual landscape and preserve His truth for the coming generation? –OR—Will the failure of this generation produce a generation “which knows not the Lord”?



1 Ferguson, Marilyn. The Aquarian Conspiracy, J.P. Tarcher, Inc., Los Angeles, CA., 1980, p.26.

2 Ibid.

3 Walonick, David S., Ph.D. “General Systems Theory,”, www.survey-software-solutions.com/walonick/systems-theory.htm , p.15.

4 Blumenfeld, Samuel L. N.E.A., Trojan Horse in American Education, The Paradigm Company, Boise, Idaho, 1984, pp.44-47.

5 Boje. P.57l

6 Walonick. P.1.

7 Ibid.

8 Ibid., p.6.

9 Ferguson. P. 157.

10 Ibid., p. 52.

11 Lamb, Henry. “Rise of the Global Green Religion,” Eco-Logic magazine, 2/12/98.

12 Goldwater, Barry. With No Apologies, William Morrow Publishing, 1979, p.280.

13 Stafford, Tim. “The Business of the Kingdom,” Christianity Today, 11/15/99.

14 Buford, Bob. Halftime, Zondervan Press, Grand Rapids, MI., Flyleaf.

15 Stafford.

16 Drucker, Peter. www.thepurposedrivenlife.com/rick.asp.

17 Drucker, Peter. www.thepurposedrivenlife.com/rick.asp.

18 Pritchard, G.A. Willow Creek Seeker Services, Baker Books, Grand Rapids, MI., 1996, p.228.

19 Bob Jones Sr.

20 “The Barna Update,” 12/1 03, www.barna.org

21 “The Barna Update,” 1/12 04, www.barna.org

22 Warren, Rick. The Purpose-Driven Life, Zondervan Publishing. Grand Rapids, MI., 2002, p.58.

23 Ibid. p.193.

24 Ibid. p.125.

25 Ibid. p.88.

26 Ibid. p. 33.

27 Ibid. p.248.

28 Ibid. p.

29 Ibid. p.82.

30 Ibid. p.41.

31 Ibid. p.108.

32 Titus 2:14.

33 Beale, David O. In Pursuit of Purity: American Fundamentalism Since 1850, Unusual Publications, Greenville, SC., 1986, p.348.

34 Ezekiel 23:30-31.



   Critical Resources

Outcome Based Religion, Purpose, Apostasy and the New Paradigm Church. This is a book we highly recommend for purchase – at around $20 AU we guarantee it will be an investment in your spiritual well being. Moriah Ministries Australia is very happy to offer Australian subscribers who are enduring financial hardship a free copy of Mac Dominick’s book. Simply email us and make your request.



Yours in His Everlasting Embrace

Tony Dean

Moriah Ministries Australia

© 2007