Televangicalism by Robert Wurtz II

I have been reading Robert Wurtz's book 'Televangelicalism' (I had to check the spelling of the title more than once) and would like to recommend it as an excellent and thought provoking book on the subject of the real gospel message against the popluar modern message we hear too often today.

It is a well researched book and in particular the sections dealing with the historical journey from Acts to present day in regards to how the message got distorted and lost is very enlightening.

You can get it here http://www.amazon.com/Televangelicalism-Robert-Wurtz-II-ebook/dp/B00F6AF400/ref=sr_1_1_bnp_1_kin?ie=UTF8&qid=1387896320&sr=8-1&keywords=televangelicalism

I got it under the end of year free offer, but well worth purchasing a copy.

Thanks Robert!

Hi David,

Thank you for sharing you encouraging thoughts here. The purpose of this book is to examine what many men of God have been lamenting for some time; the modern, shallow concept of genuine conversion, and the lack of understanding of new birth. When the churches are filled with goats rather than sheep, we have no way forward except to see them genuinely converted. Leonard Ravenhill's interview before he died is filled with lamentation of this terrible fact.

The seeds of Televangelicalism (Television + Evangelicalism) were sown at times in small articles I have written to demonstrate how in the 20th century, evangelism went off the rails in the main stream. Paris Reidhead dealt with this also in Ten Shekels. Paul Washer has also dealt with it in messages on the sinners prayer. Others have written books about the sinners prayer.

What Televangelicalism does, is trace the history of evangelism from the book of Acts to the present day in a reasonable depth. The book is 350 pages long, so to add any more detail would probably overwhelm many readers. I didn't want to do that. The book is divided into two sections: Part 1, The pre-Billy Sunday era and Part 2, the post-Billy Sunday era. this is because of the radical shift that took place during Billy Sunday's ministry.

In part 1, we trace evangelism from Acts to D.L. Moody. We cover most of the major participants such as the Apostles, Donatus (Donatists), Constantine, The Roman Catholic Church, the Anabaptists, the Reformers, the Puritans, the Separationists, John Wesley, George Whitefield, Thomas Hooker, Solomon Stoddard, Jonathan Edwards, the Methodist Circuit Riders, Charles Finney, Dwight L. Moody, just to name some. Many other important people and their contribution is discussed.

In part 2, we trace evangelism from Billy Sunday to the present. We cover people such as Billy Sunday, A.A. Allen, Oral Roberts, Rex Humbard, Bill Bright, Jimmy Swaggert, Billy Graham, Robert Schuller, Joel Osteen, and many others. In particular, we emphasize the influence of media and popular culture on the church; especially on our preaching and music. Concepts about music and church aesthetics, from a historical perspective are introduced. During this era men of God went from humble servants pre-Billy Sunday, to celebrities.

In one sense the book is about what I call "a perfect storm." God had been working in the churches to bring us back to New Covenant Christianity for some 400 years. Much progress was made right up to around 1900 AD. Then came Billy Sunday, a professional baseball player (and a man I have enjoyed studying over the years), who had little if no theological training. This was true of a few other evangelists (revivalists) who preceded him. In one generation we lost the concept of praying through to salvation. Billy Sunday believed people ought to be able to "get saved" (a new phrase never before employed in this way) without all the fuss.

This reality was coupled with a second aspect to form this perfect storm; it was the advent of modern media. Finney, up until Moody, employed the printing press (as did others), and Moody used the local news papers to spread information about his crusades. The use of media had a devastating effect on evangelism. Suddenly "results" became a major part of evangelism. Whereas the Puritans were concerned with plucking unripened fruit, celebrity evangelists began to cut corners in evangelism with the effect of bolstering the numbers. That is as simple as I can say it without explaining it in depth.

Then came radio and magnified the newspapers influence. Then came the Television and magnified it again. when shoddy evangelism met modern media, error made the jump to warp speed (to use a TV phrase). Whereas Finney could reach thousands, modern TV ministers reach multiplied millions. Consider the staggering influence of that. The Television's effect on Western society is incalculable; this is also true in the churches. Nobody that I know of is completely exempt from its influence.

The picture on the cover deals with a tower built by Rex Humbard that was never completed. The book contains over 300 footnotes for further study and employs a battery of original sources. Lord willing, and as doors open, I plan to share many of these distressing historical events and the remedy with churches and venues of all kinds. The first chapter is available free on amazon for those interested. For those that truly cannot afford the book, I have reserved about 20 copies and will send a copy free within the continental US while supplies last. Email me at robertwurtz2000@yahoo.com Since the book is 350 pages, they are a bit expensive to produce through Amazon. If demand increases, we may take a different approach as the Lord leads. On a final note, fellow moderator bro. Mike Compton added much insight to the media portion of the book. God Bless, Robert

Hi Robert,

One of the key points highlighted in your book is about the issue of water baptism and how this has been removed from most current gospel messages. You emphasised that this particularly happened with Finney, Moody and then on through Billy Sunday to all those who followed.

I have been thinking about Wesley and Whitfield who restored a more biblical gospel message, yet both did not hold to the biblical teaching and practice of believers baptism. They continued to hold to infant baptism. Yet Moody, Sunday and most of todays evangelicals would not hold to infant baptism and would at least agree with the need for believers to be baptised, although not in their gospel appeal.

What are your thoughts on this?

Hi David,

I would suggest that water baptism is the one thing, for what ever reason, the enemy has sought to fight against over the centuries. The problem, in one sense, can be traced to a particular theology that made water baptism effectively the replacement for circumcision. Infant males were circumcized as children to demonstrate their association with the Old Covenant; infant children were later baptized in water (padeobaptism/various methods) to demonstrate their association with the New Covenant or initial membership of the church. Some would take it a step farther and suggest it means one is "initiated" into the New Covenant. This view is in contrast to believers baptism as we know it in the New Testament and as was practiced by the Anabaptists. Again, with padeobaptism, the saints were thinking "circumcision." The origins of this view are typically traced to Augustines view of original sin (original guilt), though some suggest the practice is traced to whole houses being baptized in the book of Acts. I think the story of Phillip and the Ethiopian eunuch ought to be regulative, as it demonstrates "believers baptism" as itw as practiced in the book of Acts. (as an aside, there are other examples such as the use of violance and war that also demonstrate how certain groups viewed the New Covenant similarly to the Old it would take time to clear that up as well).

As you mention, infant baptism was being practiced by many Godly men prior to Finney. However, the Anabaptists and the Baptists were pushing believers baptism in Finney's day and Finney greatly resisted them. He considered going forward during (what came to be known as) the altar call to "answer to what baptism was intended to show" (para) in the New Testament. This is an incredible assertion and one that I would sharply disagree with Finney on. Nevertheless, the die was cast. While believers baptism was attempting to make its way into the main stream, there were forces at work to keep it marginalized or even supressed. In the large evangelistic crusades of the late 1800s to this the present time, water baptism is off the table, typically, for the sake of unity.

This is why I have tried in the book to demonstrate God's sovereignty in leading us back to book of Acts evangelism. All of the elements were there in the early 1900s. Water baptism is time consuming and divisive. Nevertheless, a cursory read of the book of Acts shows it was employed. Paul even went so far as to re-baptize the Ephesians under the New Covenant as they had experienced John's baptism after its "sell by date."

My approach in the book has not been to tow any denominational lines, but to look plainly at the book of Acts and then at the history of the Church to see where things were heading. All the elements of repentance, faith, water baptism and receiving the Holy Spirit were converging between 1500 and 1900. They all existed in various strains, but never before in one place. Like a spectrum of light, the colors were all there poised to converge into solid white. Suddenly things went off the rails again and we lost, in the mainstream, many essential New Covenant truths. I attribute the marginalizing of water baptism among the main stream evangelists as a desire to keep the peace. Ecumenical evangelism seeks to please everyone and leaves us with a impotent Gospel. The only things preached are the only things everyone can agree upon. The consequence of this, in my view, is that the churches are being loaded down with goats that need entertained and the name of Christ is blasphemed. We are bleeding out our identity as Christians and our usefulness as salt and light.

Sorry so long. Just some thoughts.

Blessings, Robert

Robert,

Thanks for your reply and explanation. I understand your thinking and agree. I was just not sure when I read the book why you emphasised Finney and subsequent evangelist regarding baptism, but not Whitfield and Wesley. I now see the what your saying about all the elements were in place, but then got lost.

once again, a well written book and an important subject that you have presented a a thorough way. I hope it gets a wide reading and many considsr the things written and there is a return to the true gospel message.

Thanks David for your kind comments and support. I think the simple answer is just that Finney was confronted on water baptism and could have chosen to employ it instead of the anxious bench. For the sake of those that may be interested, I have copied below the context of our discussion directly from the book. Blessings, Robert

Begin quote:

If, in the midst of his preaching, a person became "anxious for their soul” Finney instructed them to come forward and sit on the front row””designated the anxious bench. From there he would preach directly at them, sometimes calling them by name. In fact, Finney was criticized for using the words "you” and "hell” together in a sentence too often in addressing the congregation. Nevertheless, the propagation of the use of the anxious bench itself was of more concern. It was highly frowned upon by prominent ministers of the day because they feared it would lead to spurious conversions and false assurance. This meant that a person believed that by "doing something” they were converted. Professor Dod of Princeton University commented on the practice:

Though he (Finney) supposes that the anxious bench occupies "the precise place” that baptism did, we can by no means consent to receive it as the equivalent. Baptism was, indeed, a test of character, since obedience or disobedience was exercised in view of a Divine command; but the anxious bench cannot operate thus, except by arrogating to itself a similar authority.

The accusation is that Finney made the anxious bench replace the scriptural command to be baptized in water. His teaching was as follows:

The church has always felt it necessary to have something of the kind to answer this very purpose. In the days of the apostles baptism answered this purpose. The gospel was preached to the people, and then all those who were willing to be on the side of Christ were called on to be baptized. It held the precise place that the anxious seat does now, as a public manifestation of their determination to be Christians. And in modern times, those who have been violently opposed to the anxious seat have been obliged to adopt some substitute, or they could not get along in promoting a revival.

Finney may have preached repentance well, but he errs greatly in replacing water baptism with the anxious bench. As we will discover, most mainstream evangelists up until modern times duplicated Finney’s error. This was an affront on the clear pattern of the book of Acts. He obviously recognized the need for "some” kind of response, so he invents one. It is difficult to understand how a person could preach repentance at the level Finney did and then resist the Divine command to be baptized in water. When water baptism is neglected or intentionally ignored, substitutes are invented or borrowed to take the place of this mandate rite of initiation. This is an example of how a tradition can make God’s Word of none effect. Finney’s new measure, "the anxious bench” is now contradicting the New Covenant. When our measures contradict our message, we are in error. Finney went on to say that he did not believe many people that were converted in his meetings would have been baptized if it were offered. He gave his reasoning for why he rejected water baptism when he stated:

And in modern times, those who have been violently opposed to the anxious seat have been obliged to adopt some substitute, or they could not get along in promoting a revival.

What he is saying is that water baptism was a practice rejected among many, especially Presbyterians of the day. Baptists called the people to water baptism and were shunned and accused of busting-up revivals by pressing the issue. Understand that when a revival is being held and an entire town filled with varying denominations is coming; the minister will seek to avoid controversial issues. The problem is, this has become the norm since Finney’s day. Even D.L. Moody avoided water baptism to prevent controversy.