Mac Dominick


Chapter 13







Resources to aid your Understanding



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 Greek paradigma, “pattern”).  A

  paradigm is a scheme for understanding and explaining certain aspects

  of reality…a “paradigm shift” is a distinctly new way of thinking about

  old problems.”  (2)


(The context of Ms. Ferguson’s remarks is 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. The initial reaction to these new methods discussed to this point in this manuscript can be candidly summarized as a departure from the “old paths” of the Word of God.  This departure calls into question a critical concept of Bible doctrine-- the fact that God Himself is immutable—(He does not change).  God does not adapt to the postmodern culture, so why should those who claim to 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)  




The paradigm shift that enables the transition from the past to the future, from old structures to new, and old beliefs to new falls on the ears as echoes of the principles touted by progressive educators for almost three quarters of a century.  As the parallels found in the methodologies of the New Paradigm Church and Outcome-based Education have been referenced numerous times over the course of this manuscript, one must remember the most fundamental of all the similarities is the core objective of both movements---transition.  As with Outcome-based Religion, Outcome-based Education has as its core objective a complete transition of “the old” to “the new”.   The chart pictured below was taken from a report issued to the South Carolina Department of Education proposing an OBE plan for the state’s schools.  It very succinctly illustrates the basic tenets of the OBE pedagogy as the vehicle to transition the student to a new paradigm:  (4)       



This document is hard evidence of the desire to impart a complete systemic change in the attitudes and values of the student in order to prepare him or her for a perceived future.  The technical term for this is “Transformational OBE” as touted by OBE marketeer, William Spady.  The process implemented to achieve this transition is based on the establishment of a series of objectives (or outcomes) to be achieved via a cooperative effort (group dynamics) by a series of small groups (or teams) of students with the teacher (or change agent) functioning as a facilitator.  The facilitator does not teach the small group, but rather, influences the group to reach a predetermined consensus by introducing affective or emotional situations in conflict with cognitive concepts to achieve the specified outcome. This dialectical process of group dynamics is replicated in Outcome-based Religion by those who would achieve the church growth outcomes by the creation of the so-called metachurch comprised of small groups that can be facilitated by pragmatic means to the status of a megachurch.





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 lives of two men, Edwards Deming and Peter Drucker.  Deming (now deceased) and Drucker (in his mid 90s) are enshrined as internationally renowned experts in business management and gurus of business methodology. These two individuals were among the primary players in a select group of Americans (Though Drucker is a U.S. citizen, he is actually Austrian.) who are lauded as part of the almost super-human effort that developed systems-based management philosophies that first gained public recognition in post-World War II Japan.  The popular story is told of the Americans who developed a cutting edge business methodology that was rejected by western business but eagerly embraced by the Japanese.  When these philosophies were put in practice by the Japanese, their defeated country rose as the mythological phoenix from the death, devastation, demoralization, and destruction of a defeated country to become a leading industrial giant in little more than a decade. 


While this story is partially true, the reality is that Deming’s approach is primarily based on “process” and “continual process improvement”, and Drucker’s “Management by Objective” is purely outcome-based.  However, though the approach of these methodologies originate from a different source point, Drucker’s outcome-based philosophies “back-map” into the very process principles incorporated by Deming. For example, Drucker’s theme of “building community” with “knowledge workers” equates precisely to Deming’s quest to implement a “team spirit” in order to “cultivate corporate loyalty and a shared identity”. (5)  In essence, Deming is less outcome-based, but Drucker incorporates processes that mimic or are identical to those proposed by Deming to achieve the predetermined outcome.  Therefore the quest must continue for the common origin of these methods, for the philosophical commonalities are far too obvious to be coincidental. This quest, however, will lead one to the darker side of business management.


Drucker’s “Management by Objective” was not an original idea, but rather emanated from within the ranks of 19th Century esoteric Germanic philosophy.  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). (6)  Disturbingly, a deeper look into the basic tenants of this system reveals far darker, more esoteric undercurrents. This is no secret even to secular business sources that have the courage to make an honest evaluation of the system.  For instance, in an article in The Journal of Organizational Change Management, David M. Boje and Robert D. Winsor address Total Quality Management (TQM)-- the lodestone of the Deming/Drucker methodology:


“The thesis of this article is that as an economic phenomenon, total quality management has been positioned as a carefully engineered set of technological process modifications which purport to lead to enhanced levels of product quality or lower costs and thereby provide the ability to achieve and sustain a global competitive advantage. To achieve these spoils, however, TQM directly and covertly alters the values, culture, and mind-sets within an organization. As a result, and parallel to these technological modifications, 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 behaviour and consciousness of both managers and workers.” (7)


Please note the phrase that begins in the middle of the quotation, “…TQM directly and covertly alters the values, culture, and mindset…a…integrated programme of social and psychological engineering… ”.  This same article states, “TQM seeks to perfect control systems that produce and enforce uniformity within the products, parts, workers, suppliers, and the overall system of production. The problem is that a majority of this control, in line with Taylor's (1911) principles, is directed toward workers' bodies, souls, and spirits.” (8)   Compare this observation of systemic change to the chart illustrated at the beginning of this chapter depicting “Transformational OBE”. This aspect of the Drucker /Demming methodology seeks the same results---a paradigm shift—a change of mind from the old to the new, from the past to the future, from individualism to group dynamics, and from nationalism to globalism.  In his 1959 book, Landmarks of Tomorrow, Drucker takes great pains to describe what he saw as a “shift from the Cartesian system of linear cause and effect”. (9)  He does not call this a “paradigm shift”, but Kuhn did not coin that phrase until 1962.  However, the basic tenant of this very concept is skillfully and deliberately expressed in Drucker’s pre-1962 philosophies. On the other hand, the esoteric side of this issue comes to the fore when one begins to direct management principles toward the worker’s body, soul, and spirit. This methodology crosses a threshold from the secular to the religious; and once one delves into religious arenas with humanistic methodology, the situation quickly transitions from mundane to esoteric levels.


(In the 1950s, the American public was not exactly enthusiastic about embracing Druckerism or Demingism.  As a matter of fact, the previously mentioned esoteric undercurrents were critical components in the rejection of Drucker’s methods by American industrial magnets.  However, esoteric mysteries were at the core of the Eastern religions, and thus these aspects were more of an incentive than an obstacle to the Japanese mentality.  Therefore, Demming became the father of a new business paradigm that flourished in Japan for 20 years prior to making great strides in the west, but the lot was cast to bring the West on board. With the success of TQM and “Management by Objective” in the East, General motors opened their doors to Drucker and the implementation of his plan.  Once the first doors were opened, the floodgates opened.  Today, the little manufacturing left in the United States struggles under the curse of Drucker/Demming philosophies, and these very philosophies are a major contributor to the mass exodus of American manufacturing jobs to the low cost labor pools of third world and Pacific Rim nations.)   

In reality, there exists a very logical explanation for the esoteric nature of the Drucker/Deming methodology.  These individuals based their philosophies on “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.”(10)  Kuhn (the originator of the “paradigm shift”) applied the GSP to culture and society, and he saw cultures as interlinking subsystems of a broader planetary society. (11)  In 1980, cosmologist Stephen Hawking then expanded systems thinking to the global platform by introducing the “Chaos Theory” (12) 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.” (13)

·         “According to GST, nothing can be understood in isolation but must be seen as part of a system.”  (14)

·         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.”  (15)  

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


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 be ascribe to a common, universal consciousness, or belief system (“old beliefs” must transition to “new beliefs”).  Drucker confirmed his adherence to this concept by the development of the “3-legged stool” model.  The legs are representative of the corporate system, the state, and the “private sector”.  He top of the stool signifies the reaching of that which he terms as “community” or consensus of these three separate sectors (or subsystems) of society.  Drucker has spent the last half of his life concentrating on this “private sector” (churches and non-profits) because this segment offers the platform for the dialectical consensus to unite all of humanity to bring about the “jump phenomenon” (16) to the next level of “societal evolution”.  According to the GST and the Gaia Hypothesis, the “old system” must break down in order for the “new system” to break through.


As one gets deeper into this scenario, Drucker’s emphasis on the non-profit sector should come as no surprise—especially if one understands what Barry Goldwater understood.  In his book, With No Apologies, Senator Goldwater described the strategy of the Trilateral Commission, 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. (17)  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 Co. 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.” (18)  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.  However, as the Christianity Today article continued, it became very apparent that the author of the article simply “does not get it”.  For he stated that Drucker made every attempt to provide “community” by the implementation of his principles in the workplace-- but these efforts failed.  He then admitted that any attempt to “provide community” within the framework of the State would also fail.  However, Drucker concluded that “The non-profits are the American community”.  (19)  He further stated that “a new form of society is trying to emerge”, and churches and non-profits must play a new and central role:


            “The pastor, as manager, has to identify their (leaders in the church) strengths

             and specialization, place them and equip them for service, and enable them to

             work in the harmonious and productive whole known as the body of Christ.” (20)


In the context of Peter Drucker’s GST platform, this Christianity Today article can be compared to a wonderful meal laced with arsenic.  It praises Drucker for his recognition of the importance of the church and sets Drucker on a pedestal as a “good Christian” interested in doing the business of “The Kingdom”. However, Mr. Stafford’s lack of understanding of the true definitions of Drucker’s terminology and his lack of research into Drucker’s belief system cause him to completely overlook the fact that Drucker’s emphasis on the church and nonprofits is nothing more than a statement that within the context of the church can be achieved the dialectical consensus to conceive the new emerging society.  This process is described by globalists as “Whole System Transition”, and this transition is being accomplished by “system breakdown” of the existing system to initiate “system breakthrough” to a new system and a new planetary society.  Tim Stafford’s Christianity Today article naively confirmed this fact when he stated, “Drucker perceives a new form of society struggling to get out of its chrysalis, with churches and nonprofits playing a new and central role.” (21)   When one reads Rick Warren’s The Purpose-driven Church and Dan Southerland’s Transitioning, Leading Your Church Through Change in light of these principles, new realizations come to fore as distinctly as the observation of an exploding super-nova.


The above dissertation is actually not enough to equate Rick Warren and company with Dr. Drucker.  The similarities are there, but is there any solid proof that Warren modeled his methodology after that of Drucker?  That is indeed a very good question, but before presenting an answer, one must go back to Chapter 12 and look again at the New Paradigm Hall of Fame.  The one individual in the Hall of Fame that must be addressed when discussing Peter Drucker is Bob Buford.  Bob Buford is the founder of the Leadership Network, a private foundation with the primary function of identifying, networking, and re-sourcing the ministers and staffs of congregations of 1000 members or more.  Mr. Buford is also the Founding Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Peter F. Drucker Foundation for Nonprofit Management.  In the preface to his book, Halftime, Buford refers to Drucker as “the man that formed my mind.”  (22)  Bob Buford’s organization then identifies with Drucker and works hand in hand with church transitioning efforts to bring existing churches into the new paradigm model.  According to the afore-mentioned Christianity Today article, Bob Buford’s Leadership Network has “invited Drucker to speak to conferences of large-church leaders and has linked him to many pastors seeking advice.”  This article further states that Drucker interacted with “many ‘pastoral’ churches.  These include megachurches like Bill Hybel’s Willow Creek or Rick Warren’s Saddleback.”(23) 

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” (24), but this in and of itself does not confirm that Warren has interfaced directly with Drucker.  However, in an article written by Warren on the website of The Southern Baptist Press, Warren himself states, “I once asked Peter Drucker, the father of modern management, how often a growing organization must restructure…” (24)   Dr. Warren has also made references to having Dr. Drucker in his home.  When one begins to add these incidents and assess their total implications, the picture begins to become very clear.  These evangelical Pied Pipers are utilizing 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 utilize 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.  As has been implied earlier in this manuscript, after only one generation of such widespread manipulation, the church will bear absolutely no resemblance to the church of those who fought Modernism, spiritual infidelity, and overt ecumenism in the 1960s.  The effect of the GST on these evangelical leaders is further evidenced by the very terminology used by Dr Warren on his website, Pastors.com.  Please note the following statements by Dr. Warren from the article, “How to Think Like a World Class Christian” (this article is an excerpt from Rick Warren’s book, The Purpose-driven Life):

·         The initial subtitle is titled, “shift from self-centered to others-centered thinking”—this section utilizes phrases such as “a difficult mental shift”, “paradigm switch”, and speaks of “breath prayers”

·         The next subtitle is “Shift from local to global thinking”.  Here he states, “God is a global God”, he speaks to the fact that most of the world already “thinks globally”, and he mentions multinational conglomerates.  He then states, “We are more connected than we realize.”

·         He also states, “People are most receptive to God when they are under tension and transition”. (26)

All of these points contain a measure of truth, but the reader of this manuscript must now exercise discernment to critically analyze these statements with full knowledge of what has been presented throughout this book.  As a way of review, the points for evaluation are as follows:

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

·         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.

·         Peter Drucker bases his philosophies on the GSP and utilizes 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 GSP disciple) that change the values and world view of those involved to the holistic model.

With these considerations in mind, at a very minimum one must question Dr. Warren’s intent in making statements so permeated with systemic implications.  For example:

·         All of the references to change, transition, and paradigm switch or shift from self-centered to others-centered thinking makes one wonder exactly what he has in mind. If Dr. Warren is truly speaking of world missions and working to God’s biblical plan; he certainly could have chosen biblical rather than postmodern, holistic terminology.

·         In recommending “breath prayers”, Dr. Warren is venturing into dangerous territory. The breath prayer incorporates a simple phrase prayer repeated with the rhythm of breathing. The technique for this is described  as follows:

        “Sit quietly and repeat the phrase gently in your mind for several minutes.   Allow the prayer to take the shape of your breathing so that the words accompany your every breath.  Take a walk, repeating the prayer while you move.  Note how the prayer shapes your perceptions.  Allow the prayer to accompany the rhythm of your walking and breathing...the tools of contemplative prayer are used only to help guide us to an experience of union with God…” (27)

The article quoted above also shows photographs of teenagers walking the labyrinth while chanting these repetitive prayers.  While this may appear to be very spiritual, a quick review of occultic new age magazines and newsletters show these very labyrinths and speak of attaining the altered states of consciousness via transcendental meditation (TM).  TM is a technique utilized by those who wish to access “spirit guides” in their “safe place”.  Repetitive “praying” and chanting originate in occult religions, and have no place in Christian practice.  There is absolutely no doubt of the occult nature of these methods when one realizes the significance of the statement, “help guide us to an experience of union with God”.  This is not a Christian concept, but rather, a Pantheistic principle.  The believer will never be “one with God” Only Jesus Christ is or can be one with the Father. This teaching is based on eastern religion and occult teachings.  Yet, this practice is on the web site of the Presbyterian Church USA website, and Rick Warren condones “breath prayers” in his book, The Purpose-driven Life.  Jesus Himself warned that Christians are not to pray with “vain repetitions as the heathen do” (Mat. 6:7) because He fully realized the extreme dangers involved in this practice.  Yet Dr. Warren advocates that which Jesus directly condemns.

·         Yes, God loves all individuals on this globe.  Yes, God has commanded Christians to “go ye into all the world and preach the gospel”.  Yes, Christians are to be “mission-minded” with a burden for the lost.  However, to state that “God is a global God’ implies that God is in favor of the rise of the political and religious globalism so prominently displayed in the postmodern culture.  One could give Dr. Warren the benefit of the doubt if ignorant of his training by Drucker.

·         One may accuse this author of stretching credulity on one or two of these points, and frankly, perhaps Dr. Warren would deserve to be “cut some slack” on those issues were it not for the next statement that reveals the man’s true intent.  For his statement “We are more connected than we realize” gives enough evidence to convict him of a holding a GST philosophy, and circumstantially states that he has bought into the Drucker philosophy “hook, line, and sinker”.  At a minimum, this statement condemns Dr. Warren of becoming a dupe to the “system breakthrough” philosophies of Lucerferic forces around the globe.

·         Finally his statement of people becoming most receptive to God under tension or transition contains some seeds of truth…BUT…the GST philosophies teach that evolution occurs in times of upheaval and massive turmoil, and upheaval and massive turmoil must be present for the next phase of societal evolution. 

As previously noted, Dr. Rick Warren, Bob Buford Dan Southerland, Bill Hybels, and others have now trained hundreds of thousands of pastors in Outcome-based Religion.  Many who truly have a burden for the lost have been sucked into these programs, and other churches are adopting many of the individual aspects of this philosophy in order to attract the “unchurched” and build their ministries. However, the postmodern, holistic philosophies are coming into the church by “trickling down” from the megachurches and their training seminars; and unfortunately, the issues do not stop with these concerns—it gets worse.


An autonomous church does not generally start with a huge bank account.  As a matter of fact, some megachurches relate that their founders started the work with little or no money.  (Some more notable examples of this are Robert Schuller and Jerry Falwell.)  Though some unaffiliated churches may begin as a mission program of another church or group of churches, even these donations tend to provide a small portion of the funds needed to even support a full-time pastor.  Many pastors of smaller, independent works maintain a secular job until such time as the church has the finances to support the pastor on a full-time basis.

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.  This is one of the issues with even some conservative groups such as the Southern Baptist Convention, for Southern Baptist seminaries that are members of the Association of Theological Schools belong to an organization that is funded by the Luce Foundation and the Lilly Endowment.  An independent church, on the other hand, is not beholding to any institution that is funded or sponsored by any secular organization on any level.  In order to illustrate this principle, a flow chart will be for the funding path of three churches.  Two will be imaginary; and the other will be Rick Warren’s Saddleback Community Church.

The first funding path will be an independent, nondenominational Bible Church.  The pastor of this church is (for sake of illustration) a graduate of Bob Jones University and the Assistant Pastor and music minister is a graduate of Pensacola Christian University:



In this church, the pastor gets his direction directly from the Holy Spirit of God as communicated through the Word of God.  Funding for the church is received from the membership as they give in accordance to the proportion that God prospers them.  The relationship of the pastor and assistant pastor to their respective educational institutions is reduced to fellowship and guidance; and in this case, these institutions are funded on a basis of private charitable, faith-based giving.  In addition, the methodology in operations is also as is specified in the Word of God, and there are no outside influences in the operations of this church model.  This is the truly biblical position.

The next example is based on Saddleback Community Church, pastored by Rick Warren:

This chart becomes extremely complicated and confusing.  However, in an attempt to preserve some vestige of simplicity, there will be no listing of assistant pastors or others on the ministerial staff.  Also bear in mind that Saddleback is a Southern Baptist Church, and this links them to all other members of that organization.  Also, due to the vast number of associations involved with Saddleback Community Church, the page is too small to create a comprehensive chart. However, the extent of this illustration will be adequate enough to effectively communicate the compromise that is created from this situation.  Since Dr. Warren has a Doctorate of Ministry degree from Fuller Theological Seminary, he is networked into the Fuller funding line that includes the Rockefeller Foundation, the Luce Foundation (Henry Luce was a high-ranking Freemason), the Lilly Endowment (Lilly is a major manufacturer of psychological pharmaceuticals), as well as the Association of Theological Schools. Upon a critical analysis of the Saddleback situation, the most profound questions must be simply this:  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 Word of God are subjugated to management technique---where does God Himself really fit into this scenario?


Finally, for purposes of comparison, a chart will be made for a church that is a member of the Lutheran Church in America:


The concepts utilized by mainline Protestant churches are more in keeping with Catholic methodologies.  The synod is placed as an intercessor between the pastor and God: the local pastor receives his sermons from the LCA, the local church funds the LCA, and the LCA in turn redistributes the wealth to individual churches according to established or predetermined need.  This is a hierarchal system that flies in the face of biblical principle, but there is definitely a move afoot to adopt the Outcome-based, new paradigm model.






When one begins to follow the smell of the money within the New Paradigm Church and mainline Protestant churches, some surprising things begin to develop—surprising, that is, in comparison to the biblically-based model found in the New Testament.  The traditional view of Bible-believing Christians in respect to money and giving is simply stated: “If God gets a hold on a man’s heart, He will also get a hold on his wallet.”  The Bible teaches specifically that Christians are to give to the church “as the Lord has prospered them”. (I Cor. 16:2)  As a result, in biblically-base churches, money is discussed primarily in the context of special building projects, an unusual need by a church member, or a special missionary project—however, there is (as a rule) very little mention of giving or money from the pulpit of Bible-believing churches simply because such sermons are pointless.  However, in churches that even lean toward the new paradigm model, there is at the very minimum a “stewardship month” in which the only subject discussed from the pulpit and in Sunday school is money and giving. 


While “stewardship month” is generally standard procedure to keep the offering at a level conducive to meeting typical budget requirements, the new paradigm assemblies who achieve the optimal church growth outcome are forced to become involved in a perpetual building program.  This often takes more money than the budget allows and thus calls for assistance that reaches beyond the church walls.  This phenomenon has given rise to church growth consulting agencies like John Maxwell’s Injoy Ministries.  Injoy provides programs that consist of leadership programs, pledges, covenants, and “faith promises” that have a proven track record of greatly increasing the church’s income.  However, there are several issues with these programs that not only “push the envelope” but go to extremes that are decidedly unbiblical.  The programs of the church growth consulting agencies build on the fact that most New Paradigm churches already have a mission statement, a statement of core values, and a vision statement.  These documents come directly from the world of Deming and Drucker, and are nowhere to be found in the word of God. (The Bible does not state that without a vision statement the people perish.)  Building on these principal documents, these programs also implement a series of oaths and covenants that require the signatures of the membership in general and the “church leadership” in particular.  (The “church leadership” in this case is not the pastoral staff, but rather, lay persons who hold “positions of leadership” within the body of the membership.  John Maxwell and others are conducting very expensive seminars and writing books to develop the next generation of leadership from the masses for the New Paradigm Church.)  Injoy and the other church growth consulting firms build on this premise and assist the newly Injoy-trained “church leadership” in establishing a “faith promise” system that, in effect, pilfers the bank accounts of the church membership to erect bigger and finer edifices to house the burgeoning membership roles.


There are several glaring issues with the implementation of such a plan:


·         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 be yea; and your

  nay, nay lest yea fall into condemnation.”  (James 5:12)


·         The biblical spirit of giving is that if 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 often only achieve conformance by instilling guilt and fear in individuals who are shamed or intimidated into signing the covenant or “faith promise”.


The fact of the matter is that the church that bases its methodology on the principles of business management in lieu of the principles of the Word of God has an overwhelming tendency to become dependent on the same intoxicating drug that addicts many in the corporate world.  That addiction is the quest for more—more money, bigger and more lavish buildings, more asset management, and more financial growth.  While not all new paradigm churches fall into this category, the danger of falling prey to this tendency is far more likely n this genre—for if the pastor sees himself as CEO, the church treasurer sees himself as CFO, the “leadership team” members are equivalent to corporate board members, and the methodology comes from “Management by Objective”-- the almighty dollar plays a far more significant role than in a church whose finances and giving are commended to God without external coercion and manipulation.




Those who are old enough to recall the 1980 Presidential elections that featured Ronald Reagan against the incumbent Jimmy Carter, also recall Reagan’s remedy for the nation’s desperate economic woes.  This theory of economics was dubbed “Trickle-down Economics” because Reagan contended that any tax relief afforded to the wealthiest Americans would give a corresponding lift to working families who would benefit greatly by a boost from those wealthy Americans whose companies would add workers and give raises as corporate profits rose.  It is not the intention of this author to argue the validity of this theory in the secular economic arena, but this effect does exist in both New Paradigm and mainline churches.


Referencing again the charts that illustrate the funding paths that flow through the churches illustrated in these examples, a “bottom-up” analysis may be the most enlightening method of explanation of the “trickle-down” effect.  To illustrate this, one starts with the pastor or assistant pastor of the church.  Note that all three charts show a broken line from the pastor to the institution of higher learning or seminary.  The broken line rather than a solid line appears here because the church, as a rule, does not receive monetary gifts from the institutions from which the pastor graduated (though the opposite is often the case).  However, the important connection to academia is the establishment and support of networks that convey common methodologies and relationships that contribute to the formation of philosophies derived from the individual’s experience gained in a particular institution.  The core principles of these methodologies and relationships are then transferred to and disseminated among the graduates of these institutions.


Therefore, if an institution is a member of the Association of Theological Schools (which is funded by the Lilly Endowment and Luce Foundation), what effect will this have on individual churches? 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.  Since the practical effects on the ministry of alumni of seminaries who are associated with the Association of 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? 


As an answer to that question, the specific programs coming through these two philanthropic foundations can be detailed by their own words:


·         The Henry Luce III Fellows in Theology:


“Established in 1993, the program of the Henry Luce III Fellows in Theology supports the research of junior and senior scholars whose projects offer significant and innovative contributions to theological studies. The program seeks to foster excellence in theological scholarship, and to strengthen the links among theological research, the churches, and wider publics.

The program is administered by the Association of Theological Schools, the accrediting and program agency for graduate theological education in the United States and Canada. Its 235 member institutions are Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant schools of theology, including freestanding seminaries and university-related divinity schools.” (28)

·         The Lilly Endowment:

“Lilly Endowment Inc. is an Indianapolis-based private philanthropic foundation created in 1937 by three members of the Lilly family—J. K. Lilly, Sr. and his sons J. K., Jr. and Eli—through gifts of stock in their pharmaceutical business, Eli Lilly and Company. In keeping with the wishes of the three founders, the Lilly Endowment exists to support the causes of education, community development, and religion.

The goals of the Lilly Endowment's Religion division are:

1.      to deepen and enrich the religious lives of American Christians, primarily by helping to strengthen their churches;

2.      to support the recruitment and education of a new generation of talented ministers and other religious leaders;

3.      to encourage theological reflection and religious practices that recover the wisdom of the Christian tradition for our contemporary situation;

4.      to support scholars and educators who seek to help the American people to better understand contemporary religion and the role it plays in our public and personal lives; and

5.      to strengthen the contributions that religious ideas, practices, values and institutions make to the common good of our society.

In all these ways, the Lilly Endowment Inc. seeks to support people and organizations striving to generate knowledge, communicate insights, nurture practices, and renew and sustain institutions that provide the religious resources upon which a flourishing and humane society depends.”  (29)

After reading these marketing blurbs, more questions are in order:  Why are these wealthy individuals so interested in religion and theology? Do they possess ulterior motives or agendas?  Are these powerful individuals attempting to shape the direction of religious movements or simply easing guilty consciences?  Are they genuinely concerned for the lost?  Is there a financial aspect to be considered? Are they simply attempting to buy their way into Heaven?  OR—Are do these organizations aspire to the “three-legged stool” theory of Drucker; and do they realize that in order to “achieve community” or accomplish “Whole System Transition” they must control Goldwater’s “theological corner of power”?

One can only speculate as to the true answers to these questions.  For instance, 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, (30) and with the rise of “Christian Psychology”, this market is expanding rapidly.  In addition, who would benefit from an extensive religious database?  The Lilly Endowment is building a religious database in the American Religious Archive.  Would a pastor be inclined to support an organization that provides him vacations ad spiritual retreats?  The Lilly Endowment also funds a program entitled “Sustaining Pastoral Excellence”:

“…program will establish projects to allow ministers to create environments of ongoing Bible study, theological reflection, spiritual renewal-----identify, nurture, and educate a talented new generation of pastors supporting the excellent ones we have…..Peer group learning—that is small groups of pastors who meet regularly ….many programs include a mentoring or coaching component.” (31)

No matter what the answers to the questions may or may not be, the trickle-down effect of the philosophies from philanthropic foundations is seeping right under the front door of mainline and New Paradigm Churches.  The effects of these philosophies are having a profound effect on the “Greater Evangelical Community” to the extent that the doctrinal and methodological aspects of the church are more rapidly transitioning way from the biblical model to complete conformity to Outcome-based Religion.  Additionally, and perhaps most importantly, this process is one more component of creating the paradigm shift---a change in the way individuals think about religion, religious values, Bible doctrine, and the church.                                                                                                                                      


The recurring theme of this manuscript 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.” (32)  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.  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 Mosaics)...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 stills 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.”  (33)

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

·         51% of nondenominational 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 (34)

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 putting”, 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.

The only possible responsibility for failure exhibited in these facts points directly to the pastorate of professing Christendom.  For if barely half of Protestant pastors are doctrinally sound enough to hold a biblical worldview, what can be expected of their constituents?  Furthermore, when the light is shown on the worldview of these pastors, the overwhelming issue becomes obvious:  The lack expository doctrinal preaching from the pulpits of this 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.  (One can hardly resist the temptation to wonder if that statement would still ring true if the number was divided by ten in order to reflect the proportions signified by the survey.)  For 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 will grow, the financial assets will increase, the old system will die, and the souls of the participants will be emaciated with starvation from a lack of doctrinal nutrition. As a result, minds will change, Fundamentalism will disappear, the new system will break through, and Drucker’s new society will emerge.

Thomas Kuhn, in his book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, maintained:

 “Knowledge increases to the limits of the current paradigm, and then gets replaced by a new paradigm.  The paradigm shift that occurs reshapes scientific thinking until replaced by another new paradigm”  (35)

Thus, based on Kuhn’s assessment, now is the time of the paradigm shift.  Religious thinking is being reshaped more than at any time since the First Century.   All of the areas addressed in this manuscript: the fruits of Modernism, the New Evangelicalism, the Charismatic Movement, the values-changing agenda of whole system transitionalists, the influence of politics on the church, the financing of the secular elite, and postmodern tolerance are coming to fruition in the minds of the doctrinally-starved members of the New Paradigm Church who are blindly mesmerized by the Pied Pipers of Outcome-based Religion.



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.      Thomas, Don. “Don Thomas Report: A Plan of Action for South Carolina”, Empowered Education Systems for the 21st Century, November 30,1993, Chart 3.

5.       Boje, David M. &Windsor, Robert D. “The Resurrection of Taylorism: Total Quality Management’s Hidden Agenda”, The Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 6, 1993, p.62.

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

7.      Boje. p.57.

8.      Ibid., p.59.

9.      Drucker, Peter. Landmarks of Tomorrow, Dimensions Publishing, 1959.

10.  Walonick. p.1.

11.  Ibid.

12.  Ibid., p.6.

13.  Ferguson. p.157.

14.  Ibid., p. 52.

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

16.  Houston, Jean.  “Whole System Transition and the Rise of the Planetary Society”, audio tape, Association of Curriculum Management and Development, 1989.

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

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

19.   Ibid.

20.  Ibid.

21.  Ibid.

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

23.  Stafford.

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

25.  Warren, Rick. “First Person: Stifled by Structure”, www.scbaptistpress.org/bpnews.asp. , 9/22/03, p.4.

26.  Warren, Rick. “How to Think Like a World Class Christian”, excerpt from The Purpose-driven Life, www.pastors.com.

27.  “Contemplative Prayers”, www.pcusa.org.

28.  www.hluce.org/4thhlfm.html.

29.  www.centerforcongregations.org/lilly.asp.

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

31.  www.centerforcongregations.org/lilly.asp.

32.  Bob Jones Sr.

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

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

35.  Walonick. p.15.


   Return to the book index