
              "SCHULLER'S CULT OF POSSIBILITY THINKING!" 
                 
          Taken from an article in the magazine: "CORNERSTONE" 

                            Vol. 12 Issue 68 
   
                          Written by: JON TROTT 

   An exterior shot:  a glass pyramid,  rising upward  to  pierce  
heaven.  Man's  finger touching God's,  Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel 
portrait with the order reversed.  Interior shot:  a  slow  pan  from  
the  hundreds  of ultra-modern  white  girders holding up the glass 
"ceiling" to a choir and gigantic organ which, on cue, begin singing and 
playing.  Close-up: Robert Schuller of Garden Grove,  California's 
Crystal Cathedral,  reaches toward the camera and encourages the watcher 
to become a possibility thinker,  "a somebody in a world of  too  many  
nobodies,  a  success  in  a  crowd  of failures." 
   For  evangelical  and  charismatic believers Robert Schuller is a 
well- known personality.  Thousands attend his Crystal Cathedral, while 
millions view Hour of Power,  which according to the Nielson ratings,  
reaches more people  than any comparable program.  Since 1970 more than 
twenty thousand pastors  have  attended  Schuller's  Institute   for   
Successful   Church Leadership.  As has been said, success is its own 
best argument.  

   On  a  deeper  level,  however,  Robert Schuller's emphasis on 
personal success and self-esteem has caused  consternation  and  
controversy  among Christian theologians and philosophers.  
   
                    SUCCESS AND POSSIBILITY THINKING 
  
   Robert Schuller's  possibility  thinking  message  makes  him  the 
most believable and likeable success evangelist in America: 

   "Here's how it works.  When a person begins to believe it just might 
be possible, somehow, someway, somewhere, someday - then in that magic 
moment of Possibility Thinking three  miracles  occur:  (1)  
Opportunity-spotting brain  cells  activate!  (2)  Problem-solving brain 
cells come to life (3) Determination-energizing chemicals are released 
into the blood stream!" 

   Heady stuff, and Rev. Schuller  goes on to claim that God has 
fantastic dreams  for  each  one  of us,  but that impossibility 
thinking blocks our ability to make them realities.  So, "Stop running 
away from opportunities and possibilities!  Run toward fulfillment, 
actualization, and success!" 

   Success is inevitably big and visible.  "You  are  suddenly  
catapulted into  the spotlight.  The attention is never on the 
comfortable spectator, but on the energetic chance-taker in the center 
ring.  And the bigger  the gamble,  the  bigger the crowd of onlookers.  
It is the risk-running racer on the track,  not the hot-dog-eating  
grandstand  sitter  that  gets  the attention, the applause, the 
encouragement, and finally, the prize." 

   Schuller's  own  successes via possibility thinking range from the 
gift of a new Lincoln luxury car to his various building projects  (the  
newest of  which  is  a  scripture-studded  sidewalk around the Crystal 
Cathedral dubbed the "Walk of Faith.") 

   Adding to possibility thinking  Rev. Schuller  in  1969  wrote,  
"Every negative thinker I have ever met distrusts himself, belittles 
himself, and downgrades  himself.  This  lack  of self-worth lies at the 
root of almost every one  of  our  personal  problems."  The  subject  
of  self-love,  or self-esteem became "something greater than 
possibility thinking." 

   Setting  a  prelude  for  what  was  some  thirteen years later to be 
a theological showdown,  Rev. Schuller claimed,  "if your  job  is  to  
save souls,   you  can  do  this  when  you  liberate  them  from  the  
sin  of self-degradation and lift them to salvation and self-esteem. 

    Come  to  the  understanding  that  self-will  is  sin,   self-love  
is salvation!"  Schuller continues, noting that  self-love or  self-
esteem is in  fact  "the deeper  ultimate will"  of mankind,  worded in 
1982 as "the deepest of all human needs." 

   In  that  year,  "after  32  years  of  thinking,   praying,   
testing, retesting," Rev. Schuller published  his definitive theological 
statement, SELF ESTEEM: THE NEW REFORMATION.  Chapter one sets the tone: 

  "What the Church needs, more than anything else,  is a new reformation 
- nothing  less  will  do!  Without  a  new  theological reformation,  
the Christian church as the authentic body of Christ may not 
survive...Martin Luther faced this haunting and recurring question:  

  `Am I alone right and all the rest of the church wrong?'" 
   At numerous points he labels the reformation led by Luther and Calvin 
a "reactionary movement," and observes "that classical theology has 
erred in its insistence that theology be `God-centered' not `man-
centered.'" 

   Sin and salvation are redefined by  Schuller  to  fit  the  self-
esteem model.  The classical definition of sin as "rebellion against 
God" is,  we are told,  "not so much incorrect as it is shallow and  
insulting  to  the human  being."  The  problem  is  rooted  in  "the  
failure  of historical theology" to differentiate between "Adam's sin" 
and "original sin."  While Adam  sinned knowingly,  constituting a sin 
of rebellion against God,  the children of Adam were born non-trusting.  
"By nature we are  fearful,  not bad." 

   To  illustrate,  Schuller  utilizes  what  might  be  called  golf 
ball theology.  The outer coating of white,  hard  plastic  he  likens  
to  the rebellious,  disobedient acts man performs, "the externality of 
sin."  The real core,  the small hard rubber ball,  is man's  "negative  
self-image." Stretched  rubber  bands  wrapped  tightly  around  the  
golf  ball's core represent  "negative  reactions"  or  "anxieties,   
fears,   and  negative emotions"  which  finally  appear as outward acts 
of rebellion,  though in reality go back to non-trust.  

   What we need in light of this,  then,  according  to  Schuller,  "is  
a theology  of  salvation  that  begins and ends with a recognition of 
every person's hunger for glory." 

   "What does it mean to be saved?"  Rev. Schuller  asks, then answers 
his own  question.  "It means to be permanently lifted from sin 
(psychological self-abuse with all of its  consequences  as  seen  
above)  and  shame  to self-esteem and its God-glorifying human need-
meeting,  constructive,  and creative consequences." 

   Or,  for another definition,  "To be born again means that we  must  
be changed  from  a  negative  to a positive self-image - from 
inferiority to self-esteem, from fear to love, from doubt to trust." 

                       SELF-ESTEEM AND THE GOSPEL 

   What  influences  have  shaped  Rev. Schuller's  theology?  To  gain  
a well-rounded  view,  we  talked  with  four  prominent Christian 
thinkers: Norman Geisler,  author of numerous philosophical works,  and 
professor of systematic theology at Dallas Theological Seminary;  Paul 
Vitz,  associate professor of psychology at New York University,  and 
author of  Psychology as  Religion: The  Cult of Self-Worship;  Elliot 
Miller,  senior  literary consultant  for  Christian  Research  
Institute  (CRI),   an  organization dedicated  to  the critique of 
cults and new religious movements;  William Kirk Kilpatrick,  associate 
professor of educational psychology at  Boston College,  and  author  of  
Psychological Seduction: The Failure of  Modern Psychology.  

   For  the one  man  who  has  most  influenced  Rev. Schuller  there  
is unanimous  agreement.  Says  Elliot Miller,  "Schuller  recognizes  
Norman Vincent Peale as a primary source of inspiration for his own  
`possibility thinking'  ideas.  Peale  in  turn was influenced by the 
founders of Unity School  of  Christianity,  and  Ernest Holmes,  the  
father  of  Religious Science.  On  the back cover of a biography  
entitled,  Ernest Holmes: His Life and Times,  Peale wrote,  `Only those 
who knew me as a boy can  fully appreciate  what  Ernest Holmes  did  
for me.  Why,  he made me a positive thinker.'" Miller concludes,  "What 
Schuller is preaching can historically be traced to the mind science 
movement." 

   On  the  other  hand,  Miller does not believe Schuller has a clear-
cut panthestic theology such as Mary Baker Eddy's or the  Fillmores'  
(Unity's founders).  "He does have those tendencies,  but I don't think 
he develops it into a full-blown metaphysic.  His main problem is that 
he's trying  to conform  the  Bible  to  a  positive  thinking approach 
to life instead of allowing his positive message to be shaped by the 
Bible.  If  you  take  a pre-established  approach and shape the Bible 
to it,  what you end up with is a really bad distortion.  That's what 
he's done." 

   At the  center  of  that  distortion,  according  to  Norm Geisler,  
is Schuller's  concept  of  sin.  "When  Schuller  defines sin as the 
lack of self-esteem,  that's an existential definition  not  a  moral  
definition.  He's  cast  the  gospel  in terms of psychology and 
philosophy rather than terms of morality.  Sin is a moral rebellion 
against a moral God,  and  to neglect  or  diminish that element of sin 
is not to preach the true gospel of the New Testament.  

   "Heidegger and Bultmann make statements like Schuller's `Man isn't 
bad, just fearful.' The whole sense of `angst,' or `dread,' an 
objectless fear, that's typical modern  existentialist  language.  The  
existential  gospel says  man  is  finite  and  insecure  and needs 
cosmic help.  That's quite different than man is sinful and rebellious 
and needs moral deliverence." 

   Paul Vitz  points  out  the  peculiarly   American  strains   in   
Rev.  Schuller's  ideas.  "American  existentialism  is optimistic,  
European is pessimistic,  but the assumptions  are  the  same.  A  lot  
of  Schuller's self-esteem  thought  has  come from American optimism 
about the self-made man.  Obviously,  if one of the important ways 
you're supposed to be  made is  to be saved,  you're the self-made man.  
It appeals to our vanity,  or basically, our narcissism." 

   There is common agreement among all those interviewed that salvation 
is the bottom line.  "The way he defines the  new  bith,  it  sounds  
like  a psychological  process,  not  a  supernatural  process,"  
observes Miller.  "Naturally people love it because he doesn't preach 
about  sin,  judgment, or anything negative, just about your own 
possibilities.  

   "He's  reduced  Christianity to popular terminology and thereby 
reduced the offense of the gospel," says Geisler. "But to avoid the 
offense of the gospel you have to avoid the gospel.  If you're not a 
sinner, you can't be saved.  Going from a state of insecurity to a state 
of security,  even  if Christ  happens  to be your cosmic Linus blanket,  
is not going to get you saved." 

   "The precondition for the Gospel is knowing you're in  moral  
rebellion against  the  God who is there,  and therefore stand condemned 
before him.  Otherwise  the  cross  of  Christ  doesn't  make  any  
sense  -  its  full significance  is robbed."  Elliot Miller adds, "The 
whole biblical idea of the glory of God being the primary  concern  is  
missing  from  Schuller's theology."  

    None  of  those interviewed felt Rev. Schuller  was being 
intentionally aberrant in his theology.  "His motives  may  be  good,  
and  his  efforts noble," notes Geisler.  "Sincerity's not a test for 
truth, however, and if people don't know more when they hear him,  its 
questionable whether  they will be able to come to the point of 
salvation.  I do know,  though, there are follow-up programs in his 
church,  where people get more  deeply  into the Scriptures." 

   One  lesson  is  well  articulated by Geisler.  "We need to examine 
any teaching we hear in light of the Scriptures as the Bereans did in 
Acts 16.  We should ask not `How sincere are the people?' or  `How  many  
are  being reached  and  helped?'  but `What precisely is the gospel 
being preached?' It's one thing to cloak the moral gospel in 
psychological terms so  people can understand it, it's another thing to 
reduce it to these terms." 

   Paul Vitz finds a lesson tinged with positive aspects. "One of the 
main appeals  to  Schuller's  message which is legitimate but needs to 
be dealt with differently is that the result of being a Christian should 
be a  life of joy.  It's not the joy of self-salvation;  it's the joy of 
being saved.  It's the difference between the receipt of an  enormous,  
undeserved,  and glorious  gift,  and  the  self-satisfaction that comes 
from having done a good job on your own, which is at the center of 
pride." 
   
                           WHAT ARE WORDS FOR? 

   Perhaps the great truth illustrated by  the problems in Rev. 
Schuller's theology  is  this:  When  words are stripped of their 
historical meaning, they lose all meaning.  

   A general example might be the scripture, "God is love."  When  
someone mentions  that  God  is love,  the hearer may be emotionally 
blessed.  But what does "God" mean?  Jehovah or Maharaj Ji?  And what 
does "love"  mean?  Anything  from  Paul's  definitions  in 1 
Corinthians 13 to Bob Guccione's definition in Penthouse magazine.  The 
end result?  Meaninglessness.  

   So it goes with Schuller's redefinition of sin, and his muddying of 
the historical meaning of salvation.  Christianity threatens to become
nothing more than what Francis Schaeffer  called "God-words,"  terms  
that  sound Christian but mean whatever the hearer wants them to.  

   It is important for us as believers to respect biblical authority,  
and in its historical context.  At bottom this  is  the  reason  we  
must  not accept  a  gospel emphasizing salvation without sovereignty,  
taking words filled with power and vital  meaning  and  squeezing  them  
into  whatever cultural  mold  lies  closest at hand.  The Bible reveals 
the only reality there is,  and though the two-edged sword sometimes 
cuts its wearer,  it's only  because we need the stinging healing God's 
Word brings.  If the Word is only words,  it has no edge.  The Gospel 
becomes a self-serving  gospel of shallow emotionalism.  

   Robert Schuller  has  sincerely  erred,  and  those  of us who might 
be filled with self-righteous indignation would do  well  to  remember  
where righteousness  comes  from.  We  should  pray  and  write   Rev. 
Schuller, lovingly pointing out his errors  in  mixing  Scripture  with  
psychology.  Finally,  we  should  look to ourselves that our faith is 
not corrupted by the  leavening  influence  of  secular  culture,  but  
influenced  by  the unchanging Word of God.  

