Chapter 5 - Discussion, Conclusions & Implications
Discussion
We live in a day when almost everything is tolerated except absolute truth; our culture, in broad terms, is selling itself out to relativism, and tolerance (as redefined) is becoming the word of choice. The difficulty that presents itself in such a situation is that we become so accepting of everything, so tolerant of everyone, that we become intolerant of anyone who holds a specific standard. UNESCO’s Declaration of Principles on Tolerance clearly indicates the will of today by including in its tenants a rejection of absolutism.
When Jesus said, “I am the way”, He established a standard, an absolute, that “narrow” way that leads to eternal life (John 14:6; Matthew 7:14). He was not popular in His day, nor can we expect acclaim for holding forth His standard today. In our society, a subtle change has been taking place; tolerance is being redefined to mean acceptance. Already in many circles of society, it is no longer enough to be tolerant of another’s ideologies; unless we are willing to give their ideologies the same credence as our own, we are considered intolerant and unnecessarily judgmental.
When undertaking a study that deals with the analysis of another’s work from the perspective of a standard of truth, the outcome can be particularly difficult to predict. Clearly, in the context of our increasingly pluralistic and relativistic society there must be little concern, on the part of the Christian, for personal popularity or acclaim. However, there is the sense of a need to “stand in the gap” and announce the approach of the enemy, whether they approach with guns blazing or in the guise of a friend (Ezekiel 22:30). It is this, more than anything, that has spurred me on to carry out this examination, to discover the truth for myself so as to be alert to the real principles Covey deals with, to understand the source from which they come, and to begin to establish a framework for determining the presence or absence of God’s truth. There is nothing as subtle as error dressed in the garb of truth; and this study is a call for Evangelicals to be alert and discerning.
Even within conservative Evangelicalism, there is a move afoot to soften the sharp edges of truth so as not to be an affront to those who promote error. “Accommodation, accommodation. How the mindset of accommodation grows and expands” (Schaeffer, 1984, p. 121). Even as Schaeffer bemoaned what he observed as the slide of Evangelicalism away from the exclusivity of Biblical truth, we have seen the reality of this in the positions taken by modern theologians like Clark Pinnock. It seems some theologians have a greater need to reach out to their fellow man than to God; they have lost sight of the wisdom of the first century Bereans (Acts 17:10-11).
Covey’s Habits of Be Proactive, Begin with the End in Mind, and First Things First would appear, by their names, entirely acceptable. They appear to deal with taking initiative, planning and prioritizing, but, when a careful analysis of his Habits is carried out, it is soon discovered that there is much more involved. By using a language or terminology we think we understand, Covey leads us from where we are to where he is; which, as we have seen, is entirely in keeping with his teaching methodology as a good Mormon. Where we, as Evangelical Christians, have failed is in discerning the extent to which Covey’s Habits have been shaped and influenced by his Mormon faith.
Solomon’s observation, “The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun” is very apropos for this study (Ecclesiastes 1:9). As Covey delineates his basis for the seven Habits, his appeal is to the natural bent of the reader toward rationalism, and to that inner sense of accomplishment that comes when we can mentally master a new concept. His subtle attempt to hide his Mormon theology in the garb of principled living and New Age terminology is well executed. It is interesting to observe Covey’s careful use of words to convey concepts that are ultimately left up to the reader to define based upon their particular paradigm of life. The essence is a generic self-help process that the reader must determine individually, an incredible feat considering the discussion centers around universal, unchanging principles.
It has also been interesting to note the positive response there has been from the Christian community, even going so far as to herald Covey’s personal note to 7 Habits as “a first class Christian witness made in the realm of corporate America” (Colglazier, 1995, p. 261). This only goes to underscore the success Covey has achieved in making his writings acceptable to people of various nationalities, religions, and philosophies. Covey is to be congratulated for his success, but Evangelicals need to wake up and begin to exercise Biblical discernment. We must learn to guard the gate of our minds more closely, lest we open the door to teachings such as Covey’s re-worked Mormon ideals. Our pattern and philosophy of life must rest firmly on the Bible and the truths that God has expressed to us in it; we must read and study it as our source for how to live. The writings of those who would seek to promote a philosophy for life or a pattern for living must always be weighed against our only Standard for Truth.
There has been a shift in my own consideration of Covey through the process of researching this study. There was a time when it seemed to me that Covey had discovered a gold mine of Christian truth, and that perhaps he shared my Christian view of life, so the observations of Stober and Colglazier are not entirely without my understanding. However, a more careful reading served to raise significant questions about what was really being stated, and, of course, further research has uncovered the reality.
Jesus said, “I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life” (John 8:12). With God, there is light and there is darkness, day and night. In the day of final judgment, there will be no middle ground between heaven and hell; the final dwelling place for everyone will be one or the other. In our zeal to not offend anyone (a product of modern tolerance), we have created a gray world, a world of accommodation and confusion. It seems we have pulled the shade down over the Light of the world, lest we see clearly and be compelled to speak the “truth in love” (Ephesians 4: 15). “… now are ye light in the Lord: walk as children of light: … proving what is acceptable unto the Lord. And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them” (Ephesians 5:8-11). We have been called to walk in the light, to follow the Light in Whom there is no darkness; but we are also to confront those in error.
Conclusions
In seeking to reveal the principles upon which Covey bases his seven Habits, and then more specifically the roots of his first three Habits, it has become abundantly clear that his Mormon theology stands as the source. One of the goals laid out for this paper was to show how Covey has simply re-framed the concepts from his book, The Divine Center, organized them into a seven-step process, and draped them in a language that would catch (but not offend) the ear of today’s world; a reality that has been amply demonstrated through the course of this study. In the words of David Whitford (1996), “Covey creates a vision of order in a period of economic chaos. He is therapist to the conscripts of the new economy. He is also a spiritualist on the eve of the millennium, carrying a New Age, profamily message that resonates with forty-somethings and strikes a chord in Gingrich’s America” (p. 78).
As we considered the condition of our society, and, more specifically, the Evangelical community, a most interesting question was how Covey has been able to gain such wide popularity by focusing on principles in a day when relativism is on the rise. It soon became clear that the terminology used was for the most part undefined; wonderful for the modern thinker, for then the actual development of the details of Covey’s proposals becomes the product of each individual: it is different for everyone. When Covey insists that the universal principles cannot be violated without negative consequences, he finds the Christian, the Mormon, the Buddhist, the Taoist, the atheist, and the Hindu all nodding their heads in agreement. How can this be? The universal principles are defined differently in the minds of each of the nodders, yet each uses the same language. Covey has been “careful in selecting words which carry our [LDS] meaning but come from their experience and frame of mind” (Covey, 1982, p. 240). “This blurring of distinctions is a common tactic used by LDS in dialoguing with non-Mormons, particularly Christians” (Waldrep, 1998, p. 8). Another purpose for this study has been to provide evidence that keen discernment is essential to avoid being enamored by what has become so popular and, at first glance, may give the appearance of being acceptable.
It has become evident that not much has been done within the evangelical community to address Covey’s proposals, and, what little has been done, has either received limited exposure or has been disturbingly shallow in its consideration of his work. In the latter case, it has been revealing to discover the degree to which some Evangelicals are willing to stoop to accommodate proposals and views that are unchristian. It appears the leadership of our Evangelical community has overlooked the need to address the teachings of those who are taking our culture by storm. The battle for our souls is raging, and we must be watchful, diligent, firmly grounded in God’s truth, and aware to come through victoriously.
As we ponder the value of Covey’s seven Habits, having recognized the influence of both Mormonism and New Age philosophy on them, the question that must be asked is, are we going to embrace or reject his self-help process? For the Christian, there can be no adoption of Covey’s process, his departure from Biblical truth makes this clear. The Habits, as Covey presents them, must not be adopted as a pattern for living for the Christian; and, as a resource, it is critical that the Mormon and New Age influences be identified. Covey’s 7 Habits may prove to be food for thought, discussion, and even further study, but their unbiblical focus must be recognized and kept clearly in mind. Even without taking into account the changing climate in society and within the Church, it is evident that Covey’s 7 Habits warrants such careful qualification (the final purpose for this study). However, having said that, at the same time it is helpful, and often needful, for today’s Christian to be aware of the philosophies that are shaping our world, to learn to recognize the foes we must face; and to that end, Covey’s work is particularly apropos.
Solomon declared that “the thoughts of the righteous are right: but the counsels of the wicked are deceit” (Proverbs 12:5). Is Covey a Christian, righteous before God, that we should embrace his counsel for living? He would contend that he is (for Mormons consider themselves to be the only true Christians), but based on his expressed beliefs, he remains solidly Mormon; and Biblical evidence would indicate that the two (Christianity and Mormonism) remain mutually exclusive.
Implications
This study is intended to challenge the reader to think Biblically as it pertains to Covey, and to realize the need to exercise discernment. The flag of concern has been raised on two fronts: Covey, and his use of open language to veil the source of his writings, and an Evangelical trend toward accommodation. When it comes to matters that pertain to how we live, we cannot afford to relax; there are foes to be faced without, and complacency within to be overcome. In his letter to the Ephesians, Paul likens the Christian life to a fight and charges the believers in Ephesus to put on the armor of God in order to face the foe (Ephesians 6:11ff). The first piece of armor that is to be donned is truth. In a day such as ours, we must willingly and diligently cling to God’s truth as declared in Scripture, not to a truth such as Covey’s that remains in the mind of man.
In addition, we must not forget the sobering words of Jesus:
Not everyone that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then I will profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity (Matthew 7:21-23).
Knowing the language will not open the gates of heaven; unless there is a heart change, our words and works will be unacceptable to the Lord. Therein are both the failure and the appeal of men like Covey: failure, in that their philosophy never reaches the heart to deal with the sin issue; and appeal, in that their philosophy remains within the realm of the mind. Our faith must be rooted in the Lord to be a saving faith; it is a gift that comes from God. There is nothing we can think or do that will produce this faith, we can only accept it from the hands of a loving God (Ephesians 2:8,9).
We live in a day when almost everything is tolerated except absolute truth; our culture, in broad terms, is selling itself out to relativism, and tolerance (as redefined) is becoming the word of choice. The difficulty that presents itself in such a situation is that we become so accepting of everything, so tolerant of everyone, that we become intolerant of anyone who holds a specific standard. UNESCO’s Declaration of Principles on Tolerance clearly indicates the will of today by including in its tenants a rejection of absolutism.
When Jesus said, “I am the way”, He established a standard, an absolute, that “narrow” way that leads to eternal life (John 14:6; Matthew 7:14). He was not popular in His day, nor can we expect acclaim for holding forth His standard today. In our society, a subtle change has been taking place; tolerance is being redefined to mean acceptance. Already in many circles of society, it is no longer enough to be tolerant of another’s ideologies; unless we are willing to give their ideologies the same credence as our own, we are considered intolerant and unnecessarily judgmental.
When undertaking a study that deals with the analysis of another’s work from the perspective of a standard of truth, the outcome can be particularly difficult to predict. Clearly, in the context of our increasingly pluralistic and relativistic society there must be little concern, on the part of the Christian, for personal popularity or acclaim. However, there is the sense of a need to “stand in the gap” and announce the approach of the enemy, whether they approach with guns blazing or in the guise of a friend (Ezekiel 22:30). It is this, more than anything, that has spurred me on to carry out this examination, to discover the truth for myself so as to be alert to the real principles Covey deals with, to understand the source from which they come, and to begin to establish a framework for determining the presence or absence of God’s truth. There is nothing as subtle as error dressed in the garb of truth; and this study is a call for Evangelicals to be alert and discerning.
Even within conservative Evangelicalism, there is a move afoot to soften the sharp edges of truth so as not to be an affront to those who promote error. “Accommodation, accommodation. How the mindset of accommodation grows and expands” (Schaeffer, 1984, p. 121). Even as Schaeffer bemoaned what he observed as the slide of Evangelicalism away from the exclusivity of Biblical truth, we have seen the reality of this in the positions taken by modern theologians like Clark Pinnock. It seems some theologians have a greater need to reach out to their fellow man than to God; they have lost sight of the wisdom of the first century Bereans (Acts 17:10-11).
Covey’s Habits of Be Proactive, Begin with the End in Mind, and First Things First would appear, by their names, entirely acceptable. They appear to deal with taking initiative, planning and prioritizing, but, when a careful analysis of his Habits is carried out, it is soon discovered that there is much more involved. By using a language or terminology we think we understand, Covey leads us from where we are to where he is; which, as we have seen, is entirely in keeping with his teaching methodology as a good Mormon. Where we, as Evangelical Christians, have failed is in discerning the extent to which Covey’s Habits have been shaped and influenced by his Mormon faith.
Solomon’s observation, “The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun” is very apropos for this study (Ecclesiastes 1:9). As Covey delineates his basis for the seven Habits, his appeal is to the natural bent of the reader toward rationalism, and to that inner sense of accomplishment that comes when we can mentally master a new concept. His subtle attempt to hide his Mormon theology in the garb of principled living and New Age terminology is well executed. It is interesting to observe Covey’s careful use of words to convey concepts that are ultimately left up to the reader to define based upon their particular paradigm of life. The essence is a generic self-help process that the reader must determine individually, an incredible feat considering the discussion centers around universal, unchanging principles.
It has also been interesting to note the positive response there has been from the Christian community, even going so far as to herald Covey’s personal note to 7 Habits as “a first class Christian witness made in the realm of corporate America” (Colglazier, 1995, p. 261). This only goes to underscore the success Covey has achieved in making his writings acceptable to people of various nationalities, religions, and philosophies. Covey is to be congratulated for his success, but Evangelicals need to wake up and begin to exercise Biblical discernment. We must learn to guard the gate of our minds more closely, lest we open the door to teachings such as Covey’s re-worked Mormon ideals. Our pattern and philosophy of life must rest firmly on the Bible and the truths that God has expressed to us in it; we must read and study it as our source for how to live. The writings of those who would seek to promote a philosophy for life or a pattern for living must always be weighed against our only Standard for Truth.
There has been a shift in my own consideration of Covey through the process of researching this study. There was a time when it seemed to me that Covey had discovered a gold mine of Christian truth, and that perhaps he shared my Christian view of life, so the observations of Stober and Colglazier are not entirely without my understanding. However, a more careful reading served to raise significant questions about what was really being stated, and, of course, further research has uncovered the reality.
Jesus said, “I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life” (John 8:12). With God, there is light and there is darkness, day and night. In the day of final judgment, there will be no middle ground between heaven and hell; the final dwelling place for everyone will be one or the other. In our zeal to not offend anyone (a product of modern tolerance), we have created a gray world, a world of accommodation and confusion. It seems we have pulled the shade down over the Light of the world, lest we see clearly and be compelled to speak the “truth in love” (Ephesians 4: 15). “… now are ye light in the Lord: walk as children of light: … proving what is acceptable unto the Lord. And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them” (Ephesians 5:8-11). We have been called to walk in the light, to follow the Light in Whom there is no darkness; but we are also to confront those in error.
Conclusions
In seeking to reveal the principles upon which Covey bases his seven Habits, and then more specifically the roots of his first three Habits, it has become abundantly clear that his Mormon theology stands as the source. One of the goals laid out for this paper was to show how Covey has simply re-framed the concepts from his book, The Divine Center, organized them into a seven-step process, and draped them in a language that would catch (but not offend) the ear of today’s world; a reality that has been amply demonstrated through the course of this study. In the words of David Whitford (1996), “Covey creates a vision of order in a period of economic chaos. He is therapist to the conscripts of the new economy. He is also a spiritualist on the eve of the millennium, carrying a New Age, profamily message that resonates with forty-somethings and strikes a chord in Gingrich’s America” (p. 78).
As we considered the condition of our society, and, more specifically, the Evangelical community, a most interesting question was how Covey has been able to gain such wide popularity by focusing on principles in a day when relativism is on the rise. It soon became clear that the terminology used was for the most part undefined; wonderful for the modern thinker, for then the actual development of the details of Covey’s proposals becomes the product of each individual: it is different for everyone. When Covey insists that the universal principles cannot be violated without negative consequences, he finds the Christian, the Mormon, the Buddhist, the Taoist, the atheist, and the Hindu all nodding their heads in agreement. How can this be? The universal principles are defined differently in the minds of each of the nodders, yet each uses the same language. Covey has been “careful in selecting words which carry our [LDS] meaning but come from their experience and frame of mind” (Covey, 1982, p. 240). “This blurring of distinctions is a common tactic used by LDS in dialoguing with non-Mormons, particularly Christians” (Waldrep, 1998, p. 8). Another purpose for this study has been to provide evidence that keen discernment is essential to avoid being enamored by what has become so popular and, at first glance, may give the appearance of being acceptable.
It has become evident that not much has been done within the evangelical community to address Covey’s proposals, and, what little has been done, has either received limited exposure or has been disturbingly shallow in its consideration of his work. In the latter case, it has been revealing to discover the degree to which some Evangelicals are willing to stoop to accommodate proposals and views that are unchristian. It appears the leadership of our Evangelical community has overlooked the need to address the teachings of those who are taking our culture by storm. The battle for our souls is raging, and we must be watchful, diligent, firmly grounded in God’s truth, and aware to come through victoriously.
As we ponder the value of Covey’s seven Habits, having recognized the influence of both Mormonism and New Age philosophy on them, the question that must be asked is, are we going to embrace or reject his self-help process? For the Christian, there can be no adoption of Covey’s process, his departure from Biblical truth makes this clear. The Habits, as Covey presents them, must not be adopted as a pattern for living for the Christian; and, as a resource, it is critical that the Mormon and New Age influences be identified. Covey’s 7 Habits may prove to be food for thought, discussion, and even further study, but their unbiblical focus must be recognized and kept clearly in mind. Even without taking into account the changing climate in society and within the Church, it is evident that Covey’s 7 Habits warrants such careful qualification (the final purpose for this study). However, having said that, at the same time it is helpful, and often needful, for today’s Christian to be aware of the philosophies that are shaping our world, to learn to recognize the foes we must face; and to that end, Covey’s work is particularly apropos.
Solomon declared that “the thoughts of the righteous are right: but the counsels of the wicked are deceit” (Proverbs 12:5). Is Covey a Christian, righteous before God, that we should embrace his counsel for living? He would contend that he is (for Mormons consider themselves to be the only true Christians), but based on his expressed beliefs, he remains solidly Mormon; and Biblical evidence would indicate that the two (Christianity and Mormonism) remain mutually exclusive.
Implications
This study is intended to challenge the reader to think Biblically as it pertains to Covey, and to realize the need to exercise discernment. The flag of concern has been raised on two fronts: Covey, and his use of open language to veil the source of his writings, and an Evangelical trend toward accommodation. When it comes to matters that pertain to how we live, we cannot afford to relax; there are foes to be faced without, and complacency within to be overcome. In his letter to the Ephesians, Paul likens the Christian life to a fight and charges the believers in Ephesus to put on the armor of God in order to face the foe (Ephesians 6:11ff). The first piece of armor that is to be donned is truth. In a day such as ours, we must willingly and diligently cling to God’s truth as declared in Scripture, not to a truth such as Covey’s that remains in the mind of man.
In addition, we must not forget the sobering words of Jesus:
Not everyone that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then I will profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity (Matthew 7:21-23).
Knowing the language will not open the gates of heaven; unless there is a heart change, our words and works will be unacceptable to the Lord. Therein are both the failure and the appeal of men like Covey: failure, in that their philosophy never reaches the heart to deal with the sin issue; and appeal, in that their philosophy remains within the realm of the mind. Our faith must be rooted in the Lord to be a saving faith; it is a gift that comes from God. There is nothing we can think or do that will produce this faith, we can only accept it from the hands of a loving God (Ephesians 2:8,9).