Editor-hi-Chief Dr. Michael Horton
Managlpg Editor/Design Shane 'Rosenthal
Contributing Sch~l~rs Dr. John Armstrong" Dr. S,tyt Baugh ' Dr. Ja~esM. Boice
Dr. O. A. Carson
Dr. Knox Chamblin
Dr. Bryari ' Ch~pell
Dr. Oanie\bbriani
Dr. J. LlgorlDuncan
Dr. Timq,t hy George
Dr. W. Robert GodfL~;Y
Dr. Sinf lair Ferguso~; , '
Dr. JohU Hannah
Dr. O. -G;:,Hart
' Dr. Carl ·F. H. Henry Dr. Michael Horton C>r'.:: Robert K~lb Or~ Allen Mawhinney Dr. Joel Nederhood Dr. Roger Nkole The Rev. Kim Riddlebarger Dr. Rod Rosenbladt . Dr. R. C. Sproul Dr. Robert Strimple ~~~. Dr. Willem A. VanGemere't1;:-,,'fi Dr. Gene E. Veith ' Dr. David Wells .
for
ADefense of Defending
How to Be Polemical (Without Being A Downright Nasty Person) Michael Horton
The Importance of Being More Than Earnest R. Scott Clark
Guarding The Gifts Rick Ritchie
Did The Galatian J udaizers "Love the Lord"? Gary L. W. Johnson
A Sentimental Journey Shane Rosenthal
c;UItE Board of Directors Douglas Abendr,o th
Michael E. Aldrich
Ch eryl Biehl ".
The Rev. Earl' Blackburn
Dr. W. Robert Godfrey ~
Dr. Micha~Hiorton ~.~
James Linnell
CHRISTIANS ' UNitED
Polemics:
Christian Scholarship & The Defense of The Faith J. Gresham Machen
R EFORMATION
© 1996 All rights reserved. is a non-profit educati o nal fOllndation committed to c0111municating th e insights of the 16th century Reformation to the 20th century church. For more information , call, write, or email us at:
CCRE
CHRlSTlANS U NlTED
for
R EFORMATl ON
, 2034 East Lincoln Ave. #350, Anaheim, CA 92806
" "
(714) 956-CURE
E-mai l: cureinc@aoLcom Web site: htt p://members .aoLcom/cureinc
SUBSCRIBE TO
modern REFORMATION U.S. Canada Europe Africa/Asia
1 YR 1 YR 1 YR 1 YR
$22
$25 $34 $34
2 YR $40 2 YR $45 2 YR $62 2 YR $62
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1996
In This Issue
by Michael Horton Mosi'evangelicaLChristians, I think, agreewith the necesSity nfpolemi9Fthe practice of def~nding a qpctrineo[ set of ,doctrines in 'oppositintr to others~ Th~ ' ,problem lies' l1ot in the idea, but in the practice. Intpeory, defending the faith an,~ ,refuting error may he entirelyneces sary, but when it actually comes to doing this, it becomes :quite clear that truthis <not as imPortant' as otherlhings " after all. . The fundaI1'y:~ntaHsts, of course, notanly fought, but some seerne~tqr~lish the fight itself" ,C . S. Lewis"s refer ence to the "inner ring" mentality has too often been evident:,thetepdency to keeprestricttng the boundaries of true believers to the pointwhere, in,self-congratulatory posturing, We alone are leftas those who have riot bow~d our knee to Baal. And yet, this is rarely the probl,~m tod~y Jerry Falwell . ha$ . said " that fundamentalists are "evangelicals whoaIe mad» --;-and he might have peen right about that. But who are the "evangelicals» , ~hese days? What determines the boupdariesatatime ,when articles app~<lrin Christianity Tod~y advocating anelimination of ' bound~riesin favor of a center? The ambiguity of evan gelical doctrinal commit 1l1 ents toqay is captured in the striking title by David WeHs,No Placejor Tr~th, Although .-y vestand withthose who defended "the full damentals" during the modernist controversy and have often identifie~ with the large~ evangelical. movement, the editors and writers of mode~nREFoRMATIoNgenerallyre gard themselves as Reformed and r;tiiheran~peoplewho are happy to belong tq a comrrmnity offaith that sets bounda.tiesin the form of writtericreeds, confessions and catechisms that serve to strengthentbe church's witness by directing hertheology and~estrictin.g that which she may legitimately claim as the teashing of God's Wnrd. For that reason (hopeful1yin love),we speak/rom our confessions tb th()se broth~rs and sist~rs of other conf~s, sions, even to those without writtep confessions as such . NotonlY,do we defend the Reformation faith. against 'its rivals,butWe continue toargue fOfour own distinctives as Luther.ans ahd Calvinists Within our 'own common vision for a new Reforrnation. Polemics is:qot a luxury, but is '<1 perpetual, sobetand binding task ~hat is given to~he church in every age by the Lo{dof the 'church Himself. 'In , this issue, we .h6pe' to defend this business ofd~fending truth within the church itself and, as, usual, wewelcom~ your feedb,ack... .~
2
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1996
An Urgent Plea /.• Dr. Horton's article, "What Are We Looking For In The ~ Bible," in the May/June issue of modern REFORMATION was terrific! His plea is certainly an urgent one. Even pastors of our Reformed churches should take heed! Perhaps one reason Christ-centered preaching is not commonly found in pulpits everywhere is that to engage in the redemptive-historical hermeneutic is not an easy task, especially when dealing with the Old Testament. Much ofthe negati ve attitude among evangelicals towards the OT seems to have been fostered by the radical dichotomy of Dispensationalism between Israel and the OT vs. the Christian and the NT. Keep up the good work! I am an avid fan of
modernREFoRMA TION and the White Horse Inn. May the
Lord continue to bless your work.
J. C.
Via Internet
What Makes One Preacher Better Than Another? I just finished Michael Horton's article on Scripture in the recent modernREFoRMA TION and wanted to tell you what an encouragement it was to me. I have had recent conversations with Reformed (and not so Reformed) folks about various preaching styles and what makes one pastor better than another. And personally,I was involved ~ in a particular study group this past fall which I enjoyed a little, but was not feeling truly fed, and I could not put my finger on it. The group leader was not unbiblical in anything she said but was not teaching like one would receive from a well educated biblical pastor. I now see it was basically an "atomistic interpretation" of the Bible. All this is to say, "keep up the good work." At least I now have this article and the rest of the issue to fall back on for reasons that one pastor might seem more "meaty" or "biblical" or "reformed" than another. It all lies in the redemptive-historical teaching. Now if I can only learn how to lovingly explain this to others. L. C.
Via Internet
Don't Get Diverted The May/1l.111e issue of modern REFORMATION was, as ~ usual, outstanding. Your topics always seem to strike at ",a point in my current personal struggle to live in a way that is obedient and glorifying to Christ, and to provide
real help in the battle. I would like to offer one criticism
however; and I mean this sincerely as something
constructive for you to consider.
Occasionally you include some articles that seem 0
of place in modernREFoRMA TION. If your intended
audience is primarily thoughtful, but not necessarily
modernREFOR\1.\TI O_ .
theologically trained people, then some of your articles miss the mark. In your issue on Scripture, one article in particular seemed designed to impress the reader with the author's level ofknowledge and/or education. I'm sure a professor oftheology would have given the author good marks for the scholarly tone and the multiplicity of uses of theological terms that are obscure to and limited in use by non-theologians. However, I was not nearly as impressed by this article as I was with every one of the others in the issue. They were clear, understandable, and, as I said before, applicable to my life. God bless you in whatyou are doing to further His kingdom. Don't get diverted. L. P. C.
Via Internet
Theological Weirdness Thank you for another excellent modernREFoRMA TION! Shane Rosenthal's article "I Hate My Generation" was excellent. After the theological weirdness of the '60s, young people of today are desperate for some clear form of spirituality. I fear that the church in America is ill-equipped to provide that hope. I also found D. A. Carson's article on Hermeneutics very instructive.
T.E.
ViaAOL
A Spanish Reformation? I just wanted you all to know that modern REFORMATION is doing quite well here in Spain. It seems that we are finding people all over the country who are now receiving the magazine or know of it. Congratulations. L.T.
Via Compuserve
A Global Reformation? I am a newcomer to Reformation theology and am so very thankful for having been handed your excellent periodical modern REFORMATION. It, along with a recommended reading list from a couple of extremely helpful Westminster Seminary professors, will be of immense help in grounding me in the rediscovered truths of the Reformation era. I can but only hope that your magazine will be one of many to appear on the scene in these needy times we find ourselves in. Thank you for the wonderfully written and insightful articles that are all so relevant to the present without sacrificing the lessons we must learn from the past. Keep pressing on! R.R.
via Internet-Papua New Guinea
I have greatly enjoyed the savored opportunity of digging and researching the Scriptures in resolve of them. It's a treasured pastime I am afforded few occasions to experience these days between laundry, diapers and teaching. Yet, as all things have their season, your magazine has been a welcomed addition in the life of one very busy woman during a very demanding season of life. Thanks for your unwavering faithfulness to the truth, and for being there! J.N.M.
Via Internet
The Wasteland In the wasteland of Christian publications/radio, you guys are one of the few oases that brings real refreshment to all the rest of us sand-sputtering Gospel believers. What relief! K.N.
Via Internet
Keep Sticking Your Necks Out I just wanted to say thanks for the great work you are doing! It is great to find Christians who are willing to stick their necks out to defend the faith in this age of compromise and false unity. Keep up the good work. How about a future issue on Dispensationalism? I know you have addressed this topic in previous articles, but I would like to see a whole issue devoted to critiquing it. S. C.
Via Internet
A Lesson in Providence I finally joined a Reformed church this past Sunday and lowe a big part of the decision to move to CURE and Ligonier Ministries. My new pastor asked me how I came to know the Reformed faith, so I told him a story I thought was silly, but has turned out to be quite interesting. Someone from one of the Christian Chat Rooms on America On-Line suggested an author for me to read because I was a new Christian. He told me to get anything by a man named Spong (since then I have learned a little bit about Bishop Spong, of whom I am sure you are aware). So, I went to the book store to buy one of his books, but ended up buying a book by Sproul on accident-or shall we say, "providence." The book was Chosen by God. After putting his book down in complete disgust several times, I finally became convinced of the truths of the Reformed faith as being Scriptural. Sorry for the long "testimony," but I thought your readers would appreciate it. B.P.
Via Internet
Growing in The Seasons of Life While I am most likely not your typical subscriber, a home educator and young mother of three vivacious children, I just _wanted to let you know how much I appreciate and anticipate your publication-which was given to me as a gift. Perhaps a "blessing" is a more apt description. In your past issues, you have posed several challenging concepts to my theology, and
Visit CURE's new web site-which includes articles from back issues of modernREFoRMATION---at the add ress listed below.
r - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ., modern REFORMATION : Letters to the Editor I
I
I I I
2034 E. Lin co ln Ave . #350, Anaheim , California 92806 _ Fax: 714-956-5111 â&#x20AC;˘ E-mail: CURElnc@aol.com Web page: http://members.aol.com/cureinc
I
I I
~---------------------------~ SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER J996
3
ow 0,
o emlca
Wit~out
Being ADownright,Nastr Person
po-lem-ic (pelem'ik) n-l an argument, dispute, etc., especially a written one, that supports one opinion or body of ideas in opposition to another (The New Scholastic Dictionary ofAmeri
can English).
((B
BY MICHAEL HORTON
eloved, while I was very diligent to write to you Christian thinkers were as thoroughly aware of the concerning our common salvation, I found it nec changes taking place in European and American essary to write to you exhorting you to contend scholarship and culture and even fewer were willing earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to be regarded as intellectual dinosaurs for taking their stand with the ancient Christian witness against ~I to the saints" (Jude 3). Fondly remembered as "The Lion of Princeton;' the fads. Although he was a relentless critic of mysti B. B. Warfield held the chair of Didactic and Polemic cism and enthusiasm, Warfield was at least as tough Theologyat the Seminary from 1887 until his death in on naturalism. But nobody quite knew where to place 1921. Many felt the blow of his pen, not a few ex him when the fundamentalist-modernist debate pressed gratitude for his erudite candor, but nearly erupted after his death. Here was a man who formu everyone recognized Warfield as perhaps the most lated the doctrine of biblical inerrancy, and yet formidable defender of the faith in the Presbyterian regarded theistic theories of biological evolution as Church at the turn of the century. Having sharpened potential apologetic arrows in the quiver of super his wits in the forge of German universities, and con naturalism. His very position at Princeton secrating his eminent gifts to God, here was a scholar Professor of Polemic Theology-committed him to a who refused to surrender to the war between the intel career of analyzing and offering criticisms of various lect and the heart (or doctrine and life). Not in spite theological traditions in the light of Scripture, as at of, but because of, his constant devotion to Reforma tested to in the Reformed faith. Warfield did not tion theology, Warfield was an early proponent of civil believe that the Westminster Confession and Cat rights for blacks as well as a defender of orthodox echisms were merely witnesses to the beliefs of a Calvinism who warned against reducing one's studies particular group of Christians in a unique historical to dry, merely objective, academic data that might , context, but that they were faithful summaries of the well turn a heart into stone. ,~1!whole teaching of the Christian faith. Warfield was an example of what has become a . At the turn of the century, when Presbyterians dying breed in this century: a defender of truth at all were talking about adopting a "new creed" in costs, regardless of its unpopularity with either liber common with American evangelicals (Congregation als or conservatives. He did not play politics. He alists, Baptists, Methodists, et. al.), Warfield dashed bristled at the eccentricities of both groups and wor off a thoughtful warning in the Princeton Review that . ried that even Princeton itself was giving in to the noted the absence of such doctrines as original sin, demand for a more "practical" seminary curriculum the substitutionary atonement, and justification by that ill-prepared ministers for their high calling. Few grace alone through faith alone. The day Presbyteii
4
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1996
modern REFORMATION
ans sign it, he said, is the day they cease to be Presby terians. It was not that evangelicals and Presbyterians at that time were clearly emancipating themselves en masse from classical Christianity, but they were downplaying doctrine in favor of unity, evangelism and social activism. There was a time, of course, when every theolo gian, whether Protestant or Roman Catholic, was a polemicist. Later, polemics became merely a distinct position on a theological faculty. Finally, it disap peared altogether in a ~pirit of congenial tolerance. So it would seem that in our day defending po lemics might be on a par with trying to defend
, Socrates' jury. In this age of "trash TV" and radio
talk-shows that thrive on outlandish invective in or
der to attract listeners (and advertising), the cause of polemics runs the risk of being dismissed as part of the uncivil discourse of our time. So what do we do in the face of such cultural odds? One group insists that we simply preach the posi tive message of Christianity and that this will eventually take care of the errors. Every defender of the Faith is accused of bringing division rather than simply laying out a positive case. In his battle with the modernists earlier this century, J. Gresham Machen, a student of Warfield's and young colleague at Princeton, replied, "I cannot conceive of preaching the truth without exposing error." The church was born in doctrinal debate. It fought its way dominance through centuries of arguments over doctrinal detail. The Reformation was a controversy between two different gospels. The Great Awakening was in part the result of the contro versial and polemical defense of the grace of God and human inability. John Newton not only gave us ''Amazing Grace;' but polemical attacks on Arminian legalism in his day. Luther and Calvin not only wrote heated polemics against the Church of Rome, but against the "enthusiasts" whom we would know today as Pentecostals. But let us go back further. Where would we be without the polemics of Athanasius? And yet he was accused by Arians-that is, those who denied Christ's divinity (and this was in some regions the majorityview) -as a divisive person. Thank God that Irenaeus preferred truth to tolerance when he drove Gnosticism out of the church. And what of the Scriptures themselves? God gave us St. Paul, who told legalists to castrate themselves, just as Jesus had told the religious leaders of his day that they were a den of robbers , a nest of snakes, white-washed tombs that appeared spotless on the surface but were full of hypocrisy and dead men's bones. He told them that they travel over land and sea to evangelize one single convert only to make that person more a child of hell than he was before. And
\0
the prophets? They were so polemical that they were often executed by the very people against whose judg ment the prophets were trying to warn. It seems that the whole progress of biblical revelation and church history through the ages has been forged out of the fire of controversy and the often angry struggles over truth. It is these great debates that have preserved the church from error and when the church grows lazy and fat, unwilling to be corrected, the world loses its only hope of salvation. It is never easy to correct, nor is it pleasant, but we are to "preach the truth in love." However, neither are we to pretend that our laziness, ignorance and apathy in defending the truth are really attempts to preserve the bond of unity. With Luther, we must say, "Unity wherever possible, but truth at all costs." To be sure, there are abuses of polemical consci entiousness. Some, in the name of defending the faith, will seek their own name instead. Born aloft on the wings of the "martyr-complex;' a number of people will always be there in church history to cap ture headlines as much by infamy as fame. But, as Paul declared, "The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached" (Phil. 1: 18). This is surely no excuse for those who "preach Christ out of selfish ambition, not sincerely" (v.17), but the effects of preaching Christ truthfully from bad motives are far less damning for the hearers. One highly respected evangelical leader in our day has said, "I would rather have wrong facts and a right attitude than the right facts and the wrong attitude." That may sound pious, but it is in reality quite a selfish statement. Surely he is not saying that it is better for one's hearers to become Arians or Pelagians, so long as the preacher is full of charity, but it is open to that kind of interpretation. Stanley Grenz, author of Revisioning Evangelical Theology (IVP), argues that "a 'right heart' takes primacy over a 'right head.'" 1 Just think of all the heretics in church history whose motives were unimpeachable or cou rageous men and women who held their errors and gathered a follow ing until their death. No doubt, many heresies gain their popular ity by the outstanding character of their champions: they ai'e often quite likeable r eople. Augustine never accused Pelagius of being a cad, but of denying essential Christian truth. Grenz does not seem to recognize that true beliefs are the prerequisite for godly mo tives, feelings and actions . Since atheists can be as kind to their postman as an evangelical minisSEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1996
5
ter, it is essential that we distinguish truth -driven godliness from vague religious and moral sentiment. The chief advances of the Chris tian faith are due to those moments when leaders and laypeople saturated with Scripture rose up in defiance of the unbiblical trends of their time and place. We have the Nicene Creed, the Apostles' Creed, the Chalcedonian Creed, and the Reformation confes sions and catechisms because, by God's grace, men and women had the courage of their convictions and dared to be polemical. It is never easy, but it has yielded the most fruitful The harvests of Christian advancement. Reformation, for instance, led to an impulse for the modern missionary movement; without it, there would not have been genuine "good news" to take to the world in the first place. Let us never forget that the question of that day was nothing less than, "How can I, a sinner, be accepted by a holy God?", and Rome and the Reformers gave (and continue to give) two entirely opposite answers. Before we get the Gospel out we have to get it right, and that is, to a large extent, what polemics is all about.
Polemical Over Politics On a number of occasions, I have heard Christian leaders lament the fact that the "flower children" of the 60s are now in power. Whether in Washington, DC, or in the statehouse, whether in university faculties or art colonies in Laguna Beach or Greenwich Vil lage, the radicals who opposed authority, institutions, and everything that stood in the way of their personal freedom are now filling the most pow erful posts in the land. As an evangelical activist was recently bellowing about this, I could not help but think of the strange irony in his words. Here is a man who represents an evangelical subculture in which the very idea of au thority in terms of creeds, confessions, discipline, liturgy and other formal structures of institutional coherence are ridiculed as "formalistic." Here was this evangelical leader on the radio going on and on about how these radicals now in government have torn down "traditional values." And this is the same movement that tears down "traditional theology" and "tradi tional worship" in the churches. One megachurch recently advertised, "If you're looking for a fellowship that won't put you in a box, we're here for you." The "flower children" didn't like formal religion. They started replacing the word "church" with the word "fellowship;' to make it more relational than institu 6
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1996
tional. The flower children are not only in power in
Washington; they are in power in the evangelical move
ment as well and while they might want to recover
traditional morality, they show no signs of interest in
traditional Christianity. They are children of their age,
tossed to and fro with every wind of doctrine- that is to
say, with every trend in the marketplace.
This is why Christian broadcasting and publish
ing can make plenty of room for punctual attacks on
the rascals in Washington even while those of us who
seek to recover traditional Christian beliefs and relate
them to our own day are regarded as trouble-makers .
For the evangelical activists share with the counter
revolution of the sixties a theological relativism, an
apathy with regard to questions of truth and an em
phasis on subjective experience being more important
than objective criteria. So while these activists can
make fun of Bill and Hillary and their "culture of
tolerance" that ends up being quite intolerant of those
with moral conviction, these same Christian leaders
turn around and enforce the same code of"tolerance"
that ends up being quite intolerant of those with theo
logical conviction.
Polemics vs. Nastiness Having said all that, it is necessary to touch on the way we approach the task of polemics for the health of the church. In far too many cases, I have seen or heard I about fine ministers being mercilessly attacked by '-b.!j well-meaning, but spiritually immature, brothers and sisters. This is the case with neophytes in any group: Nobody is more anti-Roman Catholic than a former Roman Catholic, and we have seen how mean some ex -fundamentalists can be toward their conservative Protestant brethren when they convert to Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox bodies. It is also too sadly true in our own circles. I remember well my frustrations when I became a Calvinist and the "Five Points" became something akin to Mao's little red book for me . I am quite sure that I alienated a number of folks who might otherwise have considered the biblical arguments I could have made. Our own radio program, The White Horse Inn, is often polemical in its tone and substance. That is the cause to which I believe we are called with that pro , gram. As we have said often , it is not a church and \ should not be regarded as a sufficient, regular serving '. of "the whole counsel of God." Our attempt is to resurrect polemical debate as a means to the end of waking up a decadent and grossly unfaithful church and helping it make its way forward toward a second Reformation. And at a time when most Americans ~ who claim to be Bible-believing Christians cannot, according to major studies, even articulate the basic message of the Gospel, what could be more relevant?
modern REFORMATION
Nevertheless, sometimes there are casualties of offices for the ministry of Word and Sacrament, as "friendly fire." This is especially true when our pro well as for church disci pline (the elders) and services gram is treated as if it were a balanced diet, when its of charity (the deacons). Here in Matthew 18, our purpose is actually to focus on a few key themes and Lord gives to his apostles the "power of attorney" in set nearly every other question aside until these truths the affairs of his freshly inaugurated kingdom. As a are recovered. head of state deputizes his ambassadors to speak in Sometimes pastors will tell me that even though his name, the apostles were given the authority of they are Reformed (or Lutheran), they are beset by Jesus Christ himself. However this changed in the individuals who sit in the front row at church with transition from apostolic office to the offices out pen and paper, not to be fed with the Living Bread, . lined in the Epistles, the point is the same: by duly but to gather critical evidence of mistakes. Some exercising their offices, ministers and elders are used times those who have just discovered the liberating by God to save and to judge. This, then, is no trivial power of the Gospel of justification will find a Re office-nor is their spiritual authority to be lightly formed or Lutheran church and, still raw from being dismissed. If they fail in their task, false shepherds and disillusioned about the churches where they never false teachings will bar men and women from Paradise. heard this clear note, 'will find errors that are simply If they pay attention to their high calling, they will save not there. Others may have noted a failure in a ser both themselves and their hearers (1 Tim. 4:16). mon due to imprecise language or emphasis, but in The context of Jesus' remarks here in Matthew these instances the charity that, as Luther said, "puts must be taken into account. Admittedly, the situation the best construction on our neighbor's actions;' is that Jesus has in view here is a moral offense against a absent. If we are going to be engaged in polemics fellow-believer rather than a theological error. Nev and there is no choice here-we will have to be ertheless, the same principle stands. As Calvin responsible and careful in our handling of other advised, public sins deserve public censure; private people. God has given each a measure of faith and sins, private censure. If, in other words, a brother or officers have been instituted in the church who have sister brings scandal to the whole body, one would been (hopefully) tested in both their doctrine and not go first to that person, but immediately bring him spiritual maturity, and it is these individuals who are or her to the church (i.e., to the officers). Eventually, called by God to settle disputes in local churches. they would have to face the whole assembly and con Probably the best text in the Bible dealing with fess their offense. But in the case of a private offense the offenses of our brothers and sisters is Matthew (such as the one Jesus here describes), there is no 18:15-20 which reads, need for such public confession if the offender is rec onciled to the offended party. In the same way, a If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. Ifhe listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that "every mat ter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses." If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector. I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven . Again, I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything you ask for, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven . For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them.
Often, this second half of the passage is used as a pretext for "naming and claiming" prosperity, but as we see, the context will not bear that interpretation. The issue here is church discipline. God has given his ministers and church officers the "power of the keys;' and this is why the Apostle Paul labors to establish New Testament churches on the orderly discipline of , elders and pastors. (It is a good idea to interpret this passage along with 1 Timothy.) As the apostles pre pared the church for their passing, they established
I~
OLD
TESTAMENT
POLEMics >
No one pleads for truth...They trust in empty words and sp,eak , lies...For truth is fallen in the ,street. Is.59
Jer.5:30-31 Ahorrible and"shocking thing has happened in the lanq: The prophets prophesy lies, the priests rule by their own authority, and my peopleJove it thisway.
Jer. 9:2-3 "Oh, that I had in the wilderness, a lodging place...so that I might leave my people and go away from them; forthey are all adulterers, an assembly oftrea.cherous men...They are not valiant for the truth on the earth...and they do not know Me," says the Lord. .
;.'
.
'. ~
-
.
. Amos 7: 11-16 Amazia.;h the"priest of Bethel sent a message to Jeroboam king of Israel: t~i\mos is raising a conspiracy against youin the very heart orIsrael. The lahd cannot bear all his words..." Then Amaziah said to Amos, "Get out, you seer! Go back to the land of J~dah. Earn your bread there and do yout prophesying there. Don't prophesy anymore at Bethel, because this is 'the king's sanctuary and the temple of the kingdom." Amos answered Amaziah, 1(1 was neither a prophet nor a prophet's 'sou, but Iwas a shepherd...But the LORD took me from tending the flock and said to me, tGo, prophesy to my people Israel.' Now then, hear the word of the LORD...'"
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1996
7
brother or sister who holds an unorthodox doctrine should first be confronted privately rather than pub licly. First, Jesus instructs us to go directly to our brother or sister and confront him or her directly. As our Lord says, the best case scenario is that this indi vidual will see the error for what it is and conclude that he or she needs to get a better grasp on the sub ject. In that happy case, "you have gained your brother" (v. 15). If, however, the case is not yet resolved, the next stage in our Lord's command is to take two or three witnesses to the person. Sometimes we ourselves can be so zealous to root out the errors in others that we fail to see more serious problems in ourselves. Or perhaps we have misinterpreted the person and failed to exercise charity in the way we assessed his or her remarks. Two or three witnesses must be convinced that there is a problem before anything can proceed. If the witnesses, who in the Epistles are restricted to NEW
t E S r A ~ E fi'T
,p 0 L EM! C S
Matt 7: 15 Bewareoffalse prophets, who come t6' you in sheep's clothing, but inw~rdly they are ravenous wolves. ' Acts 19:8':'9 Paul entered t4e synagogue and spoke boldly there
forthree months, arguing p~rsuasivelyabout the kingdom of God. But some of them became obstinate; they 'refused t6 believe and publicly maligned the Way. So Paul left therri~ He tookthe disciples withhim arld had ,discussions dailY: in the lec~ure hall9fTyrannus. ,
,
the
2 Cor. 11:3-4 Butlam afraid thatjustas Eve was,deceived by ,', serpent's cunning, your minds may somehovv be led a,stray from
your$incere'and pure devotion to Christ. For if someone comes
to you and preaches a JeSllS other than the Jesus we preached, or
if you receive a .different spirit from the one you received, or:a
different gospel from the one you accepted, ypu put up with it easily
enough. ' . , 2 Tim. 2:24-25 And the Lord's servant must notqu~rrel; instead he must be kind to everyone, ableto teach, not resentfuL >,Those who opposehim he mustgentiy instruct,in the hope that God will' · grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the ~ruth. 2 Tim. 4:2-5 Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage-witp great patience and careful instruction. FOl:.the time will come when men will not Pllt up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit theiLQwn desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers t'o say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn .their ears away from the truth ,and turn aside to myth§. But you, keep your head in all "situations, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, dis . charge all the duties.of your ministry. .
2 Pet. 3:17-18 ... Beon your guard so thalyoumaynot be carried
, away by the error oflawless men'and fall from your secure pos,ition. But grow in"the grace a~d knowledge orour Lordand~avior ...
8
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1996
elders (officers who are given the spiritual oversight), do not concur, the matter is concluded. In extreme cases, the accuser might bring the case to the whole body of elders within the local church (often called _~ the "session" or "council"), but if they rule against the ~ accusation, the accuser is not free to spread further reports lest he or she be disciplined for gossip. But if the elders concur with the accuser, and the offender refuses to listen to the officers, it must be taken to the church, Jesus says. Depending on one's view of church government, this means either taking it to the whole local congregation or to the presbytery/ classis/district (i.e., regional body of ministers and elders who meet at various times to consider such issues as delegates from each local church). In the case of a minister, the local elders can suspend the pastor from exercising his office. If the errant is ac cused of heresy, the case is then taken to this body of elders and ministers representing the region's local churches (or in the case of episcopal government, the bishop) . A minister's fellow-ministers and elders, therefore, not only suspend the minister from his du ties, but from the ministry altogether. His ordination is revoked. Beyond this, there would be the final court, the national assembly of these regional bodies. In many Protestant denominations, delegates are sent from each presbytery ("classis" or "district" are other terms for this body) _ This final court goes by such, names as "General Synod:"'General Assembly:"'Gen eral Conference;' etc . The Council of Jerusalem reported in Acts is taken by many to have been such an assembly. At this council, major doctrinal dis putes were settled and the church arrived at concord. Ifheretical or schismatic ministers have not been sus pended by the presbytery/ classis (or, in episcopal government, the bishop), these larger assemblies bear the responsibility to speak for the whole church. \N"hether a minister or other officer of the church, one who has been convicted of such serious charges is not only suspended from the ministry, but, failing to receive correction and reproof, is excommunicated. "If he refuses to listen to them;' said Jesus, "tell it to the church; and ifhe refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector" (v. 17). Here .is an example of the benefits of our Lord's wisdom i~ prescribing order and discipline in his ~~ ~~ church. In the case of someone falsely charged, it is "nipped in the bud" by the elders instead of allowing accusers to freely gossip and slander their leaders. But in the case of a false shepherd leading the flock astray, it preserves the church from the most serious dangers that can befall God's people. Those who do not exercise discipline according to Christ's rule, in ~ order and decency, leave the door of Christ's pen wide open for hirelings. '
t
modern REFORMATION
At this point, I can hear someone say, "Then how can polemicists criticize well-known Christian lead ers without following Matthew 18?" I have been asked this enough times to know it is frequently on the minds of many concerned Christians. I have quoted false teachers and those who publicly advance argu ments that many of us regard as destructive. In only the most extreme cases have I accused public figures of being "false teachers;' but I have sought to interact critically with the work of a good number of teachers and often this has elicited sharp attacks. Why did I not first go to these individuals and follow Christ's instructio'n as outlined here? There are a number of reasons, but I will limit myself to two. First, as mentioned above in the quote from Calvin, private"sins are to be addressed in pri vate, but public sins require public exposure. When someone goes into print or occupies the airwaves with teachings that are regarded by a wide consensus of wise Christians throughout church history as dan gerous, it is not only permissible, but necessary to expose such people publicly. The proposed cure must attempt to be as wide as the infection. Thus, Simon the Magician, who professed Christ and then corrupted Christian doctrine, was publicly anathematized by Peter (Acts. 8:9). However serious and guarded our judgments must be, we can surely say with St. Paul, "Whoever preaches another Gos pel..., let him be anathema." Paul advanced this procedure of public censure when he warned Timo thy, "This charge I commit to you, son Timothy, according to the words previously made concerning you, that by them you may fight the good fight, hav ing faith and a good conscience, which some having rejected, concerning the faith have suffered ship wreck, of whom are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I delivered to Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme" (1 Tim. 1: 18-20). Second, such cases differ from those under con sideration in Matthew 18 in that such public figures are rarely in one's own denomination. Granted, the New Testament does not prescribe denominations as God's chosen way of building the kingdom! It is a tragic measure of our indwelling sin, confusion, schism and error that we do not all agree and belong to one body. Nevertheless, here we are and what do we do about the order and decency required in the Epistles given our circumstances? The procedure of church discipline I have outlined above from the Scriptures does not take different denominations into account, but it does, I think, lead us to conclude that in order for the proper chain of authority to be fol lowed, we must ourselves be under the same church authority as those we are bringing to the church court. Since that is rarely possible in our multi-de
nominational world, one can only bring public her esies into public view and hope that this will bring the authorities within the errant minister's denomina tion to the place where they will seek appropriate measures. Regardless, contemporary heretics gather their followings from a multitude of denominations and one is forced to meet public errors with public criticism. Having eluded their own authorities (or having set up their own sect), the only recourse we often have is to hold them accountable to the wider church from which they are seeking to draw away disciples. We do not, for instance, follow Matthew 18 in denouncing the heresies of cults, for in the case of clearly marked false teachers we are not obligated to treat such exponents as believers in the first place. Clearly, there are difficult issues involved with polemics: defending the faith from errors within the Christian family. Furthermore, not all errors are he retical. Indeed, some take it upon themselves to censure their ministers for taking a different position on matters not even implicitly discussed in the con fessional standards. If they create disturbances over these remote issues upon which Christians of good will may differ even within their own respective traditions, they should themselves be disciplined in precisely the same manner described above. As the church has divinely-given means to discipline her ministers and officers who stray from God's Word, so church members who take matters into their own hands and either create dissension or leave the church without follow ing the prescribed order are themselves the offenders. Satan loves disorder and error, both schism and heresy. One weakens the body by amputation, the other by poisoning. By both he keeps the church in constant tur moil. But polemics is never the problem. If we follow proper dis cipline in our own church life and call public ministries to account publicly, with grace and courage, we may, God willing, see a renewal of both truth and love in a time of intolerant tolerance.5\,;> . . Notes
.
'~<
1. Stanley Grenz , "p'6 stmodernism and the Future of Evangelical Theology," The Challenge of Postmodernism, ed. by David Dockerey (Wheaton: Victor, 1995). Dr . Michael Horton is the president of CURE and is a graduate of Biola University , Westminster Theological Seminary in CA , and recently completed his doctoral work at Wycliffe Hall, Oxford. Mike is the author of a number of books on various theological issues including Putting Amazing Back Into Grace, Beyond Culture Wars , The Law of Perfect Freedom and In The Face of God: The Dangers and Delights of Spiritual Intimacy ( recently released from Word).
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1996
9
'h~lmportance of Being ======= More Than Earnest BY
D
octrine. Theology. For many evangelicals these wOTds are as pleasant as the phrase, "impacted tooth!" That theology is irrelevant to Christian life has essentially become a received dogma. Never theless, as much as indifference about Christian truth reigns among evangelicals, to the same degree we have actually adopted a competing religion, and therefore the Christian explanation no longer interests us. If this is true, then a call to reconsider the importance of theology is also a call to repentance and faith. Doctrine is "that which is taught" from the Latin word doctrina. In my experience however, doctrine elicits one meaning and teaching quite another. To test the negative associations attached to the word doctrine ask yourself, "Would I rather attend a church known for its solid teaching or its solid doctrine?" For most evangelicals, a teaching church wins hands down. The word doctrine evokes "closed;' "narrow" and perhaps even "bigoted:' As a result of this aversion to theology, evangelicals have reached a sort of gentlemen's agree ment on disputed doctrines. If it is true that one does not discuss politics and religion in polite company, then in evangelical circles, it is even more impolite to broach controversial topics such as baptism or pre destination. For many evangelicals, the present consensus about the practical necessity of"a-doctri nal" Christianity is a sort of nirvana. In this view, doctrinal disagreements are not important and achieving doctrinal precision is not the true work of the church.
R. SCOTT
CLARK
one grow toward the truth. These folk treat Chris tianity as a matter of accumulated secret knowledge which they alone possess. 1 When faced with these folk it is perhaps wise to agree to disagree. There are things about which sincere believers can intelligently and charitably disagree. Charity is not, however, an excuse to simply ignore. The main branches of his toric Protestantism were anything but ignorant of the differences between themselves.
One cause of our present indifference to theology is the widespread evangelical ignorance of the source (Scripture) and tradition of Christian teaching. Why? North American evangelicalism has long been , infected by modernity. In the middle of the 18th ~ century, the ultimate authority of God's Word came under full-scale attack. The Enlightenment modern ists asserted the primacy and autonomy of the human mind. By the end of the 18th century, the great Ger man philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) had convinced European philosophy that one cannot know things outside of the mind as they are in them selves (ding an sich). Rather, he said, reality is a convention, the picture our mind forms of the world outside us. In this view, God is not the Triune Creator and Redeemer who reveals himself as the , I AM, but rather the product of our experience of him. About the same time Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768-1834) concluded that since we cannot know much about God directly and we cannot trust the truthfulness of the Bible, we ought to think of Christianity as a "feel ing of divine dependence." Even if Kant and A-Doctrinal Christianity: Pious or Not? This position seems pious. Who can disagree with the:~ Schleiermacher are not household names, their ideas aim of spreading the Good News? First, doctrinal ' formed the cornerstone of modern society. It is easy to tell what we Americans value by the debates have too often been conducted uncharitably with each side concerned primarily with winning. amount of money we spend on it. College professors Second, there has occasionally arisen in the church who teach Business, Medicine or Law are typically self-appointed doctrine police which one might call more highly paid than those who teach History. WhY? t the DC crowd-the doctrinally correct-who are in Because our culture values those disciplines which terested more in being right and making certain will allow our children to go out into the world and everyone knows they are right than in helping one make money. Under Kant and Schleiermacher, 'our
10
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1996
modern REFORMATION
culture, including evangelicalism, has placed a pre mium on that which produces immediate gratification. This move relativizes the importance of Christian truth in the church. When was the last time you saw a congregation rise up in protest be cause the pastor failed to preach a series of sermons explaining the Biblical doctrine of the Trinity? If, however, the pastor fails to preach an annual series on "How to Improve Your Marriage;' he will hear about it at the annual meeting. J. Gresham Machen called this syndrome the "tyranny of the practical." Substitute "immediate" for "practical" and his meaning is clear. The mainline churches made this trade early in this century. Evangelical Christendom faces this crisis today. We evangelicqls do not choose churches be cause of doctrinal commitments, but because of the number of programs available to meet our felt needs. We do what makes us feel good. We have agreed with Schleiermacher that what really matters is what I ex perience. If theology doesn't make me feel good, then, by all means, lets be rid of it.
Pietist Evangelicalism: The Conduit of Modernity Though several scholars of American evangelicalism have argued that it was Princeton's alleged rational ism which imported modernity into evangelicalism, it seems rather that the blame must be placed else where. A close reading of the Princeton theologians will show that they were in essential harmony with Calvin and the Orthodox Reformed tradition on most points. There was, however, a pietist strain in evangelicalism which was not as hardy as old Princeton's confessional theology. Because the orga nizing principle of pietism and mysticism is experience, they were able to find common ground with those, like Schleiermacher, who could point to personal experience, while denying the historicity of the faith. With this experiential bridge, they were more liable to being co-opted by modernity. Another legacy to evangelicalism is a radically individualistic faith. If one cannot be certain about the historicity of the faith then one flees to mystical experience. Pietistic evangelicalism replaced the "priesthood of all believers" (access to God through Christ alone) with the "papacy of every believer" (the sole authority of the believer). Individualism has replaced the older Protestant idea of divinely or dained authority located in Scripture and in the courts of the church, and has led to a nearly irrepa rable fragmentation of the Christian landscape. Activism-doing in place of thinking-is an other result of the influence of modernity. vVe measure spiritual growth by the level of one's reli gious actlvIty. One prominent source for this activism was Charles Finney's "New Measures" rev iv
alism (the altar call, the anxious bench, etc.) which appropriated Schleiermacher for evangelicalism. The New Measures were the triumph of method over the ology, pragmatism over principle and a wholesale rejection of the Reformation. An activist orientation also entails an unhappy indifference to and igno rance of history and theology. So, evangelical congregations across the continent anoint heretical pastors and slide into ancient heresies long ago ad dressed and rejected by the historic orthodox faith.
Why Theology is Necessary It is dangerous, if not impossible, to live the Christian life in the absence of Christian truth. There are, to be sure, happy inconsistencies-does anyone really pray what an Arminian confesses? Nevertheless, there are serious problems with the "a-doctrinal" approach to Christianity. Everything one does flows from one's view of God, history, the world, and self. If one says, "I want to do evangelism, not theology;' I should ask, "what will you tell them?" Whatever one tells the lost will necessarily be doctrine. Not all evangelicals capitulated to modernity. Since the Reformation, there have always been those whom one might class as confessional evangelicals. Because our Protestant parents believed differently, they acted differently than us. The leaders of the Reformation worked constantly to resolve their dif ferences over important issues, viz., Baptism and the Eucharist. These efforts were usually motivated by genuine love for one another and a strong desire to see the evangelical church united. They saw theo logical dialogue as an act of Christian charity. These discussions took place both in the church and the academy, in a forum inherited from the me dieval church called the colloquium (Latin for "conference").2 A colloquy was a structured discus sion of doctrinal differences controlled by a moderator with an agenda. The teams met in a ple nary session, then divided into smaller groups to tackle various issues and then returned to meet in common session to report on their progress. Evangelicals ought to revive the system of the collo
"There are few dangers threatening the religious future mor\ serious than the slow shallowing of the religious mind....nur safety is in the deep. The lazy cry for simplicity is a great danger. It indicates a frame of mind which is only appalled at the great things of God, and a senility of faith which fears that <; which is high." , -Po T. Forsyth
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1996
11
qtiy. The benefit of such a system is that each 'side' is forced to sit down and prayerfully study God's Word and the history of doctrine and decide what they think Scripture teaches. It is only when we self-con sciously, systematically think through how we understand God's Word and patiently, sympatheti cally attempt to understand how our brothers interpret God's Word that we are prepared to compare conclusions and to make substantial, biblical, progress toward a common understanding of the faith. To' challenge one another, even vigorously, over important theological questions is an act of love. In difference to theology implies that the firmly held convictions of one's brothers do not merit serious consideration. It is no mere coincidence that the sys tem of the colloquy fell into neglect with the rise of modernity. Why discuss those things which are no longer of interest? The present state of affairs must be changed. To decide what Scripture teaches, what the church be lieves, to reconsecrate oneself to the knowledge of our Triune God, these are the actions of a rebel against the Kantian sterility of modernity. Orthodoxy simply means "right thinking" or "right worship."3 Thus, "dead orthodoxy" is an oxy moron. One cannot be truly orthodox and spiritually dead. Only when we've stopped believing the historic faith does it become dead. Not surprisingly, it was Schleiermacher who first described orthodoxy as dead. Trinitarian orthodoxy is, however, as subtle and exciting a truth as anyone would ever wish to meet. Our faith is full of mystery, wonder and the smell of life, not death. Nor should orthodoxy be condemned because it has sometimes been taught badly. I once had a disagreeable plate ofhash browns at 3:00 AM in Idaho. I have not, however, given up on hash browns simply because some fry cook once ru ined them. The institutional church has been assailed for de cades for its alleged lack of relevance. To call her back to concern for truth is asking the church to shift into reverse. To some it may sound as if you are asking the church to commit statistical suicide. We must be pre pared to show Christian leaders why Christian truth is the starting place for ministry. If you are ready to walk into the "a-doctrinal" breach of church leader ." ship, condending for doctrine, then perhaps God has' ~.! called you to just such a ministry in your congregation. '
Recover the Confessions and Confessionalism We must recover our Protestant confessional back ground by studying the Reformation confessions in the light of Scripture. 4 We must be prepared to lov ingly, but firmly, call the evangelical church, her leaders, and her courts (presbyteries, synods) to ac 12
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1996
count for the abandonment of her historic doctrinal commitments. Finally, we can return to the Reformation system of the colloquy. One might organize a discussion within one's own congregation or between one's con gregation and an evangelical congregation from another tradition. 5 Having witnessed the often pa thetic state of theological discourse in evangelicalism today, I think we could stand a few colloquia! Failing that, make a point of meeting believers from other Reformation traditions. Perhaps you know someone who attends an historic Protestant church which is not being faithful to its confessional heritage. It might be helpful to meet with that person to discuss your confessions and their role in the church.
l"
<:?'
Conclusion You are reading this magazine presumably because you are concerned about the state of the church. You have decided to educate yourself, to read, to think and to grow intellectually and spiritually. But just as you probably did not come overnight to your present understanding of the need for good theology, you should not expect an entire congregation or its lead ership to instantly change. So be patient and humble. That the evangelical church will have a theology is inescapable. The question must be whether we are committed to believing and confessing a good, his toric, confessional, theology which is faithful to the Bible, or whether we will accept the unhappy mod ernist settlement. ~ Notes 1. This is the danger of gnosticism or salvation obtained through the posses sion of secret knowledge which grants one admission into an elite group. Gnosticism is an ancient philosophy and movement which is notoriously difficult to define , The word Gnosticism comes from the Greek verb Ginoskein (to know) and noun Gnosis (knowledge). Most evangelical scholars think that Gnosticism did not become an organized movement until just before the 200's A.D . However , the seeds of the movement were present in the first century and its likely that John's letters addressed some aspects of the movement in the cities of Asia Minor . The early church Father, Irenaeus (c.175 A.D.), wrote five books against the Gnostic heresies. That Gnostic ideas were still in circulation during the Reformation is evidenced by the fact that the Belgic Confession Article 12 (1561) repudiated Manichaeism, a later form of these false ideas. 2. It is true that the Reformers met with mixed success in their attempts to find unity. They did succeed more than is sometimes recognized . Dissatisfied with the failure of the Marburg Colloquy (1529), Martin Bucer, Philip Melanchthon and Heinrich Bullinger met secretly five years later at Constance to resolve differences over the Eucharist. There they agreed that Christ is eaten "by faith ". At Hagenau (1540) Calvin and Bucer signed the Augustana Variata (1541), a significant version of the Augsburg Confession (1530) indicating substantial unity on the supper between at least a segment of Lutheranism and the Reformed Churches. In 1549, the Reformed Churches in Switzerland signed the Consensus.,. Tigurinus marking unity on the Eucharist. It was always Calvin's hope to see Protestantism united against her common enemies. 3. These two concepts are not far separate. Romans 12.2 (Geneva Bible, 1602 edition) speaks of our 'reasonable ' service to God. 4. It might be well to begin with the catholic creeds, i.e., the Apostles' , Nicene, and Athanasian Creeds and the Definition of Chalcedon. I find that about 10% of my students are familiar with the Apostles' Creed . If your congregation does not use these Creeds it might be well to inquire about it. One should be greatly troubled if a church will not use the catholic creeds. 5. I have benefited greatly from virtual colloquies through on-line confer ences. R. Scott Clark is a Visiting Instructor of Theology at Wheaton College and has taught at Reformed Theological Seminary, Jackson , He is a DPhil Candidate in historical theology, St. Anne's College, Oxford, a graduate of Westminster Theological Seminary, Escondido , and a minister in the Reformed Church in the United States.
modern REFORMATION
A./ ~
GUA~DNG
world just as it is to us. But in our day we take offense at the very idea of contending for truth, or in turning away from dissenters. It is not just familial discord that we wish to avoid, but disagreement in general. We fear certainty as if it were a dangerous thing.
Fighting for Peace
BY RICK RITCHIE
J
esus said to his apostles, "If you abide in my word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; and you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free" (John 8:31 b-32). He asked the Father to sanctify his apostles in the truth, for the Father's word is truth (John 17:20). He promised his apostles that the Holy Spirit would teach them all things, and bring to their remembrance all that he said to them (John 14:25 26). They investigated everything carefully (Luke 1: 3), and wrote so that we might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that by believing we might have life in his name (John 20:31). The early church continually devoted themselves to the apostles' doctrine (Acts 2:42). Following them, we have been built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets-Christ Jesus himself being the chief cornerstone (Eph. 2:19-22). All Scripture, whether the words of apostles, prophets, or Christ himself, is inspired by God (2 Tim. 3: 16-17) and cannot be bro ken (John 10:35). We must contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 3b-4). We must keep our eye on those who cause dissensions and hindrances contrary to the doctrine which we learned, and turn away from them (Rom. 16-17). Those who preach a gospel contrary to the apostolic gospel are cursed (Gal. 1:8-9). But a good minister of Jesus Christ is nourished in the words of faith and of good doctrine (1 Tim 4:6), and the out come of faith is the salvation of our souls (1 Pet 1:9). Such is the scriptural teaching regarding the im portance of true doctrine. But we seem to be living in an especially bad age to hear these words. There are sayings of Jesus which are hard sayings in any age. The statement that he came not to bring peace but a sword, and that family members will be at war over him was a hard saying to the family-centered ancient
It is Scripture that entreats us to put on the full armor of God and contend for the faith. The battle imagery is not the product of a sick and conflict-ridden mind. But the same Scriptures also call Jesus the Prince of Peace and tell us that he who lives by the sword shall die by the sword. How are we to reconcile the two sets of texts? First off, it might be suggested that the battle imagery no more promotes violence than the "Par able of the Unjust Steward" promotes shady business practices. God makes use of all kinds of analogies to illustrate points. In any analogy there are points of similarity and points of divergence. A table leg is a leg in the sense of being one of several supports. It differs from an animal leg in not being made of flesh. A doctrinal battle has points of similarity with military battles, along with points of divergence. The prob lem is in determining where to draw the line. Where does similarity end and contrast begin? It is easy to get so lost on this point that we con demn any similarity between doctrinal battle and military battle, all the while approving military battle when we are the ones involved. We must see the issue more clearly. Christianity manages to make fine dis tinctions of which heretics never seem to be capable. G.K. Chesterton said that in his time he was sur prised that Christianity got attacked for both its pacifism and its bloodthirstiness. As an unbeliever he said that he thought Christianity must be worthy of study if it was capable of being accused of both positions. Upon careful reflection, heJound it inno cent of both charges. But it is quite possible to be guilty of both errors. Take the Unitarians. Historian Ann Douglas has documented the way Unitarian clergy were at the forefront of the movement to feminize American cul ture in the nineteenth century. Their religion was a softening of the harsher Calvinism of previous gen erations . Not surprisingly, pacifism was the common :~tance toward war among their ranks. 1 The Christian ' ~irtue of longsuffering was abstracted from the Bible where it was taught alongside of civic responsibility. Unitarian clergy were even capable of rejecting the Old Testament where it taught that God had ever condoned war. In contrast, during the American Civil War, the "Battle Hymn of the Republic" was written by Julia Ward Howe, also a Unitarian. Granted, it is a stirring SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1996
13
song, especially when performed by a mass choir, but it belongs in no Christian hymnal. Consider the sec ond verse: "I have seen Him [the Lord] in the watchfires of a thousand circling camps!" Here is a line I cannot sing in good conscience. A probable case can be made that the Union Army was bearing the sword to execute God's wrath on evildoers ac cording to Romans 13:4. So what? Such was certainly the case when Babylon invaded Judah, God's chosen people (Jeremiah 1:14-16). But if an archaeologist unearthed a Babylonian hymnal where one of the hymns spoke of seeing God in the watch fires of the Babylonian camps, would we also add that to our hymnals? In a fit of righteous indignation, the Uni tarial1. movement spawned a glorification of warfare which has not only gone unchallenged, but has found its way into Christian hymnals. The only challenger I know of to this practice was J. Gresham Machen, who spoke of such hymns as "breathing out the angry pas sions of 1861." He lamented that "the warfare of the world [had] entered into the house of God."2 My point is not that the Unitarians are unique in having more than one stance toward war in their his tory. Most Christian bodies have. Even those bodies with broad unanimity will have dissenting members. The illustration I brought up was not intended to ridicule the Unitarians, but to make a point about evangelicalism. We have managed to outdo their con fusion. We have managed to be at the same time militaristic when it comes to real war, and pacifistic with regard to doctrinal battle. The irony is that we are living in a culture that at many points was designed by the Unitarians. To give them credit, the nineteenth century Unitarians were a more thoughtful, intellectual lot, but it is their paci fism and avoidance of conflict that we have picked up. And alongside of these traits, we have managed to keep our love of American civil religion with regard to war. We hate to be involved in disagreements at For though we Live in the worLd, we do not wage war as the worLd does. The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the worLd. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish stronghoLds. We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive :Cyety thought to make it.obedierlt to ·Christ.(2 Cor. 1O:3-5J y 'c ,. .. ·... c ,
14
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1996
itt
.
.
.
.',';., ""'''''','__''' '
home, but we will with eager enthusiasm join the ranks of those who celebrate American military achievement with religious awe. Something is at least unbalanced. It would take a professional ethicist to present a tight case for which American wars have been just or unjust. I have no wish to argue the point. But even a just war should not be celebrated with religious songs. We can celebrate the end of a war, or a victory, or welcome the troops home and honor them. But to commemorate in song God's work in battle carries great danger. It is especially ironic that some of us can turn from a blasphemously idolatrous celebration of war to an unbiblical denunciation of doctrinal battle. We denounce metaphorical battles and eulogize real ones. We need to be clear about the nature of a doctrinal battle. First, a doctrinal battle is like war because there are two sides contending against one another. However, it is unlike ,'\ ar because nobody gets killed (ordinarily at least!). The question then arises: is contention itself, within a doctrinal battle, bad? And, for whose sake are \\ e contending? In a battle over Christian doctrine, \\-e should be contending for the glory of God and the sah-ation of souls; these are worthy motives. Granted , it is possible to fight with unworthy mo tives an d we ought to try to be come aware of them. But "-e must not allow ourselves to belieye t hat battle should never be engaged until all moti\-es a re pure. That day will ~ never come, and t he st akes are too high. In our battle fo r tru e doctrine, we have weapons: prayer, argument and Scripture. While it is true that arguments and Scr ipture can be put to bad use, they are not harmful in and of themselves; misuse does not prohibit proper use. In fact, even those who say that they oppose doctrinal battle use these weapons. Moreover, they use these weapons against people with whom they disagree et claim that they are merely "tools." A rolling pin is a tool, but it becomes a weapon when used against someone in a fight. The difference between those who admit to en gaging in doctrinal battle and those who do not is that the latter fight in a state of undeclared war. This is often the most dangerous type of combat. While this might sound like a clever battle tactic, remember: doctrinal tvar is to be unlike military war at points. It .~ is my hope that when undeclared doctrinal war has , been fought, it has been fought in ignorance, and not as a battle tactic. Those who argue against the importance of doc trine are using a smoke screen. To such people, doctrine is "someone else's Christianity" while their t emphasis is "the Christian life." But this is not simply a rejection of doctrine, it is merely a different kind of doctrine.
L
modern REFORMATION
Guarding the Gifts . The call to fight for the faith often fails to be heeded because our focus is on the call rather than the faith. We are not mercenaries being asked to sacrifice our selves for a cause far from our hearts. The faith once for all delivered to the saints is not to be understood merely as a list of doctrines, though it is that! A doc trinal list as such will motivate little sacrifice. But what comprises the list? What is the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints? It is the gospel: Christ's life, death and resurrection. Will you con tend for that? It is the fact that men can be reconciled to God. Will you contend for that? It is the fact that history has a glorious ending. Will you contend for that? Put in these terms, we hardly need to be told to fight. All we need to be told is that there is someone attacking what is dear to us. The same should be true of all doctrines. Our fights for every doctrine boil down to something vi tal. I do not argue the doctrine of absolution merely so that the proper teaching will be found in a class room. I want my friends to go be absolved. I do not argue the doctrine of justification as an academic exercise. I want people to be justified. I do not contend for the centrality of Holy Communion so that people will teach that it is central. I want people to commune weekly. If we state our case in these terms, those who have little taste for doctrine might listen. When we see fighting for doctrine as the guard ing of gifts, we will be better able to see what our stance ought to be in a given situation. Without turn ing it into a calculus, we fight in such a way that the gifts have the best chance of being received by the greatest number. This means contending with most people with the hope that they might turn from error and receive the gifts God has for them. This means contending with some, recognizing that in their ha tred of truth, they endanger the gifts for too many others to be treated gently. When our own understanding of our faith is un focused-when we see it as a string of disconnected doctrines-contending for it looks like an unending task. We hardly know where to begin. When our understanding is focused on the free gifts of God, the task is easier, for we have a center toward which to work. For instance, what do you do when you find out that your fundamentalist co-worker is unfamiliar with Reformation teaching? What I have seen many do is dwell on important yet peripheral doctrines. Arguments are started over predestination or amillennialism. The impression is left that we are obsessively focused on matters which involve differ ences of belief, but no change in church life. While there are some matters of internal belief that would be
worthy of argument whether or not they affect church life, in our present climate of thought it is wisest to begin on those central matters which visibly affect the church. If we focus on the gifts, matters are different. A question like, "Do you hear the gospel every Sunday from the pulpit?" is a question which is anything but peripheral. A fundamentalist will know that the gos pel is important, but may never have asked whether or not it needs to be heard every Sunday. Perhaps it is assumed that the gospel is only for evangelism. If that is the case, you now have an opportunity to explain how Christians need to hear that Christ's death can save even them. Such a conversation will show people that the Reformation focus is centered on something important. When that has been demonstrated, they will perhaps have more patience to hear about other matters. When they can see that you are gospel-cen tered in your thought, they will be willing to entertain the notion that predestination is vital. If your theol ogy has shown itself to be focused on Christ, the fact that you hold to predestination may cause the funda mentalist to ask whether predestination might be linked to the gospel. It is the fear that these are free floating doctrines disconnected from central Biblical concerns which makes so many unwilling to listen. Enter into the battle for good doctrine. That is, recognize that all people do not know of or receive all of the gifts God has offered his church. If we wish for his gifts to remain among us, we must fight those who would make something else central. We must contend against those who offer counterfeit gifts, for they get in the way of the real ones. This is not done out of a mean spirit, but out of a vital conviction that receiv ing God's genuine gifts is important. God went to great lengths to offer us free forgiveness through his body and blood. God's true peace was costly to him. We cannot think that any peace we could establish is of greater consequence. When we try to create a hu man peace by avoiding necessary conflict for the sake of the kingdom of God, we deceive ourselves. We will find ourselves entangled in civil religion and idolatry. In our avoidance of being contentious, we may find ourselves worshipping military might. It has hap pened before. No, we must accept the peace of God, and realize that this is the 'p eace worth fighting for. It is the only peac~ which can be fought for peaceably. It is here that we rrtust fight. It is here that we must rest. :f'-> Notes 1. Ann Douglas, The Feminization of American Culture (New York : Alfred A. Knopf, 1977) pp.20, 36,126,186·88,189. 2. J. Gresham Machen , Christianity and Liberalism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans , 1923) p .180. Rick Ritchie is a graduate of Christ College Irvine and Gordon·Conwell Theological Seminary. In addition to writing regularly for modern R EF ORMATION magazine, Rick is a contributing author for the CURE book Christ The Lord: The Reformation & Lordship Salvation .
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1996
15
:ulauuD Jot!
Q~ {S
tb t "f ~ "7 BY GARY
L. W.
JOHNSON
O
and a minister, could not but be a fighting man, and the dium theologium is a rather ugly sounding Latin Reformation, as a renewal of biblical faith amid ecclesi expression that was used in days gone by to refer paganism, could not but be a fighting movement, astical to the bitter doctrinal rivalries that were fairly and the Institutio, as a Reformation manifesto and apo common among theologians of all stripes. These logia, could not but be a fighting book. John Calvin was ardent polemical debates did at times degenerate a peace-loving person who found controversy a tedious into acrimonious personal attacks. Because of this burden, and V\ ho \\ orked tirelessly to bring Protestants we are prone-living as we like to assume in a kinder together, yet an ) account of him which minimized the intensity of his co mmitment to the conflict of God's and gentler time-to dismiss the need for polemics Word with human error, as well as sin, would be an simply because the language used in such clashes Injustice. e may not dism iss Calvin's polemics as strikes us as so offensive. Unfortunately, as Robert mere appendages to h is posi ti ve teaching, as unneces D. Preus points out, some people mistakenly con sary as they \\ere unpleasan t. Rather, we must reckon clude that there is some inevitable connection with Calvin's insis tence that some notions ought to be between orthodoxy and bitter invective and plain fought to the death .3 1 belligerence. The heated exchange, for example, that took place between the highly acclaimed Wesley and Toplady would have wholeheartedly Arminian John Wesley and his equally celebrated agreed. Indeed, polemics, which is what Wesley and Calvinistic opponent Augustus Toplady quickly Toplady were engaged in, should be conducted in an comes to mind. Both men were stalwart open arena and undertaken in a serious fashion. evangelicals. Both had the courage of their convic After all, the purpose of polemics is not argument tions, and each man did his best to articulate and for argument's sake, but the critical evaluation of defend his position. One cannot read their diatribes truth claims. Granted, how we do polemics is a without being impressed with their rhetorical, liter legitimate concern. But if we value, as we should, ary and even satirical skills. But their exchange is the truth of the gospel, then we are going to have to nonetheless so marred by its acidity oflanguage as to engage in polemics. rightly be considered scandalous and a glaring blem One cannot read Paul's epistle to the Galatians, for example, without detecting this refrain (cf. Gal. ish on both men's careers.2 This is not to say, however, that the issues over 2:5,14; 4:16; 5:7). Because true Christianity is im which the two men crossed swords were unimpor portant, it must be preserved from error. The tant or that even the intensity with which they argued . history of the Christian church often discourages was in itself inappropriate. J. 1. Packer, in his stimu- ~. people because there is so much controversy. But lating article, "Calvin the Theologian;' writes of the theological controversy is to be expected. The es role of polemics in the Institutes: tablishment of truth and the exposure of error are never reached without conflict and controversy; The harsh controversial passages, which cause modern and, as Warfield pointed out long ago, there are, readers much offence, are actually essential to its de regrettably, those in our midst who fear controversy sign. Just as the Bible, being the proclamation of God's more than error. 4 truth to an intellectually warped world, is necessarily The lamentable situation in Warfield's day has polemical at point after point, so Calvin, as a Christian
16
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1996
modern REFORMATION
t ~
, ]
,
multiplied tenfold in ours. To say that polemics is not greatly appreciated in our day is a drastic under statement-polemical theology is vilified and despised in the minds of most evangelicals. There are any number of reasons for this existing hostility toward polemics, but I am going to focus on what I perceive to be the main culprit. Polemical theology serves a noble and impor tant role only when doctrine is highly valued. If doctrine is devalued or considered to be an awk ward encumbrance-like some embarrassing relative we wish wouldn't make an appearance at family gatherings because he or she makes everyone else uncomfortable-then, of course, polemics will always be held in contempt. In a very provocative article entitled «Theological Pluralism and the Unity of the Spirit;' the late Jacques ElluL speaking of what he refers to as the attitude of agnostic toler ance, makes this telling observation: At the present time it is not, on the whole, so much a disposition toward intolerance that confronts us. In stead, I see around me a broad tolerance reigning everywhere except within the "sects." It does not ap pear, however, to be a positive tolerance and a progress of the human spirit beyond the intolerance of the past but rather what I would call a "tolerance by default." That is to say, when we consider the reaction against intolerance in the preceding centuries, we are per turbed by the vast number of ideologies, by the scientific critiques, and by the uncertainties of life in the modern world; and we adopt a rather skeptical atti tude, somewhat disabused of previous illusions and, even in the churches, somewhat agnostic. There is nothing absolute, there is not a jot or tittle in the Bible ofwhich we can be sure, there is nothing left of absolute truth. As a consequence we can "tolerate." This atti tude implies an absence of doctrinal formulations (for example, the incredible theological poverty and medi ocrity of the "theologies of liberation"!). As for dogmas, we consider them unworthy of in terest because, at bottom, they are nothing more than opinion. A diversity of opinion seems entirely accept able, and this "tolerance by default" is as much evident in the theological sphere or among ministers of the churches as it is among the faithfu1. 5
Evangelicals in celebratory fashion, and in growing numbers, are embracing a distinctively non -doctri nal mentality when it comes to understanding their faith. 6 David F. Wells, who I think is the most per ceptive thinker in evangelical circles today, points out that what is actually shaping this mentality are the forces of modernity.7 What is modernity and how does it affect us? Modernity is a somewhat slippery term, but, generally speaking, it refers to the modern condition with its relentless pressure
for human homogeneity as exerted by the success of Western technology and communication. 8 «Mo dernity:' writes Wells, presents an interlocking system of values that has in
vaded and settled within the psyche of every person.
Modernity is simply unprecedented in its values. It is,
to put it in biblical terms, the worldliness of Our Time.
For worldliness is that system of values and beliefs, be
haviors and expectations, in any given culture that have
at their center the fallen human being and that relegate
to their periphery any thought about God. Worldliness
is what makes sin look normal in any age and righteous
ness seem odd. Modernity is worldliness, and it has
concealed its values so adroitly in the abundance, the
comfort, and the wizardry of our age that even those
who call themselves the people of God seldom recog
nize them for what they are. 9
The tragedy coalescing within the ranks of pro fessing evangelicals is traceable to the gullible and blatantly naive assumption that culture is value neutral and therefore harmless. Evangelicals who operate with this mentality fail to recognize that Christians are not immune to the powerful under currents of modernity that course through our culture and society. The Apostle Paul's admonition not to be conformed to the pattern of this world but to be transformed by the renewing of the mind (Rom. 12:2) constitutes the great imperative for the evangelical world. Detecting the sinister but subtle ways that modernity (worldliness) seeks to mold our thinking is not always easy or painless. Marvin Olasky has recently written about the infectious na ture of neutralism in our society (especially within the ranks of political liberalism) . What is neutral ism? It is the notion that since all things are equal we should suspend judgment and become tolerant and even accepting of other peoples' opinions and life styles. 10 D. A. Carson, in his recent book, The
Gagging of God: Christianity Confronts Pluralism (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), refers to this un der the rubric of Philosophical Pluralism (pp. 22-37). Of course, there is a limit to this kind of toleration. People who are outspoken in their op position to neutralism are oorgeted as extremists and are portrayed as posing a serious threat to the well being of soci~fy. Most Christians recognize this political correctness for what it is. They are made to feel ostracized from the rest of society because of their opposition to such things as abortion and ho mosexuality. But they fail to recognize that this same mentality likewise exists within ranks of pro fessing evangelicals. How so? Listen to the words of John MacArthur: «In the world of modern SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1996
17
evangelicalism it is allowable to advocate the most unconventional, unbiblical doctrine-as long as you afford everyone else the same privilege. About the only thing that is taboo nowadays is the intolerance of those who dare to point out others' error. Anyone today who is bold enough to suggest that someone else's ideas or doctrines are unsound or unbiblical is dismissed at once as contentious, divisive, unlov ing, or unchristian. It is all right to espouse any view you wish, but it is not all right to criticize another person's views-no matter how patently unbiblical those views may be." I I MacArthur should not be dismissed as some sort of wild-eyed theological chicken -little. He is no alarmist, and there is ample C L AS S / C
QUO T E S
Oration$Against The Arians It is clear enough that all the heresies and false doctrines that were ever heard of have only been insane inventions, and their impeity has been long ago made manifest to evexyone. ,: W11at st. John has writtelloftheir autbors is certainly true, that "they went out from us,'( for their doctrine never was, n~ither , is~with us (lJohn 2:19) ... The last false doctrine which has 'lately arisen, as aforerun ner of Antichrist, i~ that which is called the Arian heresy, and a subtle and hateful thing this is; for, as she finds .her elder sisters marked and branded, she adopts the plan of her father the devil, and by hidiI)g her blasphemies under Scriptural ' phrases, she employs all her powers to force an entrance into the' Paradise of the Chl1rch. By taking upon herself outward appearance of Christianity she would deceive people . .jnto impious opinions concerning· the Blessed Lord, by plausible and specious arguments. And some foolish people have been corruptedalready, and?1ike Eve, having been first prevailed uponioJisten, they have proceeded fu!ther,. , ' to touch and taste, and are now so utterly,)ncapabl~of " discernment as to call a bitter thing sweet (Is. 5:20), and a dete'stableheresy the trueI:aith. And sql have the duty imposed upon me, of plucking out, so to spea~, the bosom of this horrible heresy, and ofmanifest ing its abominable character to all the woHd, that those who so far have escaped it, may be free from its snares; and that those . who. have been imposed upon may be brought to abetter mind; that they may recover the sight of their understanding, and be truly convinced, tpat as certai1l1y as darkness is not light, nor falsehood truth, so neither is the Arian heresy the orthodox belief. To speak plainly, they miserably go astray who call the Arians Christians; they only show;'how they neither know tbe · Holy Scriptures, nor anything whatever about Christianity.
an '
Athaflasi«st (356-363 ADJ.
18
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1996
'
evidence to support his concerns. Note the similarities between this widespread mind-set among evangelicals and that of neutral ism. Tolerance is valued over truth-and must be extended to everyone, except those disagreeable and <-J critical exponents of truth who hold to absolutes, or, to put it into theological language, those who seek to maintain historical orthodoxy. Despite the fact that neutralism accents diversity, it does so in name only. Conformity is actually what drives it. The standard around which neutralism seeks conformity is hu man autonomy pure and simple. 12 Surprisingly, this desire for conformity has a noticeable parallel in Christian circles-the demand for visible unity. To those whose only concern is the appearance ofvisible unity among all who call themselves Chris tians, polemic theology is utterly distasteful. We are repeatedly told by those of this persuasion that the church's major fault is its deplorable lack of visible unity. Appeal is constantly made to the words of Jesus in John 17, and those who do not join this effort are portrayed as being in serious disagree ment with Jesus! This, they claim , is our greatest sin-and what is chiefly to be blamed for this hei nous state of affairs? Doctrine-or to be more precise-doctrinal distinctives. 13 But is this notion of visible unity what Jesus intended in his high priestly prayer in John 17? Out Lord's concern, as .~ Robert Lewis Dabney pointed out last century, is for spiritual unity. The demand for visible unity is not only quite foreign to the text, it constitutes, in the words of Dabney, an enormous blunder. It is, in fact, an idol that is used to stifle any legitimate dis sent, and, let me add, it is posit i\ ely deadly to the health and welfare of the church. l ~ I am reminded of the remark of Francis Bacon, the noted English philosopher and statesman of a bygone era. "Unity that is formed on expedience is, in reality, grounded upon an implicit ignorance. As everyone knows, all colors will look the same in the dark." W. G. T. Shedd, one of the great Presbyterian theologians of the last century, in a volume of essays that was de signed to defend the historical faith and to attack the contrary (the technical meaning of polemic) wrote an essay titled "Denominational Unity Unde sirable." He noted that the evangelicalism of his day was composed of those whose creed was either Cal vinistic or Arminian . The various evangelical denominations, therefore, though some of them do not adopt everything in Calvinism, and others not everything in Arminianism, are yet fairly enough ranged under these two types of theology. Shedd points out that it would be foolish and harmful to
modern REFORMATION
expect the two to come into any meaningful organic and ecclesiastical union. However, the moral and spiritual union, which is grounded in a common trust in the Divine Redeemer and his atoning blood, is both possible and actual. But, please, pleaded Shedd, don't seek to obliterate doctrinal distinctives in order to establish visible unity. 15 Shedd was writing about evangelicals maintain ing their denominational distinctives. I don't think the thought even entered his mind that evangelicals and Roman Catholics should seek to form a coali tion around a few summary points of doctrine, especially one that made no mention whatsoever of the doctrine of justification by faith alone. What would have been unthinkable in Shedd's day has actually happened. The document, Evangelicals and Catholics Together: The Christian Mission in the Third Millennium (BCT) has sent shock waves throughout the evangelical community. The docu ment carried the signatures of a number of highly respected evangelicals , including Bill Bright, Pat Robertson, Mark Noll, Os Guinness, Chuck Colson and J. 1. Packer. Packer produced an article for Christianity To day titled, "Why I Signed It;' 16 and Chuck Colson wrote an article for the same periodical, "Why Catholics Are Our Allies."!7 Colson's defense of ECT is most distressing. He writes, "In becoming Christians, we all embrace a body of central truths, such as Creation, the Fall, substitutionary atone ment and the infallibility of Scripture. But once inside the house [of faith], we find our fellowship within particular traditions." Colson uses the illus tration of a large castle with many rooms, each room representing a particular theological tradition. Once we step out into the hallway, we see that the castle (read here the church) has many rooms (other theological traditions) which are all part of the castle. Given this perspective, Colson is saying that the doctrine of justification by faith alone turns out to be an item of one particular tradition which other legitimate theological traditions , such as Roman Catholicism, can reject and still be considered Christian. 18 Chuck Colson is not only an affable man, he is a sincere and dedicated Christian. He is also in a position to exercise tremendous influence in the evangelical world. I mean him no disrespect, but he is gravely mistaken, and it is the task of polemical theology to engage such well-meaning people in an open and direct way and declare that the truth of the gospel is more important than anything else. People may take offense. There may be a schism, but it is
the task of polemical theology to protect the truth at all costs. ~ Notes 1. Robert D. Preus , The Theology of Post-Reformation Lutheranism: A Study of Theological Prolegomena I (Saint Louis : Concordia, 1970) , p. 33. Preus provides us with some cautionary words on how polemical theology is to be conducted . 2. Cf. George Lawton, Within the Rock of Ages: The Life and Work of Augustus Montague Toplady (Cambridge : James Clarke & Co ., 1983) . This is an excellent piece of historical research on the controversy between Wesley and Toplady . 3 . J. I. Packer, "Calvin the Theologian, " John Calvin : A Collection of Distin guished Essays, ed . G. E. Duffield (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans , 1966) , p . 154. 4 . Selected Shorter Writings of Benjamin B. Warfield /I , ed . John E. Meete r (Nutley: Presbyterian and Reformed , 1973) , p. 216. In the Reflections : classic and contemporary excerpts sess ion of Christianity Today (June 17, 1996) the nineteenth-centu ry Scottish preacher Ale xander Whyte was quoted to re enforce this mentality. "Eschew controversy , my brethren, as you would eschew the entrance to hell itself! Let them have it their own way . Let them talk, let them write , let them correct you, let them traduce you . Let them judge and condemn you , let them slay you . Rather let the truth of God itself suffer than that love suffer. You have not enough of the Divine nature in you to be a controver si alist. " The Apostle Paul , thankfully , did not share this perspective. 5. Jacques Ellul , "Theological Pluralism and the Unity of the Spirit," Church, Word, & Spirit: Historical and Theological Essays in Honor of Geoffrey A. Bromiley, ed . J . E. Bradley and R. A . Muller (Grand Rapids : Eerdmans , 1987), p . 216. 6. I have sought to analyze this indifference in my chapter "Does Theology Still Matter?" ed . John H . Armstrong , in The Coming Evangelical Crisis (Chi cago : Moody, 1996), pp. 57-73 . 7 . David F. Wells, No Place for Truth or Whatever Happened to Evangelical Theology? (Grand Rapids : Eerdmans, 1993) , p. 135. 8 . This is how Colin E. Gunton defines the term in his The One, the Three and the Many: God, Creation and the Culture of Modernity (Cambridge : Cambridge University Press , 1993) , p. 39 . 9 . David F. Wells, God in the Wasteland: The Reality of Truth in a World of Fading Dreams (Grand Rap ids : Eerdmans , 1994), p . 29 . 10. Marvin Olasky, "Remarkable Providences: Where have you gone?" Wo rld (May 11/18, 1996, Vol. 11, No . 7), p. 30 . 11. John F. MacArthur, Jr., Reckless Faith : When the Church Loses Its Will to Discern (Wheaton : Crossway , 1994), p . 22 . 12 . William A. Donohue has captured the essence of th is pervasive perspec tive in his book The New Freedom: Individualism and Collectivism in the Social Lives of Americans (New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers , 1990). He has put his finger on the pulse of neutralism when he writes," The pro-choice movement is as emblematic of the new freedom as any contemporary social current. It definitively represents the quest for autonomy, perfectly expresses the belief in rights without responsibilities, and vividly illustrates the meaning of moral neutrality" (p . 61). 13 . The burgeoning men's movement known as Promise Keepers has openly declared war on what it sees as one of the great dangers facing the church in the twentieth century : denominationalism. One of the promises a Promise Keeper makes is to actively seek to break down denominational barriers in order to demonstrate visible unity (p romise No . 6) . These denominational barriers turn out to be doctrinal distinctives-and not secondary ones , but major theo logical differences that separate Protestants from Roman Catholics. The Promise Keepers are decidedly anti-creedal. Everything revolves around the vague notion of "loving Jesus" and "being born of the Spirit. " But what does all of th is mean? Cannot Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses claim affinity on these two points? Did the Galatian Judaizers "love Jesus"? If so , then why did the Apostle Paul thunder in apostolic anathema against them? If all that matters is some subjective , considered notion of how one feels about Jesus and the Spirit, who are we to question the sincerity of such groups? Promise Keepers are striving for ecclesiastical unity based on such things as common experiences or group dynamics rather than a common theological confession . Cf . Steve Rabey, "Where Is the Christians Men's Movement Headed?" Christianity Today, April 29, 1996 , p. 46ff . 14 . Discussions of Robert Lewis Dabney /I (rpt. Carlisle: Banner of Truth Trust, 1982), p. 218. 15 . William G. T . Shedd , Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy (rpt. Minneapolis : Klock & Klock , 1981), pp . 247-253 . 16 . Christianity Today, Dec . 12 , 1994, pp . 36-37 . For an extended treatment of the issues surrounding ECT, see R. C. Sproul, Faith Alone : The Evangelical Doctrine of Justification (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995). Sproul addresses Packer's article in some detail (pp. 183-192). 17 . Christianity Today, Nov . 14 , 1994, p. 136. 18 . Roman Catholicism does not mereli' reject the Reformation 's understand ing of sola fide, she pronounces it anathema ; cf. "Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent: l;p.tin text with English translation " in The Creeds of Christendom /I, ed . PtUlip Schaff (rpt. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1983), pp. 77-206. I wonder how charisma~ ics like Pat Robertson, Paul Crouch, and Jack Hayford , who have warmly embraced the Roman Catholic -Charismatic renewal , would react if the Council of Trent had pronounced an anathema on tongues speaking . Ri chard John Neuhaus has recently attempted to salvage (and defend) the role Trent played in the ongoing debate by contending that the whole thing is simply traceable to a misunderstanding . His argument is forced and disingenuous and very unconvincing . See his article "The Catholic Difference" in Evangelicals & Catholics Together: Toward a Common Mission, eds . Charles Colson and Richard John Neuhaus (Dallas : Word , 1995) . Gary L. W . Johnson is senior pasto r of the Church of the Redeemer in Mesa, AZ . He holds a Th .M. and Ph.D. from Westminster Theological Seminary in Phila delphia, PA .
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1996
19
A SENTIMENTAL JOURNEY Was That
Dogma? BY SHANE ROSENTHAL
A
few years ago, contemporary Christian music art ist, Leslie Phillips, left evangelical Christianity and became a secular singer/songwriter (now Sam Phillips). In her 1994 CD, Martinis & Bikinis, Philli ps included a song entitled "I Need Love:' in which she exclaims, "I need love, not some sentimental prison." That's an interesting line-a line which probably had something to do with her uneasiness in the evangeli cal subculture. In a report for National Public Radio, Lynn Neary spoke of those "sugary sweet ballads;' refer ring to contemporary Christian music. Perhaps this is the sort of thing that Phillips grew tired of. But is contemporary Christian music the only as pect of the evangelical subculture which could be described as overly sentimental or "sugary sweet?" Hardly. Just take a trip to the average Christian book store. One is more likely to find Precious Moments figurines and bumper stickers with the words "I (heart) Jesus" rather than books on important theo logical topics or debates. And yet, why is it that you don't find a good selection of theological books (that is to say, books about God) at these stores? One Chris tian bookstore chain in my area may have given us a hint. They used to be known as (let's call them "X") "X Christian Book Stores"; but now they are called "X Christian Stores ." They simply took the word "book" out of their name! It is possible that they did this merely to be honest (it is most likely the case that they are selling more Christian products-shirts, greeting cards, paintings, figurines, CD's, tapes, pencils; games, etc.-than they are books) . My personal theory, however, is that they perceived the word "book" to be a turn off.
How Did We Get Here? This is nothing new. There has been a long standing impulse in this country to do away with the intellec tual in favor of the emotional, the theological in favor 20
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1996
of the experiential-an impetus which has sought to soften the hard edges of religion. Ralph Waldo Emerson was an early proponent of this approach: "We say, the old forms of religion decay... I don't think it can be cured or stayed by any modification of theo logical creeds, much less by theological discipline . The cure of false theology is mother-wit." Thus, Emerson concluded: "Forget your books and tradi tions, and obey your moral perceptions at this hour. That which is signified by the words 'moral' and 'spiri tual,' is a lasting essence ...." 1 It is interesting to read , men such as Emerson given our own cultural context. 'v.?-..:: You begin to realize that the contemporary evangeli cal church is heading in an Emersonian-which is to say, a Unitarian-direction. The evangelical book store I referred to above, for example, seemed to be following Emerson's advice about forgetting "books and traditions;'while emphasizing the moral and spiri tual side of religion (albeit, a commercialized one). Ann Douglas has done some important work tracing the demise of \\ hat she calls our Puritan fore fathers"'rigorous Calvinist theology" in her book The Feminization of American Culture. Quoting religious thinker Henry Jam es, Douglas reminds us that by the nineteenth centuf) , "religion in the old virile sense had disappeared , and been replaced by a feeble Uni tarian sentimentality." "Moreover;' she continues, "he suggests that Unitarianism is not itself a religion, but rather a kind of cultural substitute for religion ... he is saying that religion has been emasculated." 2 It is not hard to see how this has played itself out in the liberal denominations, however, the same tendency has gone largely unchecked in evangelical circles. Consider, for example, the following observations made by Douglas: The everyday Protestant of 1800 subscribed to a rather complicated and rigidly defined body of dogma; atten
modern REFORMATION
dance at a certain church had a markedly theological function. By 1875, American Protestants were much more likely to define their faith in terms of family mor als, civic responsibility, and above all, in terms of the social function of churchgoing. Their actual creed was usually a liberal, even a sentimental one for which Edwards and his contemporaries would have felt scorn and horror. In an analogous way, Protestant churches over the same period shifted their emphasis from a pri mary concern with the doctrinal beliefs of their members to a preoccupation with numbers. In ecclesi astical and religious circles, attendance came to count for more than genuine adherence. Nothing could show better the late nineteenth-century Protestant Church's altered identity as an eager participant in the emerging consumer society than its obsession with popularity and its increasing disregard of intellectual issues. 3
Could a paragraph better describe what is going on in evangelicalism today? For example, we cer tainly don't go to church for theological reasons but, more often than not, pick and choose our places of worship based upon individual "felt needs." We are preoccupied with numbers to the extent that we have created a church growth movement which has fig ured everything out about organizing a church for the maximum number of attendants (one consultant even refers to them as consumers) down to the layout of the parking lot. Of course, the church growth gurus do not go into much detail about discipleship, choosing to focus primarily on the issue of church attendance for the simple reason that"genuine adher ence" is hard to quantify. Those spoken of who began to "define their faith in terms of family morals [and] civic responsibility" seem to be alive and well in this country champion ing a "return to traditional family values" -this in an age when the average Christian can't even name the Ten Commandments (as our own surveys have shown). And what could be a better example of reli gious consumerism and the "obsession with popularity and its increasing disregard of intellec tual issues" than the average Christian bookstore? While singer Don Henley seems to lament the fact that"There are no facts, there is no truth ...just people selling T -shirts;'4 we seem content with the fact that Christian bookstores have reduced space for books in favor of a Christian apparel section featuring"Wit ness Wear." Rather than training our youth to "always be prepared to give an answer" (1 Pet. 3: 15)-which implies the study of truth and facts-we are peddling Christian T-shirts mimicking popular TV commer cials (the most banal shirt I've seen lately is a take-off ofthe Bud-Light ad campaign:"He Loves You Man"). Some of you might think I'm being too hard on the average Christian bookstore-thinking to your
selves that they still have a number of good Christian books. While it is true that there are still a good number of books available at many of these stores, I do want to raise the question about the kind or qual ity of these books. Referring to the nineteenth century, Douglas tells us that the average person "was likely to show a love of fiction and poetry and a dis taste for polemical theology; he preferred 'light' to 'heavy' reading."s Unfortunately, many Christian bookstore owners know this to be a reality in our own day, and they stock their shelves accordingly. Just think for a moment about the number of Christian biographies, books of Christian fiction, books by Christian celebrities, and other books that could best be described as "light;' that outnumber the "heavy" books of the kind to which Douglas refers. In my search for these types of books, I am usually forced to visit second-hand book shops, looking for authors who, by and large, were not alive this century.
Sweet Jesus It is interesting to consider what this softening pro cess has done to the average person's perception of Jesus. Before I became a Christian I remember think ing that Jesus was a pious and rather effeminate man, drawing this conclusion largely from the portraits of Jesus you typically see. 6 I also remember hearing one of my cousins complain about how much he hated church because it was so boring. But what a contrast this is to the personality of the one that is presented in the pages of the New Testament. As Dorothy Sayers masterfully argues, The people who hanged Christ never, to do them jus
tice, accused him of being a bore-on the contrary,
they though t him too dynamic to be safe. It has been left
for later generations to muffle up that shattering per
sonality and surround him with an atmosphere of
tedium. We have very efficiently pared the claws of the
Lion ofJudah, certified him "meek and mild," and rec
ommended him as a fitting household pet for pale
curates and pious old ladies.?
Sayers, who was a popular fiction writer and a com mitted Anglican, wrote those words in 1949, referring to the increasing liberalism of the Church of England. Her conviction was that the church had been per ceived as duli,~hot because of too much theology, but because of its absence ; "It is the dogma that is the drama" Sayers writes, "-not beautiful phrases, nor comforting sentiments, nor vague aspirations to lov ing kindness and uplift, nor the promise of something nice after death-but the terrifying assertion that the same God who made the world, lived in the world and passed through the grave and gate of death." 8
SEPTEMBER/O CTOBER 1996
21
-e too have pared the claws of the Lion of Judah. -=:-::e Jesus we proclaim loves everybody, and wouldn't offend a fly. But the Jesus described on the pages of the New Testament is an entirely different person. On one occasion this radical teacher happened to offend some religious leaders by disagreeing with them over the nature of sin. "Listen and understand. What goes into a man's mouth does not make him unclean, but what comes out of his mouth, that is what makes him 'unclean'" (Matt. 5:10-11). In other words, we sin, not b~cause of outside influences, but because of the corruption already within our hearts-we sin because we're sinners. But of course his disciples heard the grumbling, as is so often the case, and came to him saying, "Do you know that the Pharisees were of fended when they heard this?" He replied, "Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be pulled up by the roots. Leave them; they are blind guides" (5:12-14). On another occasion Jesus was "aware that his disciples were grumbling" and said to them, "Does this offend you?" (John 6:61), and pro ceeded to continue discoursing on difficult theological issues such as total inability and the radi cal nature of grace. And, as the text clearly shows, from that time "many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him. 'You do not want to leave too, do you?' Jesus asked the Twelve. Simon Peter an swered him, 'Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. We believe and know that you are the Holy One of God'" (6:67-69).
CL ASS, I C
QUO T E S
GQdln The Wasteland -At the very rnomentwhenthe modern world is mangling those whom it blesses, disordering their inner lives even ,as it smothers them in plenty, and rubbing itsownherves' raw in its bumbling efforts to address its mostpainful and destructive problems~at this very moment, evangelicalism has bought cultural , acceptability by emptying ·itselfof serious thought, serious theology, serious worship, and serious prac tice in the larger culture. " And most evangelicals appear to be completely oblivious to this sellout. '.. .If the spirit of Puritanism was best represented graphically by a preacher in an elevated pulpit, the arm raised in vigoro'us punctuation of the truth of · God, Jhatof modern evangelicalism is probably best, represented today by the' ubiquitous happy face, a bright smile beckoning smiles i~ return. D(1vid Wells, 1995, p. 26-28.
22
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER
1996
In our day the last thing one is supposed to do is "offend" someone over theology. But Jesus showed that he wasn't all that concerned with the offense taken by the Pharisees, because, as he says, "they are blind guides." Now, if we were to adjust one of these scenes from the Scriptures for a contemporary audience, it would read something like this: '''Jesus, did you know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this?' He replied, 'Gee, I sure didn't mean to do that. Hey guys! I love you! Won't you invite me into your heart and make me Lord of your life?'" It sounds pretty silly, but that is the impression many people have of Jesus because of our preaching. They think that religion is fit, as Sayers so eloquently put it, merely for "pious old ladies." The Jesus we preach is so kind, gentle and loving, it is a wonder that he was ever crucified. The other thing Sayers points out that is essential for us to consider is the fact that we have forgotten that the "dogma is the drama." In her day, as well as ours, it was thought that true spiritual life flowed from experience divorced from theology. '''Take away the ology and give us some nice religion' has been a popular slogan for so long that we are likely to accept it, without inquiring whether religion without theol ogy has any meaning."9 Any religion can have beautiful phrases, uplifting messages, and comfort- ~ ing sentiment. But Christianity is a religion based not , on religious aspirations, but upon "good news." To '0-'~ say that a religion is based upon good news is to say that it is based upon facts, history, and truth-all of which require understanding. As Sayers writes, "When Christ told the Samaritan woman, 'Ye worship what ye know not' he was apparently under the im pression that it might be desirable, on the whole, to know what one was worshipping ."lo Our day suffers from this plague as well. Not only do we not empha size theology and doctrine, but we want happy "worship experiences" and that "tingling sensation" to run down our spines-as if that is what Christian ity is all about. Again Sayers is helpful:
J
[Jesus] showed himselfsadly out oftouch with the twen tieth-centurymind, forthe cry today is: "Away with the tedious complexities of dogma-let us have the simple spirit oL,worship; just worship , no matter ofwhat! » The only drawback to this demand for a generalized and undirected worship is the practical difficulty of arous ing any sort of enthusiasm for the worship of nothing in particular. II
Whereas Paul admonished the Colossians to "Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly... as you sing psalms, hymns and spiritual songs" (Col. 3: 16), today we sing light and airy tunes such as, "In moments like thes~, I lift up my hands, I sing out a love song to Jesus." I
modern REFORMATION
went to one of these non-denominational churches for a couple of years and didn't know, or learn, much theology (i.e., who Christ was or what he had done on my behalf); but as awkward as it may seem, I was certainly encouraged to sing "love songs" to Jesus. That was sentimentalism. The liberal churches in this country have found out the hard way where this road leads. It is hard to get people "enthusiastic about nothing in particular." Some may come for the music, others for the feeling of community, and still others for the various pro grams offered; but after a while, people will slowly stop coming on Sunday mornings. In our evangelical community, it might even be easier to stop coming to church. For one thing, our "megachurches" make it really easy to slip in and out without anyone ever noticing. Secondly, we have hundreds of worship tapes and CD's for people to purchase so they can enjoy the music in the comfort of their own homes. Why come to church for a buzz when you can have a worship experience while doing the dishes?
Christianity & Liberalism J. Gresham Machen's magnum opus, Christianity & Liberalism (1923), is a book that everyone concerned about the present crisis should read. At first one might not find the title of his book all that striking, but in its day it had a little more punch. You see, Machen was trying to show that Christianity and liberalism were two separate plans of salvation, two separate faiths in short, two entirely different religious systems. In his day, it was thought that liberalism was a fresh new approach to Christianity, a way of practicing the faith in the modern context. In Machen's thinking, how ever, when referring to Christianity, one was "certainly not [referring to] the religion of the modern liberal Church." This he believed because liberalism had "relinquished everything distinctive of Christianity, so that what remains is in essentials only that same indefinite type of religious aspiration which was in the world before Christianity came upon the scene." 12 Machen set out therefore to bring all the issues out into the open and make clear-cut distinctions be tween the two faiths: "What that message is can be made clear, as is the case with all definition, only by way of exclusion, by way of contrast." 13 But this ap proach wasn't always well received: Presenting an issue sharply is indeed by no means a popular business at the present time .... Clear-cut defi nition of terms in religious matters, bold facing of the logical implications of religious views, is by many per sons regarded as an impious proceeding ... Butwith such persons we cannot possibly bring ourselves to agree. Light may seem at times to be an impertinent intruder,
but it is always beneficial in the end. The type of reli
gion which rejoices in the pious sound of traditional
phrases, regardless of their meanings, or shrinks from
"controversial" matters, will never stand amid the
shocks oflife. In the sphere ofreligion, as in other spheres,
the things about which men are agreed are apt to be the
things that are least worth holding; the really important
things are the things about which men will fight. 14
In our day too , we hear Christians talk about avoiding controversy and doctrinal debates in order to simply "serve the Lord in unity." But doesn't that beg the question? Don't we first have to demonstrate what it means to "serve the Lord" before we can do it in unity? Liberalism, for example, had shown itself to be an enemy of the Cross by rejecting the entire theological substance of the New Testament in favor of an experi ential religion. "Many men;' Machen warns, "... are telling us that we should not seek to know [God] at all; theology, we are told, is the death of religion. We do not know God, then -such seems to be the logical implication of this view-but simply feel Him. In its consistent form such a view is mysticism."1 5 His argu ment was that liberalism had not simply rejected theology outright, but rather had traded one theol ogy for another: the theology of the Cross for mysticism. Developing this point further he writes, We ought never, therefore, to set present communion
with Christ, as so many are doing, in opposition to the
gospel; we ought never to say that we are interested in
what Christ does for us now, but are not so much inter
ested in what He did long ago. Do you know what soon
happens when men talk in that way? The answer is only
too plain. They soon lose all contact with the real
Christ; what they call "Christ" in the soul soon comes to
have little to do with the actual person, Jesus of
Nazareth; their religion would really remain essentially
the same if scientific history should prove that such a
person as Jesus never lived. In other words, they soon
came to substitute the imaginings of their own hearts
for what God has revealed; they substitute mysticism
for Christianity as the religion of their souls. 16
But this is not unfamiliar to us in our present context. Even U S. News & World Report felt compelled to report that many of the growing churches in this country are "going light OR theology and offering wor shipers a steapy diet of sermons and support groups that emphaske personal fulfillment."I? In other words, they ar~ giving up the worship of God for the worship of themselves.
Christianity & History Machen's comments above also show us the extent to which the modern liberal church was anti -historical. It was much more important to have "Jesus in your SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1996
23
Et~'A s :sJa :'r: !i)u'))'r'E S
doned altogether unless at a definite point in history Jesus died as a propitiation for the sins of men. Chris tianity is certainly dependent upon history.19
If the mini;t;; comes to be thought of as merely the head of a social organiZation from whom may be demand~d pleasant man nersand executive ability; or as little more .thgtXl a zealous 'pro moter' who knows how to seek out and atta~hto his enterprise a multitude of men; or as,merely an;~ntertail1ing lecturer who canbe counted upon to chann away: an hour or two of dull Sabbaths;>Qr even...as merely an enthusiastic Christian eager to do workJor Christ. If aminister'swhole ilJl1Gtion is summed up in these or such things-we might wen dos~>, our theological seminaries, with draw ourcan~jd~tes from the colleges and schools, and seek recruits for th.~ ministry among the capable young fellows about towl1... For a hundred years now, our Unitarian friends have been urging UPQJ1 .us this secularized c?pceptJon' of the ministerial functions and of the lJlinister'strqining.;;Extremes meet. ,Pietist and Rationalist have ever hunted in couples and dragged down their ' quarry together. They may differ as to why they deem theology mere lumber, and would not have the prospective minister waste . his time in acquiriJ;lgi.t.1;,b~.;9nel()ves God so much, the otherl()ve§ him so little,thathedo~s' n8tpare to know him. ," B. B. Warfi(!ld~$elected Sh~tter Writings
A salvation dependent upon history? If this is so, ~ one might ask the question Machen himself antici pates: "Must we really wait until historians have finished disputing about the value of sources and the like before we can have peace with God?" But with regard to this objection it must be acknowledged that a Christianity independent of history is a contradic tion in terms. "The Christian gospel means, not a presentation of what always has been true, but a report of something new-something that imparts a totally different aspect to the situation of mankind."20 In other words, Christianity is indeed intricately linked to the debate over the "musty records" of history. Even the apostle Paul admits, "If Christ is not risen, your faith is in vain" (1 Cor. 15:17).
T~f;~rPgl~;ilfA .~eminary
as
:;;,~
heart"than to focus on his death, burial and resurrection. Liberalism certainly had it reasons for this. For one thing, it had rejected the theology underlying these creedal affirmations. Secondly, it no longer held the opinion that such events were historical, but rather belonged to the realm of "faith." The imp ortant thing to focus on was not a "literal resurrection" but rather one's own "Easter experience." Machen's response is surprising, ''A Jewish teacher of the first century can never satisfy the longing of our souls." In other words, if Jesus did not really rise from the dead, he was simply a mere man, and therefore not worthy of our worship. He continues, "Clothe him with all the art of modern research, throw upon him the warm, deceptive calcium-light of modern sentimentality; and despite it all, common sense will come to its rights again, and for our brief hour of self-deception-as though we had been with Jesus-will wreak upon us the revenge of hopeless disillusionment."18 Regardless of liberalism's zeal, devotion, and attention to the details of Christian life, Machen saw directly through to the corrupt theology at the heart of the issue. One simply cannot have wonderful experiences with a dead Rabbi if he is still dead: It is the connection of the present experience of the believer with an actual historic appearance of Jesus in the world which prevents our religion from being mys
ticism and causes it to be Christianity. It must certainly be admitted, then, that Christianity does depend upon something that happened; our religion must be aban-
24
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER
1996
Christianity & Evangelicalism Anyone involved with the problems of evangelical Christianity cannot read Machen's work in a detached manner, for the parallels are all too evident. Though there are certainly notable differences between liber alism and evangelicalism, the same emphasis on the Christian life apart from Christian theology is present (although for somewhat different reasons). Take a ~ look for example at some of the catch phrases Machen uses to describe liberalism: a) "Are not our own efforts to put into operation the 'principles of Jesus,' or to 'make Christ Master' by our own efforts in our lives, better than this strange message of the Cross? :'21 b) "Some of us may desire to ask whether Jesus of Nazareth really made 'the more abundant life' the ulti mate end of existence:'22 c) "The [apostle's] testimony was primarily not to 'inner spiritual facts' but to what Jesus had done once for all in his death and resurrec tion;'23 d) "One of thevery greatest evils of present-day religious life, it seems to me, is the reception into the church of persons who merely repeat a form of words such as 'I accept Christ as my personal Savior,' without giving the slightest evidence to show that they know what such words mean."24 One may rightly conclude that Machen would not feel at home in many of to day's evangelical churches, where Christianity is a"relation ':k ship" rather than a religion, where Jesus is offered as a ' ~ cure for "loneliness" rather than for sin and guilt, 'where Christian life and experience are more impor tant than theology and doctrine, and where personal testimonies are valued over historical facts. If it is true that these and other parallels can be drawn between Machen's liberalism and contempo
rary evangelicalism, should we not point this out? As
I mentioned earlier in this article, the title of Machen's
'vl
modern REFORMATION
book Christianity & Liberalism was quite shocking in its day, about as shocking as if one were to claim that Christianity and evangelicalism were two totally separate religions. But is that a possibility? Is it possible that evangelical religion has "relinquished everything distinctive of Christianity:' so that which remains is merely a vague "religious aspiration which was in the world before Christianity came upon the scene"? 25 If it has~ then avoiding the present contro versy is nothing but sheer unfaithfulness.
When Wine Turns to Vinegar Essentially what I have been arguing is that the wine of God's kingdom has repeatedly turned into vinegar. The tendency in this country to reduce Christianity into sentimentalism has been long standing, and what we have in evangelicalism is an inoffensive, uninteresting, and sentimental gos pel. By not understanding the cultural forces which slowly begin to change the taste of our wine, we have failed to place effective seals on the wine caskets. We have failed to heed Paul's instruction to "guard the good deposit that was entrusted to you" (2 Tim. 1: 13), and to "watch your life and doctrine closely" (1 Tim. 4: 16). What we desperately need to do at the present time is to throw out the vinegar and press some ew wine. If we are to call ourselves Christians, we must go back to the Scriptures and rediscover who God is and what he has done for us in Christ. And we must certainly not be afraid of contro versy. As Machen suggests, we should "encourage those who are engaging in the intellectual and spiritual struggle;' and "more time;' not less, "should be devoted to the defense of the gospel."26 Contending for the faith in the midst of theologi cal controversy is simply an opportunity to reassert the historic Christian message in the face of opposition. By dealing with objections head on, and by facing the issues squarely, we are given an open invitation to evangelize the lost and to show the trustworthiness of the Christian claim. If the history of the church teaches us anything, it teaches us that Christianity is best served, not by theological pacifism, but by men and women of courage and conviction. In an interview on radio station KSCA in Los Angeles, Sam Phillips admitted, "I get suspicious of those really happy records, you know, those really happy words because there's something un derneath it all that's not so happy; I'm certain of .t." This former contemporary Christian singer apparently got tired of the vinegar. She went on to say, "I think the more depressing lyrics are more comforting because at least you feel like they're a
little more in touch with reality." That's the heart of the matter. People are ignoring our faith for the wrong reasons; Christ isn't the offense, we are. They think that Christianity is a crutch for senti mental people who aren't all that "in touch with reality." We must take a U-turn on this sentimen tal journey, and show the world a Christianity with edges, a Christianity with chutzpah, a rigorous Christianity that does not flinch or hide in the face of tough questions. It might be hard to swallow, and it might not be accepted by everyone, but at least it would be worth listening to-at least it would be worth believing. 27 In the words of Dor othy Sayers, Let us, in heaven's name, drag out the divine drama from under the dreadful accumulation of slipshod thinking and trashy sentiment heaped upon it, and set it on an open stage to startle the world into some sort ofvigorous reaction. If the pious are the first to be shocked, so much worse for the pious-others will pass into the kingdom of heaven before them. 28 ~
Notes 1. Ralph Waldo Emerson , Essays and English Traits, "Worship," (New York: P. F. Collier & Son, 1909) , p. 280-281. 2 . Ann Douglas, The Feminization of American Culture , (New York: Doubleday, 1977), p. 17 . 3. Ibid, p. 7 4. Don Henley, Actual Miles: Henley's Greatest Hits, "The Garden of Allah," (Geffen Records, 1995). 5. Douglas, p. 9-10 . 6 . Herman Melville has a similar observation in his classic book, Moby Dick, " ... whatever they may reveal of the divine love in the Son, the soft, curled hermaphroditical Italian pictures ... so destitute as they are of all brawniness, hint nothing of any power, but the mere negative, feminine one of submission and endurance .. ." (New York: Bantam Books, 1967 edition; originally written 1851 , p. 348 (look for the chapter heading "The Tail"). 7. Dorothy Sayers, The Whimsical Christian, "The Greatest Drama Ever Staged ," (New York: Collier Books, 1978) , p. 14. Sayers, The Whimsical Christian, "The Dogma Is The Drama ," p. 27-28. 8. 9 . Sayers , The Whimsical Christian, "Creed or Chaos," p. 36 . 10. Sayers , The Whimsical Christian, "The Dogma Is The Drama," p. 23. 11. Ibid. , p. 23. 12. J. Gresham Machen , Christianity & Liberalism, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans , 1923), p. 7. 13 . Ibid ., p. 15-16. 14 . Ibid ., p. 1-2 . 15. J. Gresham Machen , What Is Faith ?, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans , 1946), p.
74-75 .
16. Ibid ., p . 152.
17 Jeffery L. Sheler, U.S. News & World Report, "Spiritual America," April 4,
1994, p. 53.
18. Christianity & Liberalism, p. 41. 19. Ibid., p. 120-121 . 20 . Ibid . 21. WhatlsFaith?, p. 152 . 22. Ibid ., p . 39. 23. Christianity & Liberalism, p. 53. 24. What Is Faith?, p. 156. 25. Christianity & Liberalism, p. 7. 26. Ibid ., p. 173-174 . . 27. A good example of this is a comment by Harold Bloom in his book Thtj '.' American Religion (New York: ,!?im.9n &. Schuster , 1992, p . 228) regardil1g ;' Machen 's book Christianity & Liberalism: "I have just read my way through this, with distaste and~disco mfort hufwith reluctant and growing admiration for Machen's mind. ' have neV'ElJ seen a stronger case made for argument that institutio'nal Chri fty mu st regard cultural liberalism an enemy to faith" .,. 28. Sayers, p. 27.
t
Shane Rosenthal received his B. A. in Iibet1l\t~N I:lj~s Fullerton . He is currently the producer program , managing editor of mOGiernREFORMIATU)I'f n responsible for editing all CURE tape masters . Sh in Anaheim, CA .
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1996
25
TJhe Km]p)({J)Jrtance of
Chri§tian §ch({))iar§hip in
The De£emu~e of The Faith*
* This
Address was originally delivered in London on June 17, 1932.
here are, indeed, those who tell us that no de your Father which is in heaven give good things to fense of the faith is necessary. "The Bible needs them that ask him?" Is not that a well-known form of no defense;' they say; "let us not be forever de reasoning, which the logicians would put in its fending Christianity, but instead let us go forth proper category? Many of the parables of Jesus are joyously to propagate Christianity." But I have ob argumentative in character. Even our Lord, who served one curious fact - when men talk thus about spoke in the plenitude of divine authority, did con propagating Christianity without defending it, the descend to reason with men. Everywhere the New thing that they are propagating is pretty sure not to Testament meets objections fairly, and presents the be Christianity at all. They are propagating an anti gospel as a thoroughly reasonable thing. ~ intellectualistic, non -doctrinal Modernism; and the Some years ago I was in a company of students
reason why it requires no defense is simply that it is who were discussing methods of Christian work. An
so completely in accord with the current of the age. older man, who had had much experience in work
It causes no more disturbance than does a chip that ing among students, arose and said that according to
floats downward with a stream. In order to be an his experience you never win a man to Christ until
adherent of it, a man does not need to resist anything you stop arguing with him. When he said that, I was
at all; he needs only to drift, and automatically his not impressed.
Modernism will be of the most approved and popu It is perfectly true, of course, that argument lar kind. One thing need always be remembered in alone is quite insufficient to make a man a Christian. the Christian Church - true Christianity, now as You may argue with him from I].OW until the end of always, is radically contrary to the natural man, and the world; you may bring forth the most magnificent it cannot possibly be maintained without a constant arguments: but all will be in vain unless there be one struggle. A chip that floats downwards with the cur other thing - the mysterious, creative power of the rent is always at peace; but around every rock the Holy Spirit in the new birth. But because argument waters foam and rage. Show me a professing Chris is insufficient, it does not follow that it is unneces tian of whom all men speak well, and I will show you sary. Some~imes it is used directly by the Holy Spirit a man who is probably unfaithful to His Lord. .;. to bring a man to Christ. But more frequently it is Certainly a Christianity that avoids argument is ,'; used indirectly. A man hears an answer to objec not the Christianity of the New Testament. The New tions raised against the truth of the Christian Testament is full of argument in defense of the faith. religion; and at the time when he hears it he is not The Epistles of Paul are full of argument - no one impressed. But afterwards, perbaps many years af can doubt that. But even the words of Jesus are full of terwards, his heart at last is touched: he is convicted argument in defense of the truth of what Jesus was of sin; he desires to be saved. Yet without that half saying. "If ye then, being evil, know how to give forgotten argument he could not believe; the gospel good gifts unto your children, how much more shall would not seem to him to be true, and he would
T
26
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1996
modern REFORMATION
remain in his sin. As it is, however, the thought of what he has heard long ago comes into his mind: Christian apologetics at last has its day; the way is open, and when he will believe he can believe be cause he has been made to see that believing is not an offense against truth. Sometimes, when I have tried - very imper fectly, I confess - to present arguments in defense of the resurrection of our Lord or of the truth, at this point or that, of God's Word, someone has come up to me after the lecture and has said to me very kindly: "We liked it, and we are impressed with the considerations that you have adduced in defense of the faith; but, the trouble is, we all believed in the Bible already, and the persons that really needed the lecture are not here." When someone tells me that, I am not very greatly disturbed. True, I should have liked to have just as many sceptics as possible at my lecture; but if they are not there I do not necessarily think that my efforts are all in vain. What I am try ing to do by my apologetic lecture is not merely perhaps not even primarily - to convince people who are opposed to the Christian religion. Rather am I trying to give to Christian people - Christian parents or Sunday School teachers - materials that they can use, not in dealing with avowed sceptics, whose backs are up against Christianity, but in deal ing with their own children or with the pupils in their classes, who love them, and long to be Chris tians as they are, but are troubled by the hostile voices on every side. It is but a narrow view of Christian apologetics that regards the defense of the faith as being useful only in the immediate winning of those who are arguing vigorously on the other side. Rather it is useful most of all in producing an intellectual atmo sphere in which the acceptance of the gospel will seem to be something other than an offense against truth. Charles Spurgeon and D. L. Moody, in the latter years of the nineteenth century, were facing a situation entirely different from that which faces the evangelists of today. They were facing a world in which many people in their youth had been imbued with Christian convictions, and in which public opinion, to a very considerable extent, was in favor of the Christian faith. Today, on the other hand, public opinion even in England and America, is predominantly opposed to the Christian faith, and the people from their youth are imbued with the otion that Christian convictions are antiquated and absurd. Never was there a stronger call of God than there is today for a vigorous and scholarly de fense of the faith.
I believe that the more thoughtful of the evan gelists are coming to recognize that fact. There was a time, twenty-five or thirty years ago, when the evangelists regarded the work of Christian apolo.-: gists as either impious or a waste of time. Here are souls to be saved, they said; and professors in theo logical seminaries insist on confusing their students' minds with a lot of German names, in stead of preaching the simple gospel of Christ. But today a different temper often prevails. Evangelists, if they be real evangelists, real proclaimers of the unpopular message that the Bible contains, are com ing more and more to see that they cannot do without those despised theological professors after all. It is useless to proclaim a gospel that people cannot hold to be true: no amount of emotional appeal can do anything against the truth. The ques tion of fact cannot permanently be evaded. Did Christ or did He not rise from the dead; is the Bible trustworthy or is it false? In other words, the twelfth chapter of! Corinthians is coming again to its rights. We are coming to understand how many-sided is the work of Christ; the eye is ceasing to "say to the hand, 'I have no need of thee.'" Certainly one thing is clear if Christian apologetics suffers, injury will come to every member of the body of Christ. But if we are to have Christian apologetics, if we are to have a defense of the faith, what kind of de fense of the faith should it be? In the first place, it should be directed not only against the opponents outside the Church but also against the opponents within. The opponents of Holy Scripture do not become less dangerous, but they become far more dangerous, when they are within ecclesiastical walls. At that point, I am well aware that widespread objection arises at the present time. Let us above all, men say, have no controversy in the Church; let us forget our small theological differences and all re peat together Paul's hymn to Christian love. As I listen to such pleas, my Christian friends, I think I can detect in them rather plainly the voice of Satan. That voice is heard, sometimes, on the lips of good and truly Christian men~ as at Caesarea Philippi it was heard 01\ the lips of the greatest of the Twelve. But Satan's vdice it is, all the same. Sometime's it comes to us in rather deceptive ways. I remember, for example, what was said in my hearing on one occasion, by a man who is generally regarded as one of the leaders of the evangelical Christian Church. It was said at the climax of a day of devotional services. "If you go heresy-hunting for the sin in your own wicked hearts;' said the
SEPTEMBERJOCTOBER 1996
27
Machen's Nemesis , ':'\~'
When J Gresham Machen wrote of liberalism he qf:tliepossibly had Harry Emerson
Fosdick in mind. Here is a sampling of this liberal apologist 's approach to Chrl~ tianity:
rRis
Ritualism is one of the greatest dangers. also is the danger of .' creedalism. Believe this set of theological propOSitions, the dogmatists say, . and you will be a Christian. That is too easy. TO~ubstitute mere acceptance of a formal creed for the daring faith in God and man which led Christ to the cross is to put rubble in the place of mqrble... ,', : Many people find \t difficult to believ.e in Christianity. ::They picture Christianity as a creed, concerning which they have to decide whether or not it is credible...Surely, there is a radical mistakesomewhere in this picture of what Christianity is all about. Let us at the start put the cas~bIuntly. Christianityis primarily something to be done. 1fis not first of all afinished set of propositions and doctrines to be accepted; it lsfjrst of all an unfinished task to be cOffiPl.eted...Every element in Jesus' teaching is livable. It can be tried out in life and it works in practice. Inner fellowship with Gqdin the shrine of the spirit, and faith in the victory Qfrighteousness-thafis livable. Then let us not over-excite ourselves'qver controversial doctrinal points. Instead of asking, "Is it credible?", letus< ~sk "Can we ever in thisworld make Christianity come true?" Doctrinal Cnristianity is not costly. But the cross is not an acceptance of a theory, but the assumption of a task. Can the principles of Christ and his ways of living lif~ be victorious? Is Ghristianity possible? On that question hangs everythipg which matters ~mb&t in the religious life of our time. Ibelieve in the possibiiityof a Christian society and a Christian nation, not because I have been .argued into it, but because it works. I have seen it done. I have seen it in homes where what Jesus said ought to be the law of life was the actual prinCiple of fellowship~ Jtwas not Christianity argued; it was Christianitya.chieved. It was not'Christianity debated; it was Christianity done. .' .-; :.' Harry Emerson Fosdick, The Secr~f. pl Victorious Living;1934
speaker, as nearly as I can remember his words, "you will have no time for heresy- hunting for the heretics outside ." Thus did temptation come through the mouth of a well-meaning man. The "heretics;' to use the term that was used by that speaker, are, with their helpers, the indifferentists, in control of the church within the bounds ofwhich that utterance was made, the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America, as they are in control of nearly all the larger Protestant churches in the world. A man hardly needs to "hunt" them very long if he is to oppose them. All that he needs to do is to be faithful to the Lord Jesus Christ, and his opposition to those men will follow soon enough. But is it true, as this speaker seemed to imply, that there is a conflict between faithfulness to Christ in the ecclesiastical world and the cultivation of holiness in one's own inner life? My friends, it is not true, but false. A man cannot successfully go heresyhunting against the sin in his own life ifhe is willing to deny His Lord in the presence of the enemies outside. The two battles are intimately connected. A man cannot fight successfully in one unless he fights 28
SEPTEiVlllER/OCTOBER 1996
also in the other. Again, we are told that our theological differ ences will disappear if we will just get down on our _ knees together in prayer. Well, I can only say abou that kind of prayer, which is indifferent to the ques tion whether the gospel is true or false, that it is not Christian prayer; it is bowing down in the house of Rimmon. God save us from it! Instead, may God lead us to the kind of prayer in which, recognizing the dreadful condition of the visible Church, recog nizing the unbelief and the sin which dominate it today, we who are opposed to the current of the age both in the world and in the Church, facing the facts as they are, lay those facts before God, as Hezekiah laid before Him the threatening letter of the Assyrian enemy, and humbly ask Him to give the answer. Again, men say that instead of engaging in con troversy in the Church, we ought to pray to God for a revival; instead of polemics, we ought to have evan gelism. Well, what kind of revival do you think that will be? What sort of evangelism is it that is indiffer ent to the question of what evangel it is that is to be preached? Not a revival in the New Testament sense, not the evangelism that Paul meant when he said, "Woe is unto me, if I preach not the gospel." No, my friends, there can be no true evangelism which makes common cause with the enemies of the Cross of Christ. Souls will hardly be saved unless the evan - ~p gelists can say with Paul: "If we or an angel from heaven preach any other gospel than that which we preached unto you, let him be accursed!)) Every true revival is born in controversy, and leads to more controversy. That has been true ever since our Lord said that He came not to bring peace upon the earth but a sword. And do you know what I think will happen when God sends a new Reformation upon the Church? We cannot tell when that blessed day will come . But when the blessed day does come, I think we can say at least one result that it will bring. We shall hear nothing on that day about the evils of controversy in the Church. All that will be swept away as with a mighty flood. A man who is on fire with a message never talks in that wretched, feeble way, but pr..o claims the truth joyously and fearlessly, .~ in the presence of every high thing that is lifted up ' \ against the gospel of Christ. But men tell us that instead of engaging in con troversy about doctrine we ought to seek the power of the living Holy Spirit. A few years ago we had a celebration of the anniversary of Pentecost. At that time, our Presbyterian Church was engaged in a con - w flict, the gist of which concerned the question of the truth of the Bible. Was the Church going to insist, or
modern REFORMATION
was it not going to insist, that its ministers should believe that the Bible is true? At that time of deci , sion it seemed as though to evade the issue, many . sermons were preached on the subject of the Holy ~ Spirit. Do you think that those sermons, if they really were preached in that way, were approved by Him with whom they dealt. I fear not, my friends. A man can hardly receive the power of the Holy Spirit if he seeks to evade the question whether the blessed Book that the Spirit has given us is true or false. Again, men tell us that our preaching should be positive and not negative, that we can preach the truth without attacking error. But if we follow that advice we shall have to close our Bible and desert its teachings. The New Testament is a polemic book almost from beginning to end. Some years ago I was in a company of teachers of the Bible in the colleges and other educational institutions ofAmerica. One of the most eminent theological professors in the country made an address. In it he admitted that there are unfortunate controversies about doctrine in the Epistles of Paul; but, said he in effect, the real essence of Paul's teaching is found in the hymn to Christian love in the thirteenth chapter of I Corinthians; and we can avoid controversy today, "if we will only devote the chief attention to that inspiring hymn. In reply, I am bound to say that the example was singularly ill-chosen. That hymn to Christian love is in the midst of a great polemic passage; it would never have been written if Paul had been opposed to controversy with error in the Church. It was because his soul was stirred within him by a wrong use of the spiritual gifts that he was able to write that glorious hymn. So it is always in the Church. Every really great Christian utterance, it may almost be said, is born in controversy. It is when men have felt compelled to take a stand against error that they have risen to the really great heights in the celebration of truth. But in defending the faith against the attack upon it that is being made both without and within the Church, what method of defense should be used? In answer to that question, I have time only to say two things. In the first place, the defense, with the polemic that it involves, should be perfectly open and above board. I have just stated, that I believe in controversy. But in controversy I do try to \pbserve the Golden Rule; I do try to do unto others as I would have others do unto me. And the kind of controversy that pleases me in an opponent is a con troversy that is altogether frank.
Sometimes I go into a company of modern men. A man gets up upon the platform, looks out be nignly upon the audience, and says: "I think, brethren, that we are all agreed about this" - and then proceeds to trample ruthlessly upon every thing that is dearest to my heart. When he does that, I feel aggrieved. I do not feel aggrieved because he gives free expression to opinions that are different from mine. But I feel aggrieved because he calls me his "brother" and assumes, prior to investigation, that I agree with what he is going to say. A kind of controversy that pleases me better than that is a kind of controversy in which a man gets up upon the platform, looks out upon the audience, and says: "What is this? I see that one of those absurd Funda mentalists has somehow strayed into this company of educated men:' and then proceeds to call me by every opprobrious term that is to be found in one of the most unsavory paragraphs of Roger's Thesau rus. When he does that, I do not feel too much distressed. I can even endure the application to me of the term "Fundamentalist;' though for the life of me I cannot see why adherents of the Christian reli gion' which has been in the world for some nineteen hundred years, should suddenly be made an" -ism:' and be called by some strange new name. The point is that that speaker at least does me the honor of recognizing that a profound difference separates my view from his. We understand each other perfectly, and it is quite possible that we may be, if not broth ers (I object to the degradation of that word), yet at least good friends. In the second place, the defense of the faith should be of a scholarly kind. Mere denunciation does not constitute an argument; and before a man can refute successfully an argument of an opponent, he must understand the argument that he is endeav oring to refute. Personalities, in such debate, should be kept in the background; and analysis of the mo tives of one's opponents has little place. That principle, certainly in America, has been violated constantly by the advocates of the Modern ist or indifferentist position in the Church. It has been violated by them far more than by the defend ers of God's ~ord. Yet the latter, strangely enough, have received the blame. The representatives of the dominant Modern indifferentist forces have often engaged in the most violent adjectival abuse of their opponents; yet they have been called sweet and beautiful and tolerant. The defenders of the Bible, and of the historic position of the Church, on the other hand, have spoken courteously, though plainly, in opposition, and have been called "bitter"
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1996
29
and "extreme." I am reminded of the way in which an intelligent American Indian is reported (I saw it in the American magazine The Saturday Evening Post a few months ago) to have characterized the terminol ogy used in histories of the wars between the white men and the men of his race. "When you won;' said the Indian, "it was, according to your histories, a {battle'; when we won, it was a {massacre.'" Such, I suppose, is the treatment of the unpopu lar side in every conflict. Certainly it is the treatment which we 'receive today. Men have found it to be an effective way of making themselves popular, to abuse the representatives of so unpopular a cause as that which we Bible-believing Christians represent. Yet I do not think we ought to be dismayed. If in these days of unbelief and defection in the Church we are called upon to bear just a little bit of the reproach of Christ, we ought to count ourselves hon 0red' and certainly we ought not mitigate in the slightest measure the plainness either of our defense of the truth or of our warnings against error. Men's favor is worth very little after all, in comparison with the favor of Christ. But certainly we should strive to keep ourselves free from that with which we are charged . Because our opponents are guilty, that is no reason why we should make ourselves guilty too. It is no easy thing to defend the Christian faith against the mighty attack that is being brought against it at the present day. Knowledge of the truth is necessary, and also clear acquaintance with the forces hostile to the truth in modern thought. At that point, a final objection may arise. Does it not involve a terrible peril to men's souls to ask them - for example, in their preparation for the ministry - to acquaint themselves with things that are being said against the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ? Would it not be safer to learn only of the truth, without acquainting ourselves with error? We answer, "Of course it would be safer." It would be far safer, no doubt, to live in a fool's paradise and close one's eyes to what is going on in the world today, just as it is safer to remain in secure dugouts rather than to go over the top in some great attack. We save our souls, perhaps, by such tactics, but the Lord's en emies remain in possession of the field. It is a great battle indeed, this intellectual battle of today; deadly perils await every man who engages in that conflict. But it is the Lord's battle, and He is a great Captain in the fight. There are , indeed, some perils that should be avoided - particularly the peril of acquainting our selves with what is said against the Christian religion 30
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1996
without ever obtaining any really orderly acquain tance with what can be said for it. That is the peril to which a candidate for the ministry, for example, sub- . jects himself when he attends only one of th theological colleges where the professors are adher ents of the dominant naturalistic view. What does such a course of study mean? It .means simply this, that a man does not think the historic Christian faith, which has given him his spiritual nurture, to be worthy of a fair hearing. That is my only argu ment in advising a man to study, for example, at an institution like Westminster Theological Seminary, which I have the honor to serve. I am not asking him to close his eyes to what can be said against the historic faith. But, I am telling him that the logical order is to learn what a thing is before one attends exclusively to what can be said against it; and I am telling him further, that the way to learn what a thing is, is not to listen first to its opponents, but to grant a full hearing to those who believe in it with all their minds and hearts. After that has been done, after our students, by pursuing the complete course of study, have obtained something like an orderly ac quaintance with the marvelous system of truth that the Bible contains, then the more they listen to what can be said against it, the better defenders of it they will probably be. Let us, therefore, pray that God will raise up for ",g/ us today true defenders of the Christian faith. We are living in the midst of a mighty conflict against the Christian religion. The conflict is carried on with intellectual weapons. Whether we like it or not, there are millions upon millions of our fellowmen who reject Christianity for the simple reason that they do not believe Christianity to be true. What is to be done in such a situation? We can learn, at this point, a lesson from the past history of the Church. This is not the first time during the past nineteen hundred years when intel lectual objections have been raised against the gospel of Christ. How have those objections been treated? Have they been evaded, or have they been faced? The answer is written large in the history of the Church .. The objections have been faced. God I,as raised up in time of need, not only evangelists to 'a;ppeal to the multitudes, but also Christian scholars to meet the intellectual attack. So it will be in our day, my friends. The Christian religion flourishes not in the darkness but in the light. Intellectual slothfulness is but a quack remedy for unbelief; the true remedy is consecration of intellectual powers to~ the service of the Lord Jesus Christ. Let us not fear for the result. Many times, in the
modern R EFORMATION
course of the past nineteen hundred years, men have predicted that in a generation or so the old gospel would be forever forgotten. Yet the gospel has burst Xorth again, and set the world aflame. So it may be '~ 1n our age, in God's good time and in His way. Sad indeed are the substitutes for the gospel of Christ. The Church has been beguiled into "By-path Meadow;' and is now groaning in the dungeon of "Giant Despair." Happy is the man who can point out to such a Church the straight, high road that leads over hill and valley to the City of God.
Christian Scholarship & Evangelism Our Savior sat one day by the well. He talked with a sinful woman, and laid his finger upon the sore spot in her life. "Thou hast had five husbands;' he said; "and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband." The woman then apparently sought to evade the consideration of the sin in her own life by asking a theological question regarding the right place in which to worship God. What did Jesus do with her theological question? Did he brush it aside after the manner of modern religious workers? Did he say to the woman: "You are evading the real question; do not trouble yourself about theological matters, but let us return to the consideration of the sin in your life:' Not at all. He answered that theological ques ~~tion with the utmost fullness as though the salvation of the woman's soul depended on her obtaining the right answer. In reply to that sinful woman, and to what modern religious workers would have re garded as an evasive question, Jesus engaged in some of the profoundest theological teaching in the whole New Testament. A right view of God, accord ing to Jesus, is not something that comes merely after salvation, but it is something important for salvation. The Apostle Paul in the First Epistle to the Thessalonians gives a precious summary of his mis sionary preaching. He does so by telling what it was to which the Thessalonians turned when they were saved. Was it a mere program of life to which they turned? Was it a "simple faith;' in the modern sense which divorces faith from knowledge and supposes that a man can have "simple faith" in a person of whom he knows nothing or about whom he holds opinions that make faith in him absurd? Not at all. In turning to Christ those Thessalonian Christians turned to a whole system of theology. "Ye tlirned to God from idols;' says Paul, "to serve the living and rue God; and to wait for His Son from heaven, whom He raised from the dead, even Jesus, which delivereth us from the wrath to come.""Ye turned to
God from idols" - there is theology proper. "And to "wait for His Son from heaven" - there is Christology. "Whom He raised from the dead" there is the supernatural act of God in history. "Even Jesus" - there is the humanity of our Lord. "Which delivereth us from the wrath to come" - there is the Christian doctrine ofsin and the Christian doctrine of the Cross of Christ. So it is in the New Testament from beginning to end. The examples might be multiplied indefinitely. The New Testament gives not one bit of comfort to those who separate faith from knowledge, to those who hold the absurd view that a man can trust a person about whom he knows nothing. What many men despise today as "doctrine" the New Testament calls the gospel; and the New Testament treats it as "
CLASSIC
,
.~
';
QUOTES
The present is a time... ,..not for ease or pleasure, but for earnest and prayerful work. A t~rrible crisis unquestionably has arisen in the Church. In the ministry of evangelical churches are to be found hosts of .those who reject the gospel of Christ. By thee,quivocal use of traditional phrases, by the representation of differences of opinion as though they were only differences about the inter pretation of the Bible, entrance into the Church was secured for those who are hostile to the very foundations of the faith. ...Yet there is in the Christian life no room for despair. Only, our hopefulness should not be founded on the sand. It , should be founded, not upon a blind ignorance of the danger" , , but solely upon the precious promises of God. Laymen, as well " as ministers,!should return, in these trying days, with new" > earnestness, the study of the Word of God; If the Word of God be heeded, the Christian battle will be fought both with love and with faithfulness. Party passions and personal animosities will be put away, but on the other hand, even angels from heaven will be rejected if they preach a gospel different from the blessed gospel of the Cross. EverY man must decide upon which side he will stand. God grqnt that , we may decide aright! . What the immediate future may bring we cannot presume to say, The final result indeed is clear. God has not deserted his Church; he has brou.ght 'her through even darker hours than those which try our courage now, yet the darkest hour has always come '~efore the dawn. We have today the entrance of ~, paganism into the Church in the name of Christianity. But in the second century a similar battle was fought and won. From another point of view, modern liberalism is like the legalism of the middle ages, with its dependence upon the merit of man. And another Reformation in God's good time will come. J. Gresham Machen, Christianity ~ Liberalism, 1923
to
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1996
31
the message upon which salvation depends. But if that be so, if salvation depends upon the message in which Christ is offered as Savior, it is obviously important that we should get the message straight. That is where Christian scholarship comes in. Christian scholarship is important in order that we may tell the story of Jesus and His love straight and full and plain. At this point, indeed, an objection may arise. Is not the gospel a very simple thing, it may be asked; and will' not its simplicity be obscured by too much scholarly research? The objection springs from a false view of what scholarship is; it springs from the notion that scholarship leads a man to be obscure. Exactly the reverse is the case. Ignorance is obscure; but scholarship brings order out of confusion, places things in their logical relations, and makes the mes sage shine forth clearly. There are, indeed, evangelists who are not schol ars, but scholarship is necessary to evangelism all the same. In the first place, though there are evange lists who are not scholars, the greatest evangelists, like the Apostle Paul and like Martin Luther, have been scholars. In the second place, the evangelists who are not scholars are dependent upon scholars to help them get their message straight; it is out of a great underlying fund of Christian learning that true evangelism springs. That is something that the Church of our day needs to take to heart. Life, according to the New Testament, is founded upon truth; and the attempt to reverse the order results only in despair and in spiritual death . Let us not deceive ourselves. Chris tian experience is necessary to evangelism; but evangelism does not consist merely in the rehearsal of what has happened in the evangelist's own soul. We shall, indeed, be but poor witnesses for Christ if we can tell only what Christ has done for the world or for the Church and cannot tell what He has done personally for us. But we shall also be poor witnesses if we recount only the experiences of our own lives. Christian evangelism does not consist merely in a Inan's going about the world saying: "Look at me, what a wonderful experience I have, how happy I am, what wonderful Christian virtues I exhibit; you can all be as good and as happy as I am if you will just make a complete surrender of your wills in obedi ence to what I say." That is what many religious workers seem to think that evangelism is. We can preach the gospel, they tell us, by our lives, and do not need to preach it by our words. But they are wrong. Men are not saved by the exhibition of our glorious Christian virtues; they are not saved by the 32
SFPTEi'vll3FR/OCTOBER 1996
contagion of our experiences. We cannot be the instruments of God in saving them if we preach to them thus only ourselves. Nay, we must preach to them the Lord Jesus Christ; for it is only through th ( gospel which sets Him forth that they can be saved. i7 If you want health for your souls, and ifyou want
to be the instruments of bringing health to others,
do not turn your gaze forever within, as though you
could find Christ there. Nay, turn your gaze away
from your own miserable experiences, away from
your own sin, to the Lord Jesus Christ as He is of
fered to us in the gospel. "As Moses lifted up the
serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of
Man be lifted up." Only when we turn away from
ourselves to that uplifted Savior shall we have heal
ing for our deadly hurt.
It is the same old story, my friends - the same old story of the natural man. Men are trying today, as they have always been trying, to save themselves - to save themselves by their own act of surrender, by the excellence of their own faith, by mystic expe riences of their own lives. But it is all in vain. Not that way is peace with God to be obtained . It is to be obtained only in the old, old way - by attention to something that was done once for all long ago, and by acceptance of the living Savior who there, once for all, brought redemption for our sin. Oh, tha men would turn for salvation from their own expe- -,,"P , rience to the Cross of Christ; oh, that they would turn from the phenomena of religion to the living God! That that may be done, there is but one way. It is
not found in a study of the psychology of religion; it
is not found in "religious education"; it is not found
in an analysis of one's own spiritual status. Oh, no.
It is found only in the blessed written Word. There
are the words of life. There God speaks. Let us attend
to His voice. Let us above all things know the Word.
Let us study it with all our minds, let us cherish it
with all our hearts. Then let us try, very humbly, to
bring it to the unsaved. Let us pray that God may
honor not the messengers but the message, that de
spite our unworthiness He may make His Word
upon our \,Inworthy lips to be a message of life. ~
.~ "The Importance of Christian Scholarship" was the general title of Machen's . ~ three part series presented to The Bible League of London, June 17th, 1932 . We included the address : "Christian Scholarship and the Defense of the Faith " in its entirety , and added a small section from: "Christian Scholarship and Evangelism. " These articles appear in a collection of Machen writings titled What is Christianity, published by Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., © 1951. We are grateful to Eerdmans for giving us permission to reprint these timeless essays.
modern REFORMATION
;
o
WORD PUBLISHING
Available at Christian Bookstores Everywhere.
Are IOU standin firm inthe faith? In Here We Stand) compelling essays are presented by members of the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals. These articles challenge today's churches to recover their historic Christian faith and be directed by the Spirit of Christ rather than the spirit of the age. Are you doing God's work in God's way, or has your faith become lukewarm and watered -down by the influence of a secular culture? It's time to reestablish a firm foundation. Contributors include:
James Boice
Sinclair Ferguson
Michael Horton
R. Albert Mohler Jr.
David Wells
Ifyou do not stand firm in your faith, you will not stand at all. - Isaiah 7:9
BIBAKER World Wide Web : http://www.bakerbooks.com
0-80Hl-1134-5
$16.99