Readers may wonder why I am inclined to republish writings of the past. The intent is to look back and see the position from where evangelicalism has shifted. The way to see if a stick is straight is to hold it against a stick proven in the past to be straight.
There are many dangers for Christendom and the penalties for straying are severe.
In this spirit I provide an article written by Paul Helm in the January 1968 edition of the Banner of Truth Journal.
"IS EVANGELICALISM JUST A CULT?
What is a cult ? Most of us have a rough idea; a tightly-knit, rather rootless religious group claiming to have 'the truth', but in fact catering for the religious needs of a particular group - the mystical, the heavily eschatological, those who crave certainty above truth, those distrustful of 'modern thought' - the misfits of our society.
We do not include ourselves - the evangelicals - in our list of cults. Why not? There is not a shadow of a doubt that in the minds of many we are lumped together with the Witnesses, the Mormons and the rest. To them we are 'religious', having a language, friends, activities and values of our own; yet often aggressively confident that we have the truth; another, rather faded, 'special offer' in the religious bargain-basement.
Why are people wrong to think this way about the evangehcal faith? Why must they be wrong ? The crucial difference, the one we have for too long forgotten [to our peril] is that a true evangelicalism is only meaningful set in the midst of human life, with its endeavours and initiatives, its suffering and its folly, and its sin. The evangelical faith is credible when set in the context of creation, of life, and of human history. By 'credible' here is not meant 'is more easily accepted' but that the unique claims made by the biblical gospel will only be seen for what they are when set in such a context. The gospel gets its edge when this background is understood, and the 'christian life' becomes meaningful when Christians see that it consists in thinking-out and living-out the implications of such a gospel; implications that are understood not only in general spiritual terms but in the concrete demands of human life-work, the family, leisure, politics, the arts.
The cults do not think like this at all. They are self-contained sub-cultures catering for specific needs. They do not have any doctrine of creation, or of human life; or if they have they only pay lip-service to it; and they do not in general expect to have any non-religious consequences flowing from their beliefs. They are 'separatistic' in the worst sense of that word; not concerned only with their doctrinal purity but with cutting themselves off as much as possible from everyday life. It is in this crucial respect that the evangelical faith differs in character from the cults.
CULTURAL CONTRACTION
This is likely to provoke two comments. First, that contemporary evangelicalism is not recognisably like this; it is individualistic, lives on religious sensations, has little interest in doctrine or in human life. Indeed it would not be an exaggeration to say that many evangelicals are embarrassed by the very existence of the world. The answer to this is that to our shame all this [and a lot more like it] is true, but that evangelicals who behave in this way do not do justice to the logic of their faith. They are living below par; for a faith that has a doctrine of creation and of human nature will have implications for the quality of human life. If these implications are not seen, and no concern is expressed about them, this does not mean that the implications do not exist.
The second comment is likely to be this. You say that the faith has implications for the whole of life and that the gospel is best understood when this point is firmly grasped. But what are these implications ? What follows for us in 1968 ? This is a good question, and I do not want to dodge it. But the answer is painful. For a hundred years or so in this country few have paid the slightest attention to studying these questions. In a cultural situation that has changed out of all recognition the evangelical world-view of a century ago [with all its faults] has become fragmented. There are many causes of this - the inroads made into biblical authority by higher criticism, into the doctrine of creation by Darwin, into the biblical view of God and the world by philosophical idealism, and so on. The result is that while life has gone on around us the thinking of Christian people has stopped. Evangelicals - due no doubt to a praiseworthy concern to defend the essence of the gospel message - have in the meantime become culturally contracted. So the painful answer is that, having stopped thinking, we have little to say about the implications of the faith for today's or tomorrow's world. We are to think, and we are to expect answers to our probings, for we are God's creatures and this is God's world. But evangelicals have long since stopped thinking, and have paid
the price; we cannot appraise or influence affairs as we should, we cannot counsel our young people or channel their energies constructively. We have stagnated, and many of us have become proud of it.
THE REFORMED FAITH
In this difficult situation the Reformed faith has a unique contribution to make to a return to a living evangelicalism. Let me try and make good this claim by relating certain features of the Reformed faith - in a very sketchy way - to the needs of our situation outlined above.
British evangelicalism, as we have seen, values the quick return, the tangible, the personal, the sensational. The Reformed faith, following Scripture, places emphasis not on these things but on the divine decree and control and purpose. Fundamental to Scripture and to Reformed thinking is the fact that God has a plan. How does this help ? By giving to the people of God a calmness of spirit and serenity of mind; by enabling them to take a long-term view and encouraging them to put their minds to work in the fulfilling of God's purposes for His creation.
Consider, secondly, the link between creation and redemption. Redemption, the Reformers constantly show us, can only be understood if we grasp that it is man made in God's image [but fallen] who is redeemed and restored into fellowship with his Maker by the gospel. Redemption is not to be seen primarily as an experience [though it involves experiences] but a gracious restoration. This means that human life for the Christian is not a search for an endless succession of religious feelings, but the life of a restored human being.
Third, there is the Reformed teaching about the world. For the Reformers 'the world' was not taboo, a place to be shunned, but a battle field. It is God's created order, and it is the Christian's place under God to seek the full restoration of God's image in man by living creatively according to the Word of God by the power of the Holy Spirit. Thus the Christian man will strive for the replenishment and exercise of his gifts,becoming again, as the newly-created Adam was, a divine workman.
FULFILLING OUR CALLINGS
It is in these ways, and others not indicated, that the Reformers show us that the biblical faith cannot be divorced from thought or from life, but has implications for both which it is the Christian's divinely appointed task to work out. There is no recipe here for quick and easy solutions to life's many problems but a mandate for creative [or re-creative] Christian thinking.
Is evangelicalism a cult? Not when it is seen to be true to itself and to the logic of its belief. Unhappily this is not the case at present; evangelicals have become side-tracked. We must take up again the foundational principles of our faith and trace out then: implications for our lives. It is in this way that under God we fulfil our callings as Christian men and women and display the gospel in its many-sidedness."
Few would call the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Sydney, George Pell, an evangelical and he certainly demonstrated he wasn't by his performance in debate with Atheist, Richard Dawkins, on ABC Television's Q & A program last Monday night. The Archbishop has a pitiful doctrine on Creation - assigning Adam and Eve to mythology - and the rest of his doctrine, consequently, slides into nothingness.
Sydney Episcopalians should note the course they are directing hearers and readers to as they present a flaky doctrine of Creation today.
Sam Drucker
Showing posts with label Evangelicals. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Evangelicals. Show all posts
Sunday, April 15, 2012
Sunday, July 3, 2011
Defence of Natural Theology But Nay to Gap
I recently read a review of the ministry of Thomas Chalmers in the Banner of Truth Journal for March 1980. Biblical Creationists such as myself are mindful that Thomas Chalmers proposed what has become known as the "Gap Theory" as a means to reconcile the Word of God with the 'world's' adopted view of a great age for the earth.
Essentially, "Gap Theory" places a long age and destroyed earth between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. Biblical Creationists regard this 'age' as a significant event inadequately addressed in the text and an unwarranted imposition within the first two verses of the Word of God.
Notwithstanding my disagreement with Thomas Chalmers on this point I was interested to read the following from the author of the review:
Chalmers has been variously assessed as a teacher of theology. He was certainly not without deficiencies. In depth and accuracy of learning he is not in the front rank of Scottish theologians. The course of divinity which he set his students embodied the doubtful procedure of beginning with 'natural theology' before he advanced to the subject matter of Christianity itself.
This is a doubtful criticism of Chalmers considering the detachment of the review author by time and circumstance from Chalmers and his method. The method was not without precedent as the Apostle Paul was required to adopt a similar approach to get a better hearing when in Athens (Acts 17). Circumstances arise when a Christian must have an intelligible argument and point to the Creation/Creator before the hearer is prepared to hear of that same Creator being the Saviour who deals with their sin.
Perhaps it was that Thomas Chalmers saw where Scottish thought was heading and he wanted to prepare his students to meet the challenge with a 'complete' armour. Errant scientific propositions had a devastating affect on the Christian faith in the Nineteenth and subsequent centuries. Chalmers was wrong to impose an unwarranted imposition on the first two verses of the Word of God and open the door to the pernicious notion of Theistic Evolution. Nevertheless, many students were influenced by Chalmers and the Lord God was pleased to bring an 'Awakening' to areas of Scotland in the first half of the Nineteenth Century.
The scene before the 'Awakening' was described by Alexander Duff as follows:
The savour and unction of divine grace was gone; the peculiarities of the gospel were despised as offensive to classic taste and culture, and devotion scorned as fanatical and contemptible . . . Instead of the power and pathos of earnest gospel invitations and appeals, there were substituted cold pretences of academic learning, that froze the generous sympathies of the human heart.
As the article in the Banner of Truth Journal notes, The Moderates preached morality, with almost nothing of the supernaturalism of true Christianity. They ignored the Fall of man, sneered at the idea of a new-birth and said nothing of the perfection and power of the work of the Son of God.
Brothers and sisters, I want you to know that one of the fruits of Theistic Evolution is the deadening of faith in the supernaturalism of true Christianity. Because belief in that pernicious notion of Theistic Evolution is so rife in evangelicalism today the scene is set for repeating the deadening of the Church in our age.
The "Gap Theory" is erroneous but not as heinous an error as Theistic Evolution. It is better for the Church to be rid of both and return to faith in the straight-forward reading of the Creation account in Genesis 1 (supported in Exodus 20:11 and 31:17) to put the preaching of other vital points of the work of God on firm foundation.
Sam Drucker
Essentially, "Gap Theory" places a long age and destroyed earth between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. Biblical Creationists regard this 'age' as a significant event inadequately addressed in the text and an unwarranted imposition within the first two verses of the Word of God.
Notwithstanding my disagreement with Thomas Chalmers on this point I was interested to read the following from the author of the review:
Chalmers has been variously assessed as a teacher of theology. He was certainly not without deficiencies. In depth and accuracy of learning he is not in the front rank of Scottish theologians. The course of divinity which he set his students embodied the doubtful procedure of beginning with 'natural theology' before he advanced to the subject matter of Christianity itself.
This is a doubtful criticism of Chalmers considering the detachment of the review author by time and circumstance from Chalmers and his method. The method was not without precedent as the Apostle Paul was required to adopt a similar approach to get a better hearing when in Athens (Acts 17). Circumstances arise when a Christian must have an intelligible argument and point to the Creation/Creator before the hearer is prepared to hear of that same Creator being the Saviour who deals with their sin.
Perhaps it was that Thomas Chalmers saw where Scottish thought was heading and he wanted to prepare his students to meet the challenge with a 'complete' armour. Errant scientific propositions had a devastating affect on the Christian faith in the Nineteenth and subsequent centuries. Chalmers was wrong to impose an unwarranted imposition on the first two verses of the Word of God and open the door to the pernicious notion of Theistic Evolution. Nevertheless, many students were influenced by Chalmers and the Lord God was pleased to bring an 'Awakening' to areas of Scotland in the first half of the Nineteenth Century.
The scene before the 'Awakening' was described by Alexander Duff as follows:
The savour and unction of divine grace was gone; the peculiarities of the gospel were despised as offensive to classic taste and culture, and devotion scorned as fanatical and contemptible . . . Instead of the power and pathos of earnest gospel invitations and appeals, there were substituted cold pretences of academic learning, that froze the generous sympathies of the human heart.
As the article in the Banner of Truth Journal notes, The Moderates preached morality, with almost nothing of the supernaturalism of true Christianity. They ignored the Fall of man, sneered at the idea of a new-birth and said nothing of the perfection and power of the work of the Son of God.
Brothers and sisters, I want you to know that one of the fruits of Theistic Evolution is the deadening of faith in the supernaturalism of true Christianity. Because belief in that pernicious notion of Theistic Evolution is so rife in evangelicalism today the scene is set for repeating the deadening of the Church in our age.
The "Gap Theory" is erroneous but not as heinous an error as Theistic Evolution. It is better for the Church to be rid of both and return to faith in the straight-forward reading of the Creation account in Genesis 1 (supported in Exodus 20:11 and 31:17) to put the preaching of other vital points of the work of God on firm foundation.
Sam Drucker
Sunday, May 29, 2011
This is Our God!
Recently in the comments section of a blog here I mentioned the Lord Jesus Christ's healing of a man who had been lame for 38 years (John 5).
Subsequent to that comment the following article appeared in the Sydney Daily Telegraph on 21 May 2011:
A PARAPLEGIC man has stood up unaided, moved his legs voluntarily and walked, with help, on a treadmill after neurosurgeons implanted electrodes in his lower spine.
The world-first therapy has been hailed as an exciting advance in the quest to overcome crippling spinal cord injuries.
The electrodes then sent electrical signals to mimic those sent down the spine by the brain to begin movement.
Mr Summers can push up with his legs and reach a standing position, and support his own weight for up to four minutes at a time.
'For someone who for four years was unable to move a toe, to have the freedom to stand on my own is the most amazing feeling,' he said.
Compare the situation of the early Judean man and the Sydney Daily Telegraph's reported lame man. We don't know how the former was made lame. Potentially, he suffered a similar spinal cord injury to the latter day man. Notwithstanding the extent of damaged body parts, each man was completely lame.
Improvement came to both but look at the stark contrast in the time frame and the completeness of healing. The gap is huge and, as I indicated earlier, the healing and recreation wrought by the will of our Lord Jesus Christ was beyond all our capacity to comprehend via modern medical science.
There some 2,000 years ago in Judea, moving among the people, was the Creator of the universe who creates and recreates in an instant.
If only degenerate pseudo-evangelicals of today had more faith in Jesus Christ than they do Charles Darwin and Charles Lyell.
Sam Drucker
Subsequent to that comment the following article appeared in the Sydney Daily Telegraph on 21 May 2011:
A PARAPLEGIC man has stood up unaided, moved his legs voluntarily and walked, with help, on a treadmill after neurosurgeons implanted electrodes in his lower spine.
The world-first therapy has been hailed as an exciting advance in the quest to overcome crippling spinal cord injuries.
The electrodes then sent electrical signals to mimic those sent down the spine by the brain to begin movement.
Mr Summers can push up with his legs and reach a standing position, and support his own weight for up to four minutes at a time.
'For someone who for four years was unable to move a toe, to have the freedom to stand on my own is the most amazing feeling,' he said.
Compare the situation of the early Judean man and the Sydney Daily Telegraph's reported lame man. We don't know how the former was made lame. Potentially, he suffered a similar spinal cord injury to the latter day man. Notwithstanding the extent of damaged body parts, each man was completely lame.
Improvement came to both but look at the stark contrast in the time frame and the completeness of healing. The gap is huge and, as I indicated earlier, the healing and recreation wrought by the will of our Lord Jesus Christ was beyond all our capacity to comprehend via modern medical science.
There some 2,000 years ago in Judea, moving among the people, was the Creator of the universe who creates and recreates in an instant.
If only degenerate pseudo-evangelicals of today had more faith in Jesus Christ than they do Charles Darwin and Charles Lyell.
Sam Drucker
Sunday, May 8, 2011
The Work of the Word of God
The Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney falsely boasts adherence to the Word of God. The so-called evangelical of the Diocese is a far more degenerate kind than the evangelicals of the Reformation, Puritans and the great instruments in Revival of the Eighteenth Century. This is demonstrated in latter day evangelicals' abuse of the Word of God in the Creation account in Genesis. They have inflicted a wound to the integrity of the Word of God that will later open all the more to the detriment of potential Christian inquirers.
This is a far cry from the regard held for the integrity of the Word of God by Puritan writer Joseph Alleine in his classic work Alarm to the Unconverted. Discussing the personal and real instruments of conversion, Alleine has the following instruction on the Word of God:
The real instrument is the Word. We are begotten by the word of truth. It is this that enlightens the eye, that converts the soul (Ps xix 7, 8), that makes us wise to salvation (2 Tim iii 15). This is the incorruptible seed by which we are born again (1 Pet i 23). If we are washed, it is by the Word (Eph v 26). If we are sanctified, it is through the truth (Jn xvii 17). This generates faith, and regenerates us (Rom x 17; Jas i 18).
O ye saints, how you should love the Word, for by this you have been converted! You that have felt its renewing power, make much of it while you live; be ever thankful for it. Tie it about your neck, write it upon your hand, lay it in your bosom. When you go let it lead you, when you sleep let it keep you, when you wake let it talk with you (Prov vi 21-22). Say with the Psalmist, I will never forget thy precepts, for by them thou hast quickened me {Ps cxix 93). You that are unconverted, read the Word with diligence; flock to where it is powerfully preached.
If only the so-called evangelicals of the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney would desist from embracing the world and hold firm to the Word of God in Genesis 1. Then will the death of the Diocese be averted and the Kingdom of God advance in this place.
For the benefit of the lazy I provide hereunder the Authorized Version of the passages of the Word of God cited by Joseph Alleine as well as Psalm 119:160 cited later by Alleine.
Ps 19:7-8 The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple. The statutes of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes.
2 Tim 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
1 Pet 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
Eph 5:26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,
Jn 17:17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.
Rom 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
Jas 1:18 Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.
Prov 6:21-22 My son, keep thy father’s commandment, and forsake not the law of thy mother: Bind them continually upon thine heart, and tie them about thy neck. When thou goest, it shall lead thee; when thou sleepest, it shall keep thee; and when thou awakest, it shall talk with thee.
Ps 119:93 I will never forget thy precepts: for with them thou hast quickened me.
Ps 119:160 Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever. [emphasis mine]
Sam Drucker
This is a far cry from the regard held for the integrity of the Word of God by Puritan writer Joseph Alleine in his classic work Alarm to the Unconverted. Discussing the personal and real instruments of conversion, Alleine has the following instruction on the Word of God:
The real instrument is the Word. We are begotten by the word of truth. It is this that enlightens the eye, that converts the soul (Ps xix 7, 8), that makes us wise to salvation (2 Tim iii 15). This is the incorruptible seed by which we are born again (1 Pet i 23). If we are washed, it is by the Word (Eph v 26). If we are sanctified, it is through the truth (Jn xvii 17). This generates faith, and regenerates us (Rom x 17; Jas i 18).
O ye saints, how you should love the Word, for by this you have been converted! You that have felt its renewing power, make much of it while you live; be ever thankful for it. Tie it about your neck, write it upon your hand, lay it in your bosom. When you go let it lead you, when you sleep let it keep you, when you wake let it talk with you (Prov vi 21-22). Say with the Psalmist, I will never forget thy precepts, for by them thou hast quickened me {Ps cxix 93). You that are unconverted, read the Word with diligence; flock to where it is powerfully preached.
If only the so-called evangelicals of the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney would desist from embracing the world and hold firm to the Word of God in Genesis 1. Then will the death of the Diocese be averted and the Kingdom of God advance in this place.
For the benefit of the lazy I provide hereunder the Authorized Version of the passages of the Word of God cited by Joseph Alleine as well as Psalm 119:160 cited later by Alleine.
Ps 19:7-8 The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple. The statutes of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes.
2 Tim 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
1 Pet 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
Eph 5:26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,
Jn 17:17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.
Rom 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
Jas 1:18 Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.
Prov 6:21-22 My son, keep thy father’s commandment, and forsake not the law of thy mother: Bind them continually upon thine heart, and tie them about thy neck. When thou goest, it shall lead thee; when thou sleepest, it shall keep thee; and when thou awakest, it shall talk with thee.
Ps 119:93 I will never forget thy precepts: for with them thou hast quickened me.
Ps 119:160 Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever. [emphasis mine]
Sam Drucker
Sunday, February 20, 2011
TRAMPLING ON THE HESED OF GOD
My final visit to John Bright's Kingdom of God reveals his words found on pages 73 & 74 where he observes the state of Israel resulting in the judgment of God. Somewhere in the picture of Israel is, at some stage, the evangelical church of this generation and no less represented by the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney. Bright's words are provided to help the reader imagine the state of things today:
No less menacing than the international situation was the internal decay of Israel. The book of Hosea is the best possible commentary upon it, and it deserves a whole chapter. For Hosea lived through the collapse, and it tore at his heart. He pictures graphically the political vacuum, the mad plotting for power, the collapse of law and order, civil anarchy in which life is no longer safe (e.g., 4:1-2; 7:1-7; 8:4; 10:3). Even worse, the heart has gone clean out of religious faith, and there is complete moral decay. The priests are timeservers who utter no moral rebuke but who are, through the practices they countenance and abet, themselves the corrupters of religion (4:8-9; 5:1; 6:9-10). Instruction of the true religion has lapsed, and with it all knowledge of the God of Israel; the land is permeated with the poison of paganism. Parents set for their children examples of immorality which the children only outstrip (4:6, 11-14). No more revolting or truer picture than this could be drawn of what the breakdown of religion really means. Nor did this sick nation know any way to cure itself save by political maneuvering (5:13). Yet even here was its bankruptcy evident. They trimmed their foreign policy to every political wind that blew, and they were always wrong - because they were morally wrong. Israel is a half baked cake (7:8); "a silly dove without any sense" (7:11), fluttering and cooing this way and that in a panic; a worn-out roué who will not wake up to the fact that he is growing old (7:9). Israel is done for!
Clearly there could be no peace between Hosea and such a nation as that! But Hosea's attack differed somewhat from that of Amos. Although it moved from the same theology, it was delivered at a different point. Hosea has less to say of idle luxury and unethical behavior - although he is well enough aware of these things. After all, he spoke not to national prosperity but to national collapse, and his message was shaped by his own peculiar temperament. The target of his attack was idolatry, Baal worship, apostasy. This is the seat of the disease, the sin in which all sin consists, the poison in the body politic. It is this that has separated Israel from her God, and is the cause of all her calamity. An apostate nation cannot be the people of God.
Most interesting of all is the formulation Hosea gave to the covenant bond which bound Israel to her God. It is a formulation which became classic, and which was taken up by many a subsequent prophet - particularly Jeremiah and Ezekiel. The covenant is a wedlock; in it God "married" Israel and made her his "wife." To worship other gods as Israel has done is plain "adultery," and, if no sincere reconciliation is effected, the end of it will be "divorce" - national ruin. God demands of his people hesed, that utter loyalty which is the only proper response to God's hesed, his covenant favour. No amount of protestations of loyalty through the external forms of religion can play substitute for it:
For it is hesed that pleases me, and not sacrifice;
And the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings(6:6)
Rather than imposing upon God a corrupt form of creative process (evolution); rather than trusting in the corrupt interpretation of God's direct utterances by weak willed men, wouldn't it be desirable for the Church today to respond to the love of God with faith or loyalty to the nature and word of God?
Learn a lesson from an adulterous Israel.
Sam Drucker
No less menacing than the international situation was the internal decay of Israel. The book of Hosea is the best possible commentary upon it, and it deserves a whole chapter. For Hosea lived through the collapse, and it tore at his heart. He pictures graphically the political vacuum, the mad plotting for power, the collapse of law and order, civil anarchy in which life is no longer safe (e.g., 4:1-2; 7:1-7; 8:4; 10:3). Even worse, the heart has gone clean out of religious faith, and there is complete moral decay. The priests are timeservers who utter no moral rebuke but who are, through the practices they countenance and abet, themselves the corrupters of religion (4:8-9; 5:1; 6:9-10). Instruction of the true religion has lapsed, and with it all knowledge of the God of Israel; the land is permeated with the poison of paganism. Parents set for their children examples of immorality which the children only outstrip (4:6, 11-14). No more revolting or truer picture than this could be drawn of what the breakdown of religion really means. Nor did this sick nation know any way to cure itself save by political maneuvering (5:13). Yet even here was its bankruptcy evident. They trimmed their foreign policy to every political wind that blew, and they were always wrong - because they were morally wrong. Israel is a half baked cake (7:8); "a silly dove without any sense" (7:11), fluttering and cooing this way and that in a panic; a worn-out roué who will not wake up to the fact that he is growing old (7:9). Israel is done for!
Clearly there could be no peace between Hosea and such a nation as that! But Hosea's attack differed somewhat from that of Amos. Although it moved from the same theology, it was delivered at a different point. Hosea has less to say of idle luxury and unethical behavior - although he is well enough aware of these things. After all, he spoke not to national prosperity but to national collapse, and his message was shaped by his own peculiar temperament. The target of his attack was idolatry, Baal worship, apostasy. This is the seat of the disease, the sin in which all sin consists, the poison in the body politic. It is this that has separated Israel from her God, and is the cause of all her calamity. An apostate nation cannot be the people of God.
Most interesting of all is the formulation Hosea gave to the covenant bond which bound Israel to her God. It is a formulation which became classic, and which was taken up by many a subsequent prophet - particularly Jeremiah and Ezekiel. The covenant is a wedlock; in it God "married" Israel and made her his "wife." To worship other gods as Israel has done is plain "adultery," and, if no sincere reconciliation is effected, the end of it will be "divorce" - national ruin. God demands of his people hesed, that utter loyalty which is the only proper response to God's hesed, his covenant favour. No amount of protestations of loyalty through the external forms of religion can play substitute for it:
For it is hesed that pleases me, and not sacrifice;
And the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings(6:6)
Rather than imposing upon God a corrupt form of creative process (evolution); rather than trusting in the corrupt interpretation of God's direct utterances by weak willed men, wouldn't it be desirable for the Church today to respond to the love of God with faith or loyalty to the nature and word of God?
Learn a lesson from an adulterous Israel.
Sam Drucker
Monday, January 31, 2011
Evangelicals Reap What They Have Sown ..... and There's More to Come!
Long term readers will recall my posts citing evangelicals of the 19th and 20th Centuries who were concerned about the decline in evangelicalism - the introduction of arts into the church service, the ecumenical movement embraced by leading evangelicals and so on.
In more than one post I identified the concerns of Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones about the direction of the Lausanne Conference. I also commented on the dangers of the latter day Lausanne ie the Cape Town conference.
Just released is the Cape Town Commitment and it can be found at lausanne
There is much to be concerned about. Critics I referred to previously would be grieved at the state of evangelicalism today and some extracts of commitments I provide hereunder:
We long to see the Church in all cultures energetically engaging the arts as a context for mission by:
1.Bringing the arts back into the life of the faith community as a valid and valuable component of our call to discipleship;
2.Supporting those with artistic gifts, especially sisters and brothers in Christ, so that they may flourish in their work;
3.Letting the arts serve as an hospitable environment in which we can acknowledge and come to know the neighbour and the stranger;
4.Respecting cultural differences and celebrating indigenous artistic expression.
When earnest and lively preaching in the Spirit of God is beyond so-called evangelical churches here is the recommended recourse. Don't expect multitudes to turn to the Lord. Don't even expect the church to survive.
Also, notice the subtle reversal of the traditional rendering of "brothers and sisters" when referring to both sexes. Why should there be any separation anyway? Why not just use the term "Christians" unless there is an agenda?
We lament over the widespread abuse and destruction of the earth’s resources, including its bio-diversity. Probably the most serious and urgent challenge faced by the physical world now is the threat of climate change. This will disproportionately affect those in poorer countries, for it is there that climate extremes will be most severe and where there is little capability to adapt to them. World poverty and climate change need to be addressed together and with equal urgency.
Here is the highly dubious socialist agenda being adopted by the so-called evangelical church without question.
A divided Church has no message for a divided world. Our failure to live in reconciled unity is a major obstacle to authenticity and effectiveness in mission.
A) We lament the dividedness and divisiveness of our churches and organizations. We deeply and urgently long for Christians to cultivate a spirit of grace and to be obedient to Paul’s command to ‘make every effort to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.
B) While we recognize that our deepest unity is spiritual, we long for greater recognition of the missional power of visible, practical, earthly unity. So we urge Christian sisters and brothers worldwide, for the sake of our common witness and mission, to resist the temptation to split the body of Christ, and to seek the paths of reconciliation and restored unity wherever possible.
The broad sentiment here expressed is also a precursor for what follows:
A) We stand together as church and mission leaders in all parts of the world, called to recognize and accept one another, with equality of opportunities to contribute together to world mission. Let us, in submission to Christ, lay aside suspicion, competition and pride and be willing to learn from those whom God is using, even when they are not from our continent, nor of our particular theology, nor of our organization, nor of our circle of friends.
B) Partnership is about more than money, and unwise injection of money frequently corrupts and divides the Church. Let us finally prove that the Church does not operate on the principle that those who have the most money have all the decision-making power. Let us no longer impose our own preferred names, slogans, programmes, systems and methods on other parts of the Church. Let us instead work for true mutuality of North and South, East and West, for interdependence in giving and receiving, for the respect and dignity that characterizes genuine friends and true partners in mission.
Here is a foundation statement of discouragement of evangelical churches from drawing people out of the darkness of Roman Catholicism. It would go even further to discourage the drawing of people out from the errors of so-called evangelical denominations/churches.
All of us, women and men, married and single, are responsible to employ God’s gifts for the benefit of others, as stewards of God’s grace, and for the praise and glory of Christ. All of us, therefore, are also responsible to enable all God’s people to exercise all the gifts that God has given for all the areas of service to which God calls the Church. We should not quench the Spirit by despising the ministry of any. Further, we are determined to see ministry within the body of Christ as a gifting and responsibility in which we are called to serve, and not as a status and right that we demand.
A) We uphold Lausanne’s historic position: ‘We affirm that the gifts of the Spirit are distributed to all God's people, women and men, and that their partnership in evangelization must be welcomed for the common good.’ We acknowledge the enormous and sacrificial contribution that women have made to world mission, ministering to both men and women, from biblical times to the present.
B) We recognize that there are different views sincerely held by those who seek to be faithful and obedient to Scripture. Some interpret apostolic teaching to imply that women should not teach or preach, or that they may do so but not in sole authority over men. Others interpret the spiritual equality of women, the exercise of the edifying gift of prophecy by women in the New Testament church, and their hosting of churches in their homes, as implying that the spiritual gifts of leading and teaching may be received and exercised in ministry by both women and men. We call upon those on different sides of the argument to:
1.Accept one another without condemnation in relation to matters of dispute, for while we may disagree, we have no grounds for division, destructive speaking, or ungodly hostility towards one another;
2.Study Scripture carefully together, with due regard for the context and culture of the original authors and contemporary readers;
3.Recognize that where there is genuine pain we must show compassion; where there is injustice and lack of integrity we must stand against them; and where there is resistance to the manifest work of the Holy Spirit in any sister or brother we must repent;
4.Commit ourselves to a pattern of ministry, male and female, that reflects the servanthood of Jesus Christ, not worldly striving for power and status.
C) We encourage churches to acknowledge godly women who teach and model what is good, as Paul commanded, and to open wider doors of opportunity for women in education, service, and leadership, particularly in contexts where the gospel challenges unjust cultural traditions. We long that women should not be hindered from exercising God’s gifts or following God’s call on their lives.
So-called evangelicals who emphasise the authority of Scripture and who declare themselves to be Apostolic are here urged to abandon their stance on the role of women in the church.
This places many, especially the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney, in a very awkward position should they attempt to honour the Cape Town Commitment. They have already abandoned the authority of Scripture on Creation thus betraying hypocrisy in holding out against the role of women over men in the church. In time they will wilt. They must submit to the worldly agenda on the role of women in the church as they have done with interpretation of Scripture on Creation.
Thus is the degeneration of evangelicalism in the past three centuries to gather pace unless the Lord intervenes. It is not within the capacity of men to reverse it. It will be something akin to Josiah's reading of the Book of the Law or Luther's finding a Bible and reading what had not been taught him - all at the inspiration of God's Spirit to bring about great change.
Sam Drucker
In more than one post I identified the concerns of Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones about the direction of the Lausanne Conference. I also commented on the dangers of the latter day Lausanne ie the Cape Town conference.
Just released is the Cape Town Commitment and it can be found at lausanne
There is much to be concerned about. Critics I referred to previously would be grieved at the state of evangelicalism today and some extracts of commitments I provide hereunder:
We long to see the Church in all cultures energetically engaging the arts as a context for mission by:
1.Bringing the arts back into the life of the faith community as a valid and valuable component of our call to discipleship;
2.Supporting those with artistic gifts, especially sisters and brothers in Christ, so that they may flourish in their work;
3.Letting the arts serve as an hospitable environment in which we can acknowledge and come to know the neighbour and the stranger;
4.Respecting cultural differences and celebrating indigenous artistic expression.
When earnest and lively preaching in the Spirit of God is beyond so-called evangelical churches here is the recommended recourse. Don't expect multitudes to turn to the Lord. Don't even expect the church to survive.
Also, notice the subtle reversal of the traditional rendering of "brothers and sisters" when referring to both sexes. Why should there be any separation anyway? Why not just use the term "Christians" unless there is an agenda?
We lament over the widespread abuse and destruction of the earth’s resources, including its bio-diversity. Probably the most serious and urgent challenge faced by the physical world now is the threat of climate change. This will disproportionately affect those in poorer countries, for it is there that climate extremes will be most severe and where there is little capability to adapt to them. World poverty and climate change need to be addressed together and with equal urgency.
Here is the highly dubious socialist agenda being adopted by the so-called evangelical church without question.
A divided Church has no message for a divided world. Our failure to live in reconciled unity is a major obstacle to authenticity and effectiveness in mission.
A) We lament the dividedness and divisiveness of our churches and organizations. We deeply and urgently long for Christians to cultivate a spirit of grace and to be obedient to Paul’s command to ‘make every effort to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.
B) While we recognize that our deepest unity is spiritual, we long for greater recognition of the missional power of visible, practical, earthly unity. So we urge Christian sisters and brothers worldwide, for the sake of our common witness and mission, to resist the temptation to split the body of Christ, and to seek the paths of reconciliation and restored unity wherever possible.
The broad sentiment here expressed is also a precursor for what follows:
A) We stand together as church and mission leaders in all parts of the world, called to recognize and accept one another, with equality of opportunities to contribute together to world mission. Let us, in submission to Christ, lay aside suspicion, competition and pride and be willing to learn from those whom God is using, even when they are not from our continent, nor of our particular theology, nor of our organization, nor of our circle of friends.
B) Partnership is about more than money, and unwise injection of money frequently corrupts and divides the Church. Let us finally prove that the Church does not operate on the principle that those who have the most money have all the decision-making power. Let us no longer impose our own preferred names, slogans, programmes, systems and methods on other parts of the Church. Let us instead work for true mutuality of North and South, East and West, for interdependence in giving and receiving, for the respect and dignity that characterizes genuine friends and true partners in mission.
Here is a foundation statement of discouragement of evangelical churches from drawing people out of the darkness of Roman Catholicism. It would go even further to discourage the drawing of people out from the errors of so-called evangelical denominations/churches.
All of us, women and men, married and single, are responsible to employ God’s gifts for the benefit of others, as stewards of God’s grace, and for the praise and glory of Christ. All of us, therefore, are also responsible to enable all God’s people to exercise all the gifts that God has given for all the areas of service to which God calls the Church. We should not quench the Spirit by despising the ministry of any. Further, we are determined to see ministry within the body of Christ as a gifting and responsibility in which we are called to serve, and not as a status and right that we demand.
A) We uphold Lausanne’s historic position: ‘We affirm that the gifts of the Spirit are distributed to all God's people, women and men, and that their partnership in evangelization must be welcomed for the common good.’ We acknowledge the enormous and sacrificial contribution that women have made to world mission, ministering to both men and women, from biblical times to the present.
B) We recognize that there are different views sincerely held by those who seek to be faithful and obedient to Scripture. Some interpret apostolic teaching to imply that women should not teach or preach, or that they may do so but not in sole authority over men. Others interpret the spiritual equality of women, the exercise of the edifying gift of prophecy by women in the New Testament church, and their hosting of churches in their homes, as implying that the spiritual gifts of leading and teaching may be received and exercised in ministry by both women and men. We call upon those on different sides of the argument to:
1.Accept one another without condemnation in relation to matters of dispute, for while we may disagree, we have no grounds for division, destructive speaking, or ungodly hostility towards one another;
2.Study Scripture carefully together, with due regard for the context and culture of the original authors and contemporary readers;
3.Recognize that where there is genuine pain we must show compassion; where there is injustice and lack of integrity we must stand against them; and where there is resistance to the manifest work of the Holy Spirit in any sister or brother we must repent;
4.Commit ourselves to a pattern of ministry, male and female, that reflects the servanthood of Jesus Christ, not worldly striving for power and status.
C) We encourage churches to acknowledge godly women who teach and model what is good, as Paul commanded, and to open wider doors of opportunity for women in education, service, and leadership, particularly in contexts where the gospel challenges unjust cultural traditions. We long that women should not be hindered from exercising God’s gifts or following God’s call on their lives.
So-called evangelicals who emphasise the authority of Scripture and who declare themselves to be Apostolic are here urged to abandon their stance on the role of women in the church.
This places many, especially the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney, in a very awkward position should they attempt to honour the Cape Town Commitment. They have already abandoned the authority of Scripture on Creation thus betraying hypocrisy in holding out against the role of women over men in the church. In time they will wilt. They must submit to the worldly agenda on the role of women in the church as they have done with interpretation of Scripture on Creation.
Thus is the degeneration of evangelicalism in the past three centuries to gather pace unless the Lord intervenes. It is not within the capacity of men to reverse it. It will be something akin to Josiah's reading of the Book of the Law or Luther's finding a Bible and reading what had not been taught him - all at the inspiration of God's Spirit to bring about great change.
Sam Drucker
Friday, December 31, 2010
The Fight of Faith (Part 2)
This is the final blog on the subject introduced last week. I reproduce the words of Iain Murray in his biography of "Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones - The Fight of Faith 1939-1981" - pages 668 to 671 refer.
"Few voices were to be heard in support of ML-J's contention that the drift within evangelicalism was following the mood of the age but two testimonies from a few years later are worthy of note. In the opinion of Francis Schaeffer: 'A significant section of what is called evangelicalism has allowed itself to be infiltrated by the general world view or viewpoint of our day."¹ What he called 'The Great Evangelical Disaster' was the acceptance of the mentality of accommodation: 'in the most basic sense, the evangelical establishment has become deeply worldly'.²
A second testimony comes from a less expected source. Dr Carl Henry was Editor of Christianity Today and a leading figure in the Billy Graham organization during the period when that organization was commonly regarded as the epitome of the new evangelical strength. ML-J, as we have seen, spoke alone in that period when he expressed to fellow ministers his conviction that the Graham programme was actually weakening historic evangelicalism. Carl Henry's book Confessions of a Theologian is a revealing book in this connexion. Henry saw the image building and the concern for influence with non-evangelicals at close quarters and came at last to the conclusion that 'the evangelical movement looks stronger than in fact it is'.³ 'While evangelicals seek to penetrate the culture, the culture simultaneously makes disconcerting inroads into evangelical life.'4 The truth, as he wrote in 1986, was that evangelicalism was no longer definite about its own message:
The term evangelical during the past fifteen years has become ambiguous through deliberate distortion by critics and needless confusion invited by some of the movement's leaders ... Many evangelicals now measure growth mainly in terms of numbers; distinctions of doctrine and practice are subordinated in a broad welcome for charismatic, Catholic, traditional and other varieties of evangelicals. Theological differences are minimized by evangelical publishers and publications reaching for mass circulation, by evangelists luring capacity audiences and even by evangelism festivals seeking the largest possible involvement. Church growth seminars have even embraced 'miracle-growth' churches that claim to raise the dead and to reproduce all other apostolic gifts. Numerical bigness has become an infectious epidemic.5
This brings us to Dr Lloyd-Jones' second reason for the drift in evangelicalism. The compromise with worldly standards of thought had occurred because of the basic spiritual weakness within evangelical churches themselves. In other words, it was ultimately the old problem upon which we have heard him speak repeatedly in these pages. 'Evangelism' and 'influence' had become ends in themselves instead of being seen as the results of the church being true to her calling: the acceptance of expediency and compromise could only mean that prayer, confidence in Scripture and dependence upon the power of the Holy Spirit were no longer the great priorities. Evangelicals had ceased to say 'that, if we are faithful, the Holy Spirit has promised to honour us and our testimony, however small our numbers and however despised by "the wise and prudent"'.6
Carl Henry's book gives indisputable evidence on this point. It confirms that the overall policy of the Graham organization (closely parallel to the policy taken up by Anglican evangelicals at Keele) was to attain 'prestige' and influence for evangelicals.7 To do this there had to be a successful image and that would not be possible, it was believed, unless every effort was made to avoid a division with those who did not believe the Bible. Henry speaks of the church's credibility being 'compromised by an evaporation of discipline' and regrets that Graham did not call evangelicals to 'a long, hard look at their need of more comprehensive unity and at the neglected issue of evangelical ecclesiology'. But Graham could not do this because it 'would have seriously complicated relationships of his crusades to ecumenically oriented churches, since he exacted their endorsement as the price of city-wide meetings'.8 The Graham organization, for precisely the same reason as the Anglican evangelicals, was unready to 'forfeit dialogue with the ecumenical leaders and churches'.9 It feared a loss of influence. So it also said one thing and did another. The Berlin Congress of 1966, says Henry, 'exposed the speculative philosophy that underlay pluralistic ecumenism' but, simultaneously, the Graham Crusades were committed to such ecumenism. The direction was set long before the American Festival on Evangelism of 1981, where the participants, writes Henry, included everyone from 'partisans of traditional papal Catholicism' and '150 Protestant denominations' to 'charismatics and establishment conservatives'. In a major understatement, he concludes, the Festival 'did little to clarify the identity of evangelicalism'.10
So ends my citation of Iain Murray's helpful study of the climate within evangelicalism observed by Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones and Dr Carl Henry late last century.
Well, things have not improved to the present day. Indeed, going beyond Dr Henry's point we are left to say that evangelicalism does not penetrate the culture but the culture penetrates evangelicalism. It is all a one-way street with a dark and murky end.
This is a sorry state. It is death. It is death like that of Adam's when he sinned against God, he seemed alive but was estranged from the source of life and, eventually, he was no more. The day fast approaches when the present remnant of evangelicalism still holding to its its original tenets will be a valley of dry bones. What is needed is regeneration, for God to call and empower men to preach to open hearts, hearts receptive to the Word of God to the exclusion of the world's seductions, hearts abounding in number that the culture is overwhelmed by the authority of the Word of God. There has been such activity of God in times and places past. Let us pray earnestly for God to so act now. Lest us pray for an increase in faith - faith in God as he has revealed himself in Word written and Incarnate.
Sam Drucker
References
1. The Great Evangelical Disaster, 1984, p. 51.
2. Ibid, p. 142. 'What is the use,' he asks, 'of evangelicalism seeming to get larger and larger if sufficient numbers of those under the name evangelical no longer hold to that which makes evangelicalism evangelical?'
3. Confessions of a Theologian, 1986, p. 390.
4. Ibid, p. 388. See also Marsden, Reforming Fundamentalism, p. 275.
5. Confessions of a Theologian, p.387.
6. Puritans, p. 147.
7. In the years when 'the new evangelicalism' was first being heard, Edward
Darnell of Fuller Seminary wrote to Henry: 'I want to command the attention of Tillich and Bennett; then I shall be in a better place to be of service to the evangelicals. We need prestige desperately.' Marsden's book, op. cit., details the effects which this priority came to have in the history of Fuller Seminary, where Dr Graham was a prominent member of the board of trustees.
8. Confessions of a Theologian, p. 384.
9. Ibid,p. 293.
10. Ibid ,p. 351
"Few voices were to be heard in support of ML-J's contention that the drift within evangelicalism was following the mood of the age but two testimonies from a few years later are worthy of note. In the opinion of Francis Schaeffer: 'A significant section of what is called evangelicalism has allowed itself to be infiltrated by the general world view or viewpoint of our day."¹ What he called 'The Great Evangelical Disaster' was the acceptance of the mentality of accommodation: 'in the most basic sense, the evangelical establishment has become deeply worldly'.²
A second testimony comes from a less expected source. Dr Carl Henry was Editor of Christianity Today and a leading figure in the Billy Graham organization during the period when that organization was commonly regarded as the epitome of the new evangelical strength. ML-J, as we have seen, spoke alone in that period when he expressed to fellow ministers his conviction that the Graham programme was actually weakening historic evangelicalism. Carl Henry's book Confessions of a Theologian is a revealing book in this connexion. Henry saw the image building and the concern for influence with non-evangelicals at close quarters and came at last to the conclusion that 'the evangelical movement looks stronger than in fact it is'.³ 'While evangelicals seek to penetrate the culture, the culture simultaneously makes disconcerting inroads into evangelical life.'4 The truth, as he wrote in 1986, was that evangelicalism was no longer definite about its own message:
The term evangelical during the past fifteen years has become ambiguous through deliberate distortion by critics and needless confusion invited by some of the movement's leaders ... Many evangelicals now measure growth mainly in terms of numbers; distinctions of doctrine and practice are subordinated in a broad welcome for charismatic, Catholic, traditional and other varieties of evangelicals. Theological differences are minimized by evangelical publishers and publications reaching for mass circulation, by evangelists luring capacity audiences and even by evangelism festivals seeking the largest possible involvement. Church growth seminars have even embraced 'miracle-growth' churches that claim to raise the dead and to reproduce all other apostolic gifts. Numerical bigness has become an infectious epidemic.5
This brings us to Dr Lloyd-Jones' second reason for the drift in evangelicalism. The compromise with worldly standards of thought had occurred because of the basic spiritual weakness within evangelical churches themselves. In other words, it was ultimately the old problem upon which we have heard him speak repeatedly in these pages. 'Evangelism' and 'influence' had become ends in themselves instead of being seen as the results of the church being true to her calling: the acceptance of expediency and compromise could only mean that prayer, confidence in Scripture and dependence upon the power of the Holy Spirit were no longer the great priorities. Evangelicals had ceased to say 'that, if we are faithful, the Holy Spirit has promised to honour us and our testimony, however small our numbers and however despised by "the wise and prudent"'.6
Carl Henry's book gives indisputable evidence on this point. It confirms that the overall policy of the Graham organization (closely parallel to the policy taken up by Anglican evangelicals at Keele) was to attain 'prestige' and influence for evangelicals.7 To do this there had to be a successful image and that would not be possible, it was believed, unless every effort was made to avoid a division with those who did not believe the Bible. Henry speaks of the church's credibility being 'compromised by an evaporation of discipline' and regrets that Graham did not call evangelicals to 'a long, hard look at their need of more comprehensive unity and at the neglected issue of evangelical ecclesiology'. But Graham could not do this because it 'would have seriously complicated relationships of his crusades to ecumenically oriented churches, since he exacted their endorsement as the price of city-wide meetings'.8 The Graham organization, for precisely the same reason as the Anglican evangelicals, was unready to 'forfeit dialogue with the ecumenical leaders and churches'.9 It feared a loss of influence. So it also said one thing and did another. The Berlin Congress of 1966, says Henry, 'exposed the speculative philosophy that underlay pluralistic ecumenism' but, simultaneously, the Graham Crusades were committed to such ecumenism. The direction was set long before the American Festival on Evangelism of 1981, where the participants, writes Henry, included everyone from 'partisans of traditional papal Catholicism' and '150 Protestant denominations' to 'charismatics and establishment conservatives'. In a major understatement, he concludes, the Festival 'did little to clarify the identity of evangelicalism'.10
So ends my citation of Iain Murray's helpful study of the climate within evangelicalism observed by Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones and Dr Carl Henry late last century.
Well, things have not improved to the present day. Indeed, going beyond Dr Henry's point we are left to say that evangelicalism does not penetrate the culture but the culture penetrates evangelicalism. It is all a one-way street with a dark and murky end.
This is a sorry state. It is death. It is death like that of Adam's when he sinned against God, he seemed alive but was estranged from the source of life and, eventually, he was no more. The day fast approaches when the present remnant of evangelicalism still holding to its its original tenets will be a valley of dry bones. What is needed is regeneration, for God to call and empower men to preach to open hearts, hearts receptive to the Word of God to the exclusion of the world's seductions, hearts abounding in number that the culture is overwhelmed by the authority of the Word of God. There has been such activity of God in times and places past. Let us pray earnestly for God to so act now. Lest us pray for an increase in faith - faith in God as he has revealed himself in Word written and Incarnate.
Sam Drucker
References
1. The Great Evangelical Disaster, 1984, p. 51.
2. Ibid, p. 142. 'What is the use,' he asks, 'of evangelicalism seeming to get larger and larger if sufficient numbers of those under the name evangelical no longer hold to that which makes evangelicalism evangelical?'
3. Confessions of a Theologian, 1986, p. 390.
4. Ibid, p. 388. See also Marsden, Reforming Fundamentalism, p. 275.
5. Confessions of a Theologian, p.387.
6. Puritans, p. 147.
7. In the years when 'the new evangelicalism' was first being heard, Edward
Darnell of Fuller Seminary wrote to Henry: 'I want to command the attention of Tillich and Bennett; then I shall be in a better place to be of service to the evangelicals. We need prestige desperately.' Marsden's book, op. cit., details the effects which this priority came to have in the history of Fuller Seminary, where Dr Graham was a prominent member of the board of trustees.
8. Confessions of a Theologian, p. 384.
9. Ibid,p. 293.
10. Ibid ,p. 351
Sunday, December 26, 2010
The Fight of Faith (Part 1)
We press on with understanding drift evangelicalism into demise and advise that we have to look back at past events to see how the decline has taken effect. Earlier blogs went back to the Nineteenth Century but more recent blogs draw from events surrounding a key figure in the evangelical church in the Twentieth Century.
Such a figure was most certainly Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones and the excellent biography of Dr Lloyd-Jones by Iain Murray (subtitled 'The Fight of Faith 1939-1981)gives important insights into why the evangelical church in England and even as far away as the Sydney Episcopalian Church is today in such poor health. I provide an extract from pages 665-668 in Part 1 now and Part 2 from pages 668-671 shortly. I shall not provide my own comments until Part 2:
"When major changes occur in the history of the church such as the doctrinal slide in England of the 1960's and 70's there are always major reasons. In ML-J's view two things principally explained why this occurred as it did.
First, it happened because of the degree to which the spirit and attitudes of the world had penetrated the church. It was no accident that evangelicalism began to favour openness and to repudiate 'exclusiveness' at the very period when the prevailing climate of opinion was against dogmatism in every field of knowledge: even science had lost its one-time near infallibility. The contemporary mood was against all absolutes. Almost all beliefs in society at large had become of only 'relative' value, none could be said to be definitely right or wrong. Religion was acceptable in terms of human experience, not in terms of any revelation from heaven. 'Experience', not truth, was now central. Describing the general situation as he saw it in 1971, Dr Lloyd-Jones said:
There is a very obvious reaction at the present time against intellectualism. .. This is found among the students in America, and increasingly in this country. Reason is being distrusted and set on one side. Following D. H. Lawrence many are saying that our troubles are due to the fact that we have over-developed our cerebrum. We must listen more to our 'blood' and go back to nature. And so turning against intellectualism, and deliberately espousing the creed of irrationality, they yield themselves to the desire for 'experience', and place sensation above understanding. What matters is feeling and enjoyment; not thought. Pure thought leads nowhere.¹
Instead of seeing the danger, evangelicals accommodated themselves to the change as though it could serve the interests of their own cause. The popular culture was openly appealed to for justification of major change in the life and witness of the church. The old 'written culture', it was said, was dying. There had to be a new appeal to the eye and to the senses: 'It is surely the job of this generation of Evangelicals to recreate the dramatic and poetic means of passing on guidance in the spiritual, ethical and social life of man.'² The leading role in the introduction of this change was taken by David Watson of York who saw 'the potential for marvellous communication' in music, dance and drama. 'The reason why I travel with a team,' he later wrote, 'gifted as they are in the performing arts, is that they are able to communicate the Gospel much more effectively than I could with mere words.' He criticized 'much western Christianity' for concentrating 'almost exclusively upon the mind'. 'Most churches rely heavily on the spoken or written word for communication and then wonder why so few people find the Christian faith to be relevant.'³
There were many variations in this new emphasis. In the groups where tongues-speaking was prominent the anti-intellectual approach disarmed any criticism of the widespread use of 'language' which no one understood. Hocken represents a common view in regarding 'baptism with the Spirit' as of divine origin because its reception bypassed the mind: 'Not being first mediated through human understanding, it involves a directness of encounter with the living God'.4
This same influence not only switched attention from preaching to 'sharing', it came to justify a massive change in what was now considered warranted in the singing and music of services and evangelistic meetings. Worship was 'liberated'. It was plausibly proposed that sound, rhythm and the form of lyrics be brought closer to what was popular in the everyday world. The early development of this change drew some critical comment in the Christian press. 'Countryman' wrote of how the Filey Christian Convention in 1967 had become 'Swinging Filey', 'with a Sunday afternoon sacred concert; a fresh beat to the music and a drum-roll in the middle of "Praise my soul, the King of heaven".'5 At the Evangelical Alliance Assembly meetings in London the following year, the platform was given one evening to the youth who presented the 'Why Generation'. Commenting on this event, Tim and Doreen Buckley, instructors in music at the London Bible College, wrote in The Life of Faith of the impression gained by friends who had attended: 'The programme was intended to show how to communicate in the '6o's, but the decibels of sheer noise made it impossible to distinguish either the tune or the words of the first three items. If this is '68 communicating, our friends, who are not "squares", were not communicated to . . ."6
But criticisms such as these were few and far between and the 1970's saw changes in the content and conduct of public worship on a scale scarcely imaginable a few years earlier. ML-J traced this same change to the effect of a popular culture which wants 'sensation' and feeling and is against stress 'on the intellect and the understanding'. Speaking on one occasion of how this spirit 'militates very much against the kind of thing for which we stand in the Evangelical Library' he went on:
In this country the form which it takes, perhaps most of all, is what is known as the charismatic movement. . . The emphasis is upon experience and feeling, and a type of service with much singing, but not the singing of the kind of hymns that are to be found in the Evangelical Library, nor the hymns written by the men whose biographies are in the Evangelical Library! They have their own hymns and choruses . . .7
Making a similar point about the way in which Christians were being influenced by the spirit of the world, he said at another Library meeting:
The days in which we live are characteristic of superficiality, the cry is for entertainment and endless meetings, music, drama, dancing, etc. but a solid life and witness cannot be built up that way."8
References
1. The State of the Nation, BEC Address, 1971, p.16.
2. Evangelicals Today, p.101.
3. David Watson, I believe in the Church, 1978, and You Are My God, 1983, where these themes are pursued at length. For ML-J's opposition to this see his address on 'Preaching' in Puritans, p. 373.
4. One Lord, One Spirit, One Body, 1987, p. 44
5. English Churchman, October 13, 1967.
6. The same writers urged readers to obtain the WR for October 1968 v8 v
contained ML-J's sermon, 'Melody and Harmony' on Ephesians 5:19 (preached
in 1959); it 'leaves one in no doubt as to where this preacher stands as regards modern trends in music'.
7. The Evangelical Library Bulletin, Spring 1978, pp.9-10.
8. Ibid, Spring 1975, p.6.
Such a figure was most certainly Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones and the excellent biography of Dr Lloyd-Jones by Iain Murray (subtitled 'The Fight of Faith 1939-1981)gives important insights into why the evangelical church in England and even as far away as the Sydney Episcopalian Church is today in such poor health. I provide an extract from pages 665-668 in Part 1 now and Part 2 from pages 668-671 shortly. I shall not provide my own comments until Part 2:
"When major changes occur in the history of the church such as the doctrinal slide in England of the 1960's and 70's there are always major reasons. In ML-J's view two things principally explained why this occurred as it did.
First, it happened because of the degree to which the spirit and attitudes of the world had penetrated the church. It was no accident that evangelicalism began to favour openness and to repudiate 'exclusiveness' at the very period when the prevailing climate of opinion was against dogmatism in every field of knowledge: even science had lost its one-time near infallibility. The contemporary mood was against all absolutes. Almost all beliefs in society at large had become of only 'relative' value, none could be said to be definitely right or wrong. Religion was acceptable in terms of human experience, not in terms of any revelation from heaven. 'Experience', not truth, was now central. Describing the general situation as he saw it in 1971, Dr Lloyd-Jones said:
There is a very obvious reaction at the present time against intellectualism. .. This is found among the students in America, and increasingly in this country. Reason is being distrusted and set on one side. Following D. H. Lawrence many are saying that our troubles are due to the fact that we have over-developed our cerebrum. We must listen more to our 'blood' and go back to nature. And so turning against intellectualism, and deliberately espousing the creed of irrationality, they yield themselves to the desire for 'experience', and place sensation above understanding. What matters is feeling and enjoyment; not thought. Pure thought leads nowhere.¹
Instead of seeing the danger, evangelicals accommodated themselves to the change as though it could serve the interests of their own cause. The popular culture was openly appealed to for justification of major change in the life and witness of the church. The old 'written culture', it was said, was dying. There had to be a new appeal to the eye and to the senses: 'It is surely the job of this generation of Evangelicals to recreate the dramatic and poetic means of passing on guidance in the spiritual, ethical and social life of man.'² The leading role in the introduction of this change was taken by David Watson of York who saw 'the potential for marvellous communication' in music, dance and drama. 'The reason why I travel with a team,' he later wrote, 'gifted as they are in the performing arts, is that they are able to communicate the Gospel much more effectively than I could with mere words.' He criticized 'much western Christianity' for concentrating 'almost exclusively upon the mind'. 'Most churches rely heavily on the spoken or written word for communication and then wonder why so few people find the Christian faith to be relevant.'³
There were many variations in this new emphasis. In the groups where tongues-speaking was prominent the anti-intellectual approach disarmed any criticism of the widespread use of 'language' which no one understood. Hocken represents a common view in regarding 'baptism with the Spirit' as of divine origin because its reception bypassed the mind: 'Not being first mediated through human understanding, it involves a directness of encounter with the living God'.4
This same influence not only switched attention from preaching to 'sharing', it came to justify a massive change in what was now considered warranted in the singing and music of services and evangelistic meetings. Worship was 'liberated'. It was plausibly proposed that sound, rhythm and the form of lyrics be brought closer to what was popular in the everyday world. The early development of this change drew some critical comment in the Christian press. 'Countryman' wrote of how the Filey Christian Convention in 1967 had become 'Swinging Filey', 'with a Sunday afternoon sacred concert; a fresh beat to the music and a drum-roll in the middle of "Praise my soul, the King of heaven".'5 At the Evangelical Alliance Assembly meetings in London the following year, the platform was given one evening to the youth who presented the 'Why Generation'. Commenting on this event, Tim and Doreen Buckley, instructors in music at the London Bible College, wrote in The Life of Faith of the impression gained by friends who had attended: 'The programme was intended to show how to communicate in the '6o's, but the decibels of sheer noise made it impossible to distinguish either the tune or the words of the first three items. If this is '68 communicating, our friends, who are not "squares", were not communicated to . . ."6
But criticisms such as these were few and far between and the 1970's saw changes in the content and conduct of public worship on a scale scarcely imaginable a few years earlier. ML-J traced this same change to the effect of a popular culture which wants 'sensation' and feeling and is against stress 'on the intellect and the understanding'. Speaking on one occasion of how this spirit 'militates very much against the kind of thing for which we stand in the Evangelical Library' he went on:
In this country the form which it takes, perhaps most of all, is what is known as the charismatic movement. . . The emphasis is upon experience and feeling, and a type of service with much singing, but not the singing of the kind of hymns that are to be found in the Evangelical Library, nor the hymns written by the men whose biographies are in the Evangelical Library! They have their own hymns and choruses . . .7
Making a similar point about the way in which Christians were being influenced by the spirit of the world, he said at another Library meeting:
The days in which we live are characteristic of superficiality, the cry is for entertainment and endless meetings, music, drama, dancing, etc. but a solid life and witness cannot be built up that way."8
References
1. The State of the Nation, BEC Address, 1971, p.16.
2. Evangelicals Today, p.101.
3. David Watson, I believe in the Church, 1978, and You Are My God, 1983, where these themes are pursued at length. For ML-J's opposition to this see his address on 'Preaching' in Puritans, p. 373.
4. One Lord, One Spirit, One Body, 1987, p. 44
5. English Churchman, October 13, 1967.
6. The same writers urged readers to obtain the WR for October 1968 v8 v
contained ML-J's sermon, 'Melody and Harmony' on Ephesians 5:19 (preached
in 1959); it 'leaves one in no doubt as to where this preacher stands as regards modern trends in music'.
7. The Evangelical Library Bulletin, Spring 1978, pp.9-10.
8. Ibid, Spring 1975, p.6.
Monday, December 20, 2010
"You travel over land and sea to win a single convert ..." To What?
This blogspot is critical of Moore Theological College - the theological seminary of the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney. Our concern is the College's handling of Genesis on Creation but, primarily, the problem is deeper than that. That erroneous teaching is a symptom of the Cancer that has eroded the evangelical church in Western culture for more than a century. It is a pursuit of the same error found in Higher Criticism and Liberal Theology which places the thoughts of man above the Word of God.
It is not as if the evangelical church has not had sufficient warning in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. We have publicised some of the warnings that people concerned for Christ's Church broadcast last century. The Cancer continues with little abatement. Closer to home Moore Theological College lures students from many parts of the world, proselytizes via its distance studies course - PTC - and spews its converts into evangelical churches around the globe.
We publicise here now more sampling of earlier warnings of the Cancer diagnosed last century and, despite proud protestations about its purity, is manifest in 'evangelicalism' today - no less evident in the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney via it's theological seminary.
Upon hearing of the proposed retirement of Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones in 1968 a Suffolk pastor wrote to the doctor and thanked him for the help received when he and his once fellow students of Richmond College wrestled with the compromised teaching at the college. He said, in part:
"I have just seen the notice of your resignation as minister of Westminster Chapel. At such a time I feel that I must tell you what a very great help your ministry was to me and to several other theological students while we were studying for the Methodist ministry at Richmond College. Often, at the end of a week of lectures which sometimes left us wondering just what we could believe, we would go up to the [Westminster] Chapel, as we called it, and there we would receive food for our souls, and would catch a fresh vision of the power and relevance of the gospel we had been called to preach. We came to see that God was greater than we had ever imagined before, and that the Bible was indeed His Word to us, inspired and wonderful in all its teaching."
It would not have been Richmond College alone which has compromised the Word of God because there was a broad departure from the Reformers and their principle for understanding the Word of God. Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones alludes to this when he wrote his 1967 annual letter to the members of Westminster Chapel on January 1, 1968. I cite part of his letter hereunder:
"When one turns to the more general position however, the situation is very different. Here, the main impression is one of confusion, uncertainty, and divided opinions. This is true not only in this country but throughout the world. This is something that one expects in 'Christendom', but in the past it has not been true of those calling themselves evangelical. This is the new feature which is so disturbing. No longer can it be assumed that to be evangelical means to accept the authority of the Scriptures on matters of history, and on the creation of the world and man, and at the very lowest to be sceptical about the theory of evolution. In the same way there has been a recrudescence of denominationalism and an entirely new attitude towards Romanism.
It is, alas, a time of conflict and of trial, indeed a time of tragedy when old comrades in arms are now in different camps. It is not that one in any way questions the honesty or the sincerity of such friends. There is only one explanation and that is, 'an enemy hath done this'. Never has that enemy been more active or more subtle . . .
What the outcome of the present upheaval will be no one can tell. Our duty is to be faithful knowing that the final outcome is sure."
Well, the upheaval has continued inasmuch as 'evangelicalism' is being turned on its head. As in the past, where certain institutions commenced with sound biblical principles but later turned to an opposite principle, 'evangelicalism' is abandoning its primary principle founded on trust in the Word of God.
Ecumenism may have lost momentum but just as Israel longed to return to Egypt when faith in the Word of God waned so it is likely that many who call themselves evangelical today will, one day, desire to return to Rome as loss of faith in the Word of God runs its course. The disease is there, all that is awaited is its consequence.
The lost of the world are in desperate need of a strong evangelical church but all they have tottering before them is a diseased and ever diminishing church.
Sam Drucker
It is not as if the evangelical church has not had sufficient warning in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. We have publicised some of the warnings that people concerned for Christ's Church broadcast last century. The Cancer continues with little abatement. Closer to home Moore Theological College lures students from many parts of the world, proselytizes via its distance studies course - PTC - and spews its converts into evangelical churches around the globe.
We publicise here now more sampling of earlier warnings of the Cancer diagnosed last century and, despite proud protestations about its purity, is manifest in 'evangelicalism' today - no less evident in the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney via it's theological seminary.
Upon hearing of the proposed retirement of Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones in 1968 a Suffolk pastor wrote to the doctor and thanked him for the help received when he and his once fellow students of Richmond College wrestled with the compromised teaching at the college. He said, in part:
"I have just seen the notice of your resignation as minister of Westminster Chapel. At such a time I feel that I must tell you what a very great help your ministry was to me and to several other theological students while we were studying for the Methodist ministry at Richmond College. Often, at the end of a week of lectures which sometimes left us wondering just what we could believe, we would go up to the [Westminster] Chapel, as we called it, and there we would receive food for our souls, and would catch a fresh vision of the power and relevance of the gospel we had been called to preach. We came to see that God was greater than we had ever imagined before, and that the Bible was indeed His Word to us, inspired and wonderful in all its teaching."
It would not have been Richmond College alone which has compromised the Word of God because there was a broad departure from the Reformers and their principle for understanding the Word of God. Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones alludes to this when he wrote his 1967 annual letter to the members of Westminster Chapel on January 1, 1968. I cite part of his letter hereunder:
"When one turns to the more general position however, the situation is very different. Here, the main impression is one of confusion, uncertainty, and divided opinions. This is true not only in this country but throughout the world. This is something that one expects in 'Christendom', but in the past it has not been true of those calling themselves evangelical. This is the new feature which is so disturbing. No longer can it be assumed that to be evangelical means to accept the authority of the Scriptures on matters of history, and on the creation of the world and man, and at the very lowest to be sceptical about the theory of evolution. In the same way there has been a recrudescence of denominationalism and an entirely new attitude towards Romanism.
It is, alas, a time of conflict and of trial, indeed a time of tragedy when old comrades in arms are now in different camps. It is not that one in any way questions the honesty or the sincerity of such friends. There is only one explanation and that is, 'an enemy hath done this'. Never has that enemy been more active or more subtle . . .
What the outcome of the present upheaval will be no one can tell. Our duty is to be faithful knowing that the final outcome is sure."
Well, the upheaval has continued inasmuch as 'evangelicalism' is being turned on its head. As in the past, where certain institutions commenced with sound biblical principles but later turned to an opposite principle, 'evangelicalism' is abandoning its primary principle founded on trust in the Word of God.
Ecumenism may have lost momentum but just as Israel longed to return to Egypt when faith in the Word of God waned so it is likely that many who call themselves evangelical today will, one day, desire to return to Rome as loss of faith in the Word of God runs its course. The disease is there, all that is awaited is its consequence.
The lost of the world are in desperate need of a strong evangelical church but all they have tottering before them is a diseased and ever diminishing church.
Sam Drucker
Sunday, December 5, 2010
The Gathering of the Mob at Lausanne
Interesting to see in the December 2010 edition of Southern Cross (Sydney Episcopalian Newspaper) that Bishop Glenn Davies returned from the Lausanne Conference on Evangelism with some pluses and minuses for what he observed. His positive mark for the conference was the broad commitment to evangelism. His negatives were not identified.
The Lausanne Conference is a periodic event having the stamp of Dr Billy Graham. Dr Graham had approached Dr Lloyd-Jones around the middle of last century for his involvement in a similar type conference in Rome but Dr Lloyd-Jones declined. In considering the later Lausanne conferences it is difficult to see what benefit it provides other than as an opportunity to 'back-slap' and encourage one another in the great commission we ought to be doing anyway compelled by love for our Lord Jesus Christ, to see God glorified and a concern for the lost.
Reading Part 2 of Iain Murray's autobiography of Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones has given me some insight into the good doctor's concerns about an aspect of Dr Billy Graham's ministry and aspirations for the Church in the 20th Century. By and large the Church was on the slide in that century and it was a time when Evangelicals were failing on many fronts to the extent that the Church lost its impact and influence of society generally (I posted blogs a little while back citing - "The Decline of Evangelicalism in Nineteenth-Century England" by R. J. Sheehan in Issue 278, November 1986, of The Banner of Truth). Obviously the rot had set in during the 19th Century and it continued to eat away in the following century.
The great concern for Martyn Lloyd-Jones was the strong push toward ecumenism in the United Kingdom and, one after another, Evangelicals were being seduced into embracing Liberals for the cause of unity at the expense of the authority of the Scripture. Such an outcome was to show the soft underbelly of those who professed to be Evangelical and, in effect, it showed they were not truly Evangelical. The same situation applies today and I suspect what Bishop Glenn Davies was reluctant to comment upon has its nexus in the same bondage of Evangelicals and non-Evangelicals that Martyn Lloyd-Jones had concerns about last century.
That said, the Sydney Episcopalian Diocese is not without question as to what side of the fence it rests. I am certain Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones would have problems with the Diocese based on his address to the Westminster Fraternal at Welwyn on 19 June 1963. Quoting Haggai Ch 1, Dr Lloyd-Jones raised a series of issues for the Church and I cite them from point 5 to quantify my charge:
"(5) The blatant unbelief in the official churches is coming into the open. And there is evidence of a subtle change of emphasis in evangelical thinking — an acceptance of looser views of the early chapters of Genesis and of miracles, a new atmosphere in book-reviewing, a disinterest in doctrine and a tendency to gloat in scholarship. (6) There is the whole moral condition of the country. There is need of prophetic statement but we seem to be living in our 'cieled houses' [sic]. (7) There is an appalling need of evangelical preaching. Evangelicalism is concentrated in the Greater London area. We forget the appalling conditions that prevail in the great bulk of the country.
This is a great challenge and unique opportunity. It is we alone who can give the message. But we seem to be ineffective and silent. . . Our Statements are tepid and harmless. Evangelicals in all the major denominations are in the same position." (see page 413 of the autobiography)
Because of the current failure of Moore Theological College (the Diocesan school of thought) to uphold the Word of God on origins it places itself and the Diocese in the same camp as the wilting band of so-called Evangelicals of the 19th and 20th Centuries which Dr Lloyd-Jones had concerns about.
Rev Michael Jensen counts regard for integrity of God's Word in Genesis Ch 1 (and, by extension, Exodus 20:11 and 31:17-18) as a secondary issue and is thus prepared to allow Jesus Christ, Creator, to be robbed of his glory in creation. Given that Bishop Glenn Davies is of the same school of thought he ought not be pointing out the splinter in the eye of non-Evangelicals at the Lausanne Conference without taking the plank out of his own.
It remains for me to find the plank resident in my own eye.
Sam Drucker
The Lausanne Conference is a periodic event having the stamp of Dr Billy Graham. Dr Graham had approached Dr Lloyd-Jones around the middle of last century for his involvement in a similar type conference in Rome but Dr Lloyd-Jones declined. In considering the later Lausanne conferences it is difficult to see what benefit it provides other than as an opportunity to 'back-slap' and encourage one another in the great commission we ought to be doing anyway compelled by love for our Lord Jesus Christ, to see God glorified and a concern for the lost.
Reading Part 2 of Iain Murray's autobiography of Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones has given me some insight into the good doctor's concerns about an aspect of Dr Billy Graham's ministry and aspirations for the Church in the 20th Century. By and large the Church was on the slide in that century and it was a time when Evangelicals were failing on many fronts to the extent that the Church lost its impact and influence of society generally (I posted blogs a little while back citing - "The Decline of Evangelicalism in Nineteenth-Century England" by R. J. Sheehan in Issue 278, November 1986, of The Banner of Truth). Obviously the rot had set in during the 19th Century and it continued to eat away in the following century.
The great concern for Martyn Lloyd-Jones was the strong push toward ecumenism in the United Kingdom and, one after another, Evangelicals were being seduced into embracing Liberals for the cause of unity at the expense of the authority of the Scripture. Such an outcome was to show the soft underbelly of those who professed to be Evangelical and, in effect, it showed they were not truly Evangelical. The same situation applies today and I suspect what Bishop Glenn Davies was reluctant to comment upon has its nexus in the same bondage of Evangelicals and non-Evangelicals that Martyn Lloyd-Jones had concerns about last century.
That said, the Sydney Episcopalian Diocese is not without question as to what side of the fence it rests. I am certain Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones would have problems with the Diocese based on his address to the Westminster Fraternal at Welwyn on 19 June 1963. Quoting Haggai Ch 1, Dr Lloyd-Jones raised a series of issues for the Church and I cite them from point 5 to quantify my charge:
"(5) The blatant unbelief in the official churches is coming into the open. And there is evidence of a subtle change of emphasis in evangelical thinking — an acceptance of looser views of the early chapters of Genesis and of miracles, a new atmosphere in book-reviewing, a disinterest in doctrine and a tendency to gloat in scholarship. (6) There is the whole moral condition of the country. There is need of prophetic statement but we seem to be living in our 'cieled houses' [sic]. (7) There is an appalling need of evangelical preaching. Evangelicalism is concentrated in the Greater London area. We forget the appalling conditions that prevail in the great bulk of the country.
This is a great challenge and unique opportunity. It is we alone who can give the message. But we seem to be ineffective and silent. . . Our Statements are tepid and harmless. Evangelicals in all the major denominations are in the same position." (see page 413 of the autobiography)
Because of the current failure of Moore Theological College (the Diocesan school of thought) to uphold the Word of God on origins it places itself and the Diocese in the same camp as the wilting band of so-called Evangelicals of the 19th and 20th Centuries which Dr Lloyd-Jones had concerns about.
Rev Michael Jensen counts regard for integrity of God's Word in Genesis Ch 1 (and, by extension, Exodus 20:11 and 31:17-18) as a secondary issue and is thus prepared to allow Jesus Christ, Creator, to be robbed of his glory in creation. Given that Bishop Glenn Davies is of the same school of thought he ought not be pointing out the splinter in the eye of non-Evangelicals at the Lausanne Conference without taking the plank out of his own.
It remains for me to find the plank resident in my own eye.
Sam Drucker
Sunday, September 12, 2010
More on Evangelical Declension (Part 2)
What follows is the completion of the article written by Gordon Keddie in the June 1970 edition of the Banner of Truth Journal on the subject "Towards a Christian View of Science."
What Gordon Keddie had to say some forty years ago remains strictly relevant today.
I was impressed by the comment of correspondent John who mentioned a schizoprhenic approach to the issue by evangelicals today. It was as if John and Keddie have seen things the same now and then, respectively. I allow Keddie to complete his article herewith:
"(d) A schizoid approach. The neo-evangelical solves this problem first by making the Bible and science complementary and then by separating the two so that each is supreme in its own sphere with hardly even an overlap. This position is basically schizoid since the authority of the Bible is only applicable to the sphere of faith, while the sphere of physical reality is the domain of science alone.21
The practical consequences of this view are exemplified by the dichotomy in the published writings and utterances of F. H. T. Rhodes, Prof of Geology at Swansea and a well-known evangelical Christian. As an evangelical believer, on the one hand, he has addressed conferences of evangelical scientists on the relation of the Bible to science,22 while, on the other hand, he has written a popular textbook on evolution23in which there is not a single reference to God and where the only reference to creation describes the Biblical teaching on creation as something we 'now regard as a naive concept.'24 The account of evolutionary development would do credit to the most ardent evolutionist.
(e) Implications for evangelical theology. The implications of the neo-evangelical recension of the doctrine of creation for the Reformed system of theology have received scant consideration. There are a number that might be mentioned,25 but we shall confine our attention to one that is of crucial importance - the creation of man.
If, as Bube et al,26 Kuitert27 and Jeeves28 have suggested, 'Adam' was not necessarily the literal first human being created out of actual dust, how are we to interpret such clear comparisons between the first Adam and Christ, the last Adam? as we have in Rom 5 and 1 Cor 15.22, 45? Dr Gleason Archer, Prof of Biblical Languages at Fuller Theol. Seminary states that,
'it is virtually impossible to accept the authority of Romans 5 . . . . without inferring that the entire human race has descended from a single father.'29
Archer further affirms that,
'the inspired record tells of a literal Adam and Eve, and gives no indication whatever that the account is intended to be mythical. It was certainly taken as historical by Christ and the apostles.'30
Surely it is the heart of the gospel that is being hazarded in the attempt to remove interpretations objectionable to modern science. If Adam is merely a hypostatization of sinful mankind in general rather than the actual federal head of the human race who fell into sin for himself and his descendants, then how can we comprehend the work of Christ in the new covenant if by no one man death reigned, then what assurance have we that through Christ's death many shall have eternal life ? What sort of soteriology do we have left?
The implications for theology do not stop at the rejection of an old 'literal reading of the creation account.' Why ? Because the science of theology reveals the system of truth in Scripture and if a system is more than the sum of its parts - it is an integral and interdependent whole reflecting the self-consistent nature of God - then any undermining of the foundations must eventually have profound consequences for the whole body of doctrine. The above example serves to emphasise the present necessity for Christians to examine, in faith, the foundations of their belief and to cast themselves on Christ, putting their trust in His Word as their sufficient authority in all things.
IV CONCLUSION - EVANGELICAL DECLENSION
It is the contention of this paper that the neo-evangelical 'trend' is a down-grade movement from truly evangelical Christianity. We shall briefly summarise the characteristic views of this group and comment thereupon by way of conclusion.
1. Scripture, while held to be divinely inspired and infallible, is nevertheless handled in such a way as to subordinate it to modern science where the Bible speaks on topics common to theology and natural science. [e.g., creation, miracles].
(a) The Bible is assumed, a priori, not to reveal 'scientific' information, that not being the purpose of special revelation.
(b) General disregard for strict exegesis of the Scripture is evident. This also holds for the practice of comparing Scripture with Scripture before arriving at any interpretation.
(c) There is increasing use of the inductive method of studying Scripture - a methodology inconsistent with the Biblical doctrine of inspiration.
2. Science, in its widest sense, is regarded as complementary to the Bible in contributing to a view of reality. The two are independent but interdependent. Thus science is autonomous and speaks for the realm of nature as the Bible does for that of faith.
(a) Modern science is regarded as the study of natural revelation and its best authenticated results [according to its own standards of course!] are considered to represent a valid picture of that revelation.
(b) Any conflict between 'traditional Biblical interpretation' and modern scientific discoveries must result in a re-examination of the former with a view to reinterpretation.
(c) No distinction is recognized in principle between the science practised by Christians (true science) and that of unbelievers (apostate science). There is no consistently Christian philosophy of science.
In practice, this unscriptural dualism divests the Scriptures of their absolute authority in all matters of faith and life. The announcement that they are inspired of God and therefore infallible becomes a hollow assertion when the plain teaching of the Bible is sidestepped to accommodate the most recent discoveries of science. Not that all neo-evangelicals deny, for instance, the historicity of the first Adam -there is considerable variance in views held - but all take the creation account out
of history and either use it as a literary framework on which the process of evolution, euphemistically termed 'progressive creation', is worked out (Ramm, N. H. Ridderbos, Lever, Henry) or reduce it to a few grand theological statements about God, man and the universe [Bube et al, van de Fliert, Kuitert]. Thus the conflict between the Bible and (apostate) science is neatly circumvented. Hear the words of Carl F. H. Henry, 'If by the evolutionary fact is meant that the universe is billions of years old, and that millions of years were required for the development of all the various species of plant and animal life, and that the antiquity of the human race is somewhat greater than the brief span of six thousand years assigned by scientists and theologians alike a few centuries ago, then warfare between science and Christianity is at an end.31
Henry is quite correct if he means neo-evangelical Christianity - obviously the war is over when one side has capitulated! The above statement has the ring of an epitaph. No more do we need to contend for an embarrassingly realistic Genesis account of creation! It is now dead and buried! We have reinterpreted the Light of the Word of God in the light of evolutionistic science!
The words of the apostle Paul are surely apposite here, 'O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so-called; which some professing have erred concerning the faith' (1 Tim 6.20-21a)."
Sam Drucker
References (cont. from previous post)
21. The Bible is not a 'textbook' of science (nor even of theology) - rather it is the ultimate primary written source of information - it is given. When the Bible speaks on any topic, therefore, it is authoritative in an ultimate way. Thus statements bearing on scientific subjects are normative for the prosecution of the science concerned. (See note 19.) The precise nature of such statements is to be decided on the basis of faithful exegesis of the best texts available.
22. See IVF Symposium, Christianity in a Mechanistic Universe [D. M. Mackay, ed.] and Jeeves, op. cit., p 164.
23. F. H. T. Rhodes, The Evolution of Life, London, Penguin Books, 1962, pp 302.
24. ibid., p 276.
25. e.g.. The questions concerning many miracles, the resurrection, the nature of history in the Bible.
26. R. H. Bube, op. cit., p 105.
27. M. H. Woudstra, op. cit.
28. Jeeves, op. cit., p 108.
29. G. L. Archer, Jr., A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, Chicago, Moody Press, 1965, p 190.
30. ibid., p 191.
31. In R. Mixter [ed.]. Evolution and Christian Thought Today, London, Paternoster, 1961, p 219.
What Gordon Keddie had to say some forty years ago remains strictly relevant today.
I was impressed by the comment of correspondent John who mentioned a schizoprhenic approach to the issue by evangelicals today. It was as if John and Keddie have seen things the same now and then, respectively. I allow Keddie to complete his article herewith:
"(d) A schizoid approach. The neo-evangelical solves this problem first by making the Bible and science complementary and then by separating the two so that each is supreme in its own sphere with hardly even an overlap. This position is basically schizoid since the authority of the Bible is only applicable to the sphere of faith, while the sphere of physical reality is the domain of science alone.21
The practical consequences of this view are exemplified by the dichotomy in the published writings and utterances of F. H. T. Rhodes, Prof of Geology at Swansea and a well-known evangelical Christian. As an evangelical believer, on the one hand, he has addressed conferences of evangelical scientists on the relation of the Bible to science,22 while, on the other hand, he has written a popular textbook on evolution23in which there is not a single reference to God and where the only reference to creation describes the Biblical teaching on creation as something we 'now regard as a naive concept.'24 The account of evolutionary development would do credit to the most ardent evolutionist.
(e) Implications for evangelical theology. The implications of the neo-evangelical recension of the doctrine of creation for the Reformed system of theology have received scant consideration. There are a number that might be mentioned,25 but we shall confine our attention to one that is of crucial importance - the creation of man.
If, as Bube et al,26 Kuitert27 and Jeeves28 have suggested, 'Adam' was not necessarily the literal first human being created out of actual dust, how are we to interpret such clear comparisons between the first Adam and Christ, the last Adam? as we have in Rom 5 and 1 Cor 15.22, 45? Dr Gleason Archer, Prof of Biblical Languages at Fuller Theol. Seminary states that,
'it is virtually impossible to accept the authority of Romans 5 . . . . without inferring that the entire human race has descended from a single father.'29
Archer further affirms that,
'the inspired record tells of a literal Adam and Eve, and gives no indication whatever that the account is intended to be mythical. It was certainly taken as historical by Christ and the apostles.'30
Surely it is the heart of the gospel that is being hazarded in the attempt to remove interpretations objectionable to modern science. If Adam is merely a hypostatization of sinful mankind in general rather than the actual federal head of the human race who fell into sin for himself and his descendants, then how can we comprehend the work of Christ in the new covenant if by no one man death reigned, then what assurance have we that through Christ's death many shall have eternal life ? What sort of soteriology do we have left?
The implications for theology do not stop at the rejection of an old 'literal reading of the creation account.' Why ? Because the science of theology reveals the system of truth in Scripture and if a system is more than the sum of its parts - it is an integral and interdependent whole reflecting the self-consistent nature of God - then any undermining of the foundations must eventually have profound consequences for the whole body of doctrine. The above example serves to emphasise the present necessity for Christians to examine, in faith, the foundations of their belief and to cast themselves on Christ, putting their trust in His Word as their sufficient authority in all things.
IV CONCLUSION - EVANGELICAL DECLENSION
It is the contention of this paper that the neo-evangelical 'trend' is a down-grade movement from truly evangelical Christianity. We shall briefly summarise the characteristic views of this group and comment thereupon by way of conclusion.
1. Scripture, while held to be divinely inspired and infallible, is nevertheless handled in such a way as to subordinate it to modern science where the Bible speaks on topics common to theology and natural science. [e.g., creation, miracles].
(a) The Bible is assumed, a priori, not to reveal 'scientific' information, that not being the purpose of special revelation.
(b) General disregard for strict exegesis of the Scripture is evident. This also holds for the practice of comparing Scripture with Scripture before arriving at any interpretation.
(c) There is increasing use of the inductive method of studying Scripture - a methodology inconsistent with the Biblical doctrine of inspiration.
2. Science, in its widest sense, is regarded as complementary to the Bible in contributing to a view of reality. The two are independent but interdependent. Thus science is autonomous and speaks for the realm of nature as the Bible does for that of faith.
(a) Modern science is regarded as the study of natural revelation and its best authenticated results [according to its own standards of course!] are considered to represent a valid picture of that revelation.
(b) Any conflict between 'traditional Biblical interpretation' and modern scientific discoveries must result in a re-examination of the former with a view to reinterpretation.
(c) No distinction is recognized in principle between the science practised by Christians (true science) and that of unbelievers (apostate science). There is no consistently Christian philosophy of science.
In practice, this unscriptural dualism divests the Scriptures of their absolute authority in all matters of faith and life. The announcement that they are inspired of God and therefore infallible becomes a hollow assertion when the plain teaching of the Bible is sidestepped to accommodate the most recent discoveries of science. Not that all neo-evangelicals deny, for instance, the historicity of the first Adam -there is considerable variance in views held - but all take the creation account out
of history and either use it as a literary framework on which the process of evolution, euphemistically termed 'progressive creation', is worked out (Ramm, N. H. Ridderbos, Lever, Henry) or reduce it to a few grand theological statements about God, man and the universe [Bube et al, van de Fliert, Kuitert]. Thus the conflict between the Bible and (apostate) science is neatly circumvented. Hear the words of Carl F. H. Henry, 'If by the evolutionary fact is meant that the universe is billions of years old, and that millions of years were required for the development of all the various species of plant and animal life, and that the antiquity of the human race is somewhat greater than the brief span of six thousand years assigned by scientists and theologians alike a few centuries ago, then warfare between science and Christianity is at an end.31
Henry is quite correct if he means neo-evangelical Christianity - obviously the war is over when one side has capitulated! The above statement has the ring of an epitaph. No more do we need to contend for an embarrassingly realistic Genesis account of creation! It is now dead and buried! We have reinterpreted the Light of the Word of God in the light of evolutionistic science!
The words of the apostle Paul are surely apposite here, 'O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so-called; which some professing have erred concerning the faith' (1 Tim 6.20-21a)."
Sam Drucker
References (cont. from previous post)
21. The Bible is not a 'textbook' of science (nor even of theology) - rather it is the ultimate primary written source of information - it is given. When the Bible speaks on any topic, therefore, it is authoritative in an ultimate way. Thus statements bearing on scientific subjects are normative for the prosecution of the science concerned. (See note 19.) The precise nature of such statements is to be decided on the basis of faithful exegesis of the best texts available.
22. See IVF Symposium, Christianity in a Mechanistic Universe [D. M. Mackay, ed.] and Jeeves, op. cit., p 164.
23. F. H. T. Rhodes, The Evolution of Life, London, Penguin Books, 1962, pp 302.
24. ibid., p 276.
25. e.g.. The questions concerning many miracles, the resurrection, the nature of history in the Bible.
26. R. H. Bube, op. cit., p 105.
27. M. H. Woudstra, op. cit.
28. Jeeves, op. cit., p 108.
29. G. L. Archer, Jr., A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, Chicago, Moody Press, 1965, p 190.
30. ibid., p 191.
31. In R. Mixter [ed.]. Evolution and Christian Thought Today, London, Paternoster, 1961, p 219.
Monday, September 6, 2010
More on Evangelical Declension (Part 1)
In response to recent comments by Eric I thought it relevant to reproduce an article written by Gordon Keddie in the June 1970 edition of the Banner of Truth Journal on the subject "Towards a Christian View of Science." The article is a continuation of the subject first addressed in the May 1970 edition of the Journal. Because of its length I will divide the article into two instalments separated by a few days. Keddie uses italics in several instances to emphasise points so, to retain his emphasis, I will not put the whole article in italics as I usually do when reproducing an article.
It is interesting to know the strength of argument against the trend within the evangelicalism to adopt evolution some thirty years ago. The increasing strength of argument today makes only for an increasingly uncomfortable time ahead for evangelical cowards.
What follows is my Part 1 of Gordon Keddie's article of June 1970:
"111 'NEW EVANGELICALISM - THE NEW DUALISM?
1. Proposition.
The neo-evangelical understanding of the relationship between the Bible as the special revelation of God and science as the legitimate investigation of His general (nature) revelation in the works of creation and providence closely resembles the dualistic thought of Thomas Aquinas, the mediaeval scholastic who gave the world the so-called Thomistic philosophy, still fundamental to modern Roman Catholic philosophy. This is an unscriptural position which has far-reaching consequences for evangelical theology, philosophy and special science.
2 Dualistic thought.
In this system there are two means of achieving a knowledge of absolute truth. One is using 'reason' - the so-called 'light of nature'. The other is by means of revelation from God's Word - this is 'grace'. These two aspects, nature and grace, are quite separate and independent means of learning truth, and so the system is said to be dualistic.1
Dualism considers the facts or findings of the sciences to be philosophically and theologically neutral, and so may be known as true by believer and unbeliever alike without reference to God. The facts may be apprehended by reason [nature] without any recourse to grace. (This is an over-simplification since obviously many facts can only be obtained by faith. The dualism extends in Romanist thought to two classes of fact - the natural order and the faith order. The point is that faith is not required prior to understanding truly facts of the natural order. This is in contradistinction to the Calvinistic view.) Thus it is claimed that the non-Christian can know some ultimate truths about the universe without first understanding them as facts made and interpreted by God. Facts, that all may know by use of reason alone, are assumed to be autonomous and reality is viewed as a 'sea of factuality' over which may roam with equal facility, theist and anti-theist alike.2
3 A Reformed evaluation.
Professor Cornelius Van Til has asserted that the dualistic view of facts as neutral 'brute facts' is tantamount to denying that God created the facts and even now sustains them. It denies the centrality and absolute sovereignty of God.3
Central to the Reformed system of truth, argues Herman Dooyeweerd, is the basic ground-motive of the sovereignty of God in creation, fall and redemption.
[i] God created all things ex nihilo, with the crowning act of creating man in His own image as a perfect and free moral being.
[ii] The fall of Adam [a literal first man] into sin whereby all men become totally depraved and are blinded to the truth of God.
[iii] The redemption through the blood of Christ of an elected people, who by the grace of God are saved through faith in Him.4 These regenerated people recover, in principle, the perfection of Adam as created, so that they can now see the Truth i.e., are no longer spiritually blind.
(a) Sin and the apostate scientist. Sin is a vital issue in the whole discussion, for it cuts off men from God and a knowledge of the truth.5 Professor Nigel Lee, in his recent Calvin on the Sciences, writes,
'In fact, the results of sin are of cosmic proportions, for "the condemnation of mankind is imprinted on the heavens, and on the earth, and on all creatures" ' (quoting Calvin, Comm. on Rom 8.19)6
The non-Christian, consequently, always, in principle, views the facts from a standpoint antithetical to that of the Creator of these facts. Whenever any facts impinge on religious and philosophical questions, they will be interpreted according to the anti-theistic ground motive of the fallen man, i.e., in terms of justifying his continued rebellion against God.7 A scientist who is an unbeliever is therefore an apostate scientist in principle and his science is accordingly apostate science.
(b) Common grace and the apostate scientist. One may justifiably wonder if what has just been said is not too extreme. Is it not saying that it is impossible for the non-Christian scientist to find out anything that is really true? Is it not also an easy way out - whereby any scientific findings that conflict with our own views are rejected as fictions because they are the products of unbelievers? Certainly not! Calvin, as noted above, emphasised the disastrous effects of sin but he also recognized that in spite of sin God was still immanent in the world of men and actively sustaining the order of creation by means of common grace. Calvin asserts that God has been 'pleased to assist us (Christians) by the work and ministry of the ungodly in physics . . . .' and describes the work of unbelievers as a gift of God.8 This means that although the theoretical thought of the apostate scientist is anti-God, his actual scientific work, to a degree dependent on the common grace of God, may be based on Christian principles of which he is not aware.9 The apostate scientist 'possesses goods as a thief,' the goods being made available solely by the grace of God.10
In passing, we should also note that the fruits of the work of the ungodly will accrue to the redeemed and to the Lord's glory and that although that work may be uncovering ultimate truth, the unbeliever is never in a position to recognize God's interpretations of the facts for what they are. It follows that it is incumbent on Christians to use the fruits of unbelieving scholarship and show how they reveal the glory of God. This is part of the cultural mandate of the believer (Gen 1.28). To lapse into anti-intellectual obscurantism is simply sin.11"
(c) The nature of true science. As we noted earlier, neo-evangelicals have a penchant for viewing modern science as the valid study of God's natural revelation. This naturally begs the question, 'Is modern science in fact the God-ordained study of the works of creation that it should be?' Is it true science or just a counterfeit ? What is true science and who are its rightful practitioners ?
The Christian philosopher, Hendrik Van Riessen, has given us a definition of true science. He writes,
'Inherent in the vocation of men on earth is the goal of knowing God through His creation. That is the area of inspiration for science. The general goal of science is to know God's creation through the laws by which God reigns and which enable every creature to walk on earth with trust. God is trustworthy. This is the sole basis for every scientific effort.'12
Science should never be thought of as independent of God. Christ is the Lord of science and He desires that men acknowledge Him in their scientific labour and knowledge.13 All the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are hid in Him and so only through Christ may we in our science come to know any of that truth for what it really is.14
Prof Nigel Lee reminds us that Calvin emphasised that.
'. . . . special grace [and its resultant faith in Christ] is not only indispensable to salvation, but that it is also essential for the pursuit of true science.15
Calvin further stated that a true scientist was one who was born again to life in Christ and, while highly intelligent, submitted himself to the Word of God in general and 'the foolishness of the cross' in particular.16
What of modern science and scientists ? Ever since Laplace assured Napoleon that the successful pursuit of science did not require the 'hypothesis' of God,17 the presuppositions of the mass of scientists have rendered any supernaturalism quite irrelevant in this sphere. It should appear obvious that a scientific method which presupposes no God and no supernatural can only produce 'findings' which support these original presuppositions. Basic naturalism will not produce a picture of the glory of God in nature. Modern science, affirms Prof Van Til,'assumes that what Christianity teaches with respect to nature cannot be true.' The ideas of creation and a controlling providence are 'assumed to be intolerable.' On the contrary, it is claimed that the 'order of nature .... is what it is because of an impersonal unchangeable regularity.18'
Modern science as a whole is not true science. In essence, it is apostate and, as such, needs to be redeemed to the service of God. The Christian engaged in scientific work should be a true scientist, i.e., one who investigates nature with Biblical presuppositions and in accordance with Biblical norms.19 Modern science needs a reformation. Considering its present status, the Christian believer has no warrant to assume that it is a valid study of God's natural revelation producing results which bear some correspondence to that revealed truth. In principle, the opposite is the case as sinful men turn the truth of God into a lie (Rom 1.25). It should be noted, however, that the unbelieving scientist is better in practice than his basic presuppositions in principle allow. This is due, as we noted earlier. to the 'common' or temporal conserving grace of God20 overruling the apostasy in order to the fulfilment of His will. Conversely, the believing scientist is worse in practice than in principle, because the depredations of indwelling sin tend to draw him into conformity with the worldly pattern of the apostate. The distinction is not a simple case of black or white. Rather the situation is a dynamic one with a whole spectrum of inconsistencies between the two principal extremes. Notice also that science can never be neutral, for however inconsistent a man may be he is always governed by the god of his camp - either the living God or the god of this world.
Neo-evangelicals consistently treat modern science as if it were true science. They do so by ascribing neutrality to the scientific enterprise on the basis that the facts of nature are themselves neutral (See see. 111 [2]). Having thus accepted the findings of a science inimically disposed to the Biblical view of nature that they are attempting to defend, they are faced with the colossal and somewhat embarrassing problem of synthesising two irreconcilables into a meaningful whole.
To be continued
Sam Drucker
References (My numbering, not Keddie's)
1. E. L. H. Taylor, The Christian Philosophy of Law, Politics and the State, Nutley, N. J., Craig Press, 1965, pp 142 ff.
2. C. Van Til, The Defense of the Faith, Philadelphia, Pa., Presb. & Reformed, 1967, pp 67 ff.
3. C. Van Til, Christian-Theistic Evidences [Syllabus], 1961, pp 85-86 ff.
4. H. Dooyeweerd, The Secularisation of Science, A.A.C.S. [mimeo] n.d., pp 3 ff.
5. Isa., 59.2-8.
6. F. N. Lee, Calvin on the Sciences, S.G.U., 1969, p 15.
7. Van Til, The Defense of the Faith, p 48.
8. J. Calvin, The Institutes of the Christian Religion [Beveridge trans.] II, 2.16.
9. Lee, op. cit., pp 16-19, cf. Taylor, op. cit., pp 46 ff.
10. R. J. Rushdoony, By What Standard?, Philadelphia, Pa., Presb. & Ref., 1965, p 24. See Rushdoony, Van Til (Modern Thinkers series, P & Ref.) for an analysis of Van Til's thought on this point, pp 16 ff.
11. C. Van Til, Particularism and Common Grace, L. J. Grotenhuis, n.d., p 15.
12. H. Van Riessen, The Christian Approach to Science, Hamilton, Ont., A.R.S.S., 1966, p 58.
13. H. Van Riessen, The Society of the Future, Philadelphia, Pa., Presb. & Ref., 1952, p 137.
14. Col 2.3.
15. Lee, op. cit., p 20.
16. ibid, p 20.
17. R. E. D. Clark, The Christian Stake in Science, Exeter, Paternoster, 1967, p 29.
18. C. Van Til, The Doctrine of Scripture, [Syllabus] den Dulk, 1967, pp 48-49.
19. The Bible is to be understood as being normative for science (and all things). For instance, the Biblical fact of miracles means that our science must never rule out the possibility of the miraculous, i.e. the intervention of God in the world in such a way as to use means other than the natural laws that He has established. Modern science consistently denies this normative principle.
20. Taylor, op. cit., p 60.
It is interesting to know the strength of argument against the trend within the evangelicalism to adopt evolution some thirty years ago. The increasing strength of argument today makes only for an increasingly uncomfortable time ahead for evangelical cowards.
What follows is my Part 1 of Gordon Keddie's article of June 1970:
"111 'NEW EVANGELICALISM - THE NEW DUALISM?
1. Proposition.
The neo-evangelical understanding of the relationship between the Bible as the special revelation of God and science as the legitimate investigation of His general (nature) revelation in the works of creation and providence closely resembles the dualistic thought of Thomas Aquinas, the mediaeval scholastic who gave the world the so-called Thomistic philosophy, still fundamental to modern Roman Catholic philosophy. This is an unscriptural position which has far-reaching consequences for evangelical theology, philosophy and special science.
2 Dualistic thought.
In this system there are two means of achieving a knowledge of absolute truth. One is using 'reason' - the so-called 'light of nature'. The other is by means of revelation from God's Word - this is 'grace'. These two aspects, nature and grace, are quite separate and independent means of learning truth, and so the system is said to be dualistic.1
Dualism considers the facts or findings of the sciences to be philosophically and theologically neutral, and so may be known as true by believer and unbeliever alike without reference to God. The facts may be apprehended by reason [nature] without any recourse to grace. (This is an over-simplification since obviously many facts can only be obtained by faith. The dualism extends in Romanist thought to two classes of fact - the natural order and the faith order. The point is that faith is not required prior to understanding truly facts of the natural order. This is in contradistinction to the Calvinistic view.) Thus it is claimed that the non-Christian can know some ultimate truths about the universe without first understanding them as facts made and interpreted by God. Facts, that all may know by use of reason alone, are assumed to be autonomous and reality is viewed as a 'sea of factuality' over which may roam with equal facility, theist and anti-theist alike.2
3 A Reformed evaluation.
Professor Cornelius Van Til has asserted that the dualistic view of facts as neutral 'brute facts' is tantamount to denying that God created the facts and even now sustains them. It denies the centrality and absolute sovereignty of God.3
Central to the Reformed system of truth, argues Herman Dooyeweerd, is the basic ground-motive of the sovereignty of God in creation, fall and redemption.
[i] God created all things ex nihilo, with the crowning act of creating man in His own image as a perfect and free moral being.
[ii] The fall of Adam [a literal first man] into sin whereby all men become totally depraved and are blinded to the truth of God.
[iii] The redemption through the blood of Christ of an elected people, who by the grace of God are saved through faith in Him.4 These regenerated people recover, in principle, the perfection of Adam as created, so that they can now see the Truth i.e., are no longer spiritually blind.
(a) Sin and the apostate scientist. Sin is a vital issue in the whole discussion, for it cuts off men from God and a knowledge of the truth.5 Professor Nigel Lee, in his recent Calvin on the Sciences, writes,
'In fact, the results of sin are of cosmic proportions, for "the condemnation of mankind is imprinted on the heavens, and on the earth, and on all creatures" ' (quoting Calvin, Comm. on Rom 8.19)6
The non-Christian, consequently, always, in principle, views the facts from a standpoint antithetical to that of the Creator of these facts. Whenever any facts impinge on religious and philosophical questions, they will be interpreted according to the anti-theistic ground motive of the fallen man, i.e., in terms of justifying his continued rebellion against God.7 A scientist who is an unbeliever is therefore an apostate scientist in principle and his science is accordingly apostate science.
(b) Common grace and the apostate scientist. One may justifiably wonder if what has just been said is not too extreme. Is it not saying that it is impossible for the non-Christian scientist to find out anything that is really true? Is it not also an easy way out - whereby any scientific findings that conflict with our own views are rejected as fictions because they are the products of unbelievers? Certainly not! Calvin, as noted above, emphasised the disastrous effects of sin but he also recognized that in spite of sin God was still immanent in the world of men and actively sustaining the order of creation by means of common grace. Calvin asserts that God has been 'pleased to assist us (Christians) by the work and ministry of the ungodly in physics . . . .' and describes the work of unbelievers as a gift of God.8 This means that although the theoretical thought of the apostate scientist is anti-God, his actual scientific work, to a degree dependent on the common grace of God, may be based on Christian principles of which he is not aware.9 The apostate scientist 'possesses goods as a thief,' the goods being made available solely by the grace of God.10
In passing, we should also note that the fruits of the work of the ungodly will accrue to the redeemed and to the Lord's glory and that although that work may be uncovering ultimate truth, the unbeliever is never in a position to recognize God's interpretations of the facts for what they are. It follows that it is incumbent on Christians to use the fruits of unbelieving scholarship and show how they reveal the glory of God. This is part of the cultural mandate of the believer (Gen 1.28). To lapse into anti-intellectual obscurantism is simply sin.11"
(c) The nature of true science. As we noted earlier, neo-evangelicals have a penchant for viewing modern science as the valid study of God's natural revelation. This naturally begs the question, 'Is modern science in fact the God-ordained study of the works of creation that it should be?' Is it true science or just a counterfeit ? What is true science and who are its rightful practitioners ?
The Christian philosopher, Hendrik Van Riessen, has given us a definition of true science. He writes,
'Inherent in the vocation of men on earth is the goal of knowing God through His creation. That is the area of inspiration for science. The general goal of science is to know God's creation through the laws by which God reigns and which enable every creature to walk on earth with trust. God is trustworthy. This is the sole basis for every scientific effort.'12
Science should never be thought of as independent of God. Christ is the Lord of science and He desires that men acknowledge Him in their scientific labour and knowledge.13 All the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are hid in Him and so only through Christ may we in our science come to know any of that truth for what it really is.14
Prof Nigel Lee reminds us that Calvin emphasised that.
'. . . . special grace [and its resultant faith in Christ] is not only indispensable to salvation, but that it is also essential for the pursuit of true science.15
Calvin further stated that a true scientist was one who was born again to life in Christ and, while highly intelligent, submitted himself to the Word of God in general and 'the foolishness of the cross' in particular.16
What of modern science and scientists ? Ever since Laplace assured Napoleon that the successful pursuit of science did not require the 'hypothesis' of God,17 the presuppositions of the mass of scientists have rendered any supernaturalism quite irrelevant in this sphere. It should appear obvious that a scientific method which presupposes no God and no supernatural can only produce 'findings' which support these original presuppositions. Basic naturalism will not produce a picture of the glory of God in nature. Modern science, affirms Prof Van Til,'assumes that what Christianity teaches with respect to nature cannot be true.' The ideas of creation and a controlling providence are 'assumed to be intolerable.' On the contrary, it is claimed that the 'order of nature .... is what it is because of an impersonal unchangeable regularity.18'
Modern science as a whole is not true science. In essence, it is apostate and, as such, needs to be redeemed to the service of God. The Christian engaged in scientific work should be a true scientist, i.e., one who investigates nature with Biblical presuppositions and in accordance with Biblical norms.19 Modern science needs a reformation. Considering its present status, the Christian believer has no warrant to assume that it is a valid study of God's natural revelation producing results which bear some correspondence to that revealed truth. In principle, the opposite is the case as sinful men turn the truth of God into a lie (Rom 1.25). It should be noted, however, that the unbelieving scientist is better in practice than his basic presuppositions in principle allow. This is due, as we noted earlier. to the 'common' or temporal conserving grace of God20 overruling the apostasy in order to the fulfilment of His will. Conversely, the believing scientist is worse in practice than in principle, because the depredations of indwelling sin tend to draw him into conformity with the worldly pattern of the apostate. The distinction is not a simple case of black or white. Rather the situation is a dynamic one with a whole spectrum of inconsistencies between the two principal extremes. Notice also that science can never be neutral, for however inconsistent a man may be he is always governed by the god of his camp - either the living God or the god of this world.
Neo-evangelicals consistently treat modern science as if it were true science. They do so by ascribing neutrality to the scientific enterprise on the basis that the facts of nature are themselves neutral (See see. 111 [2]). Having thus accepted the findings of a science inimically disposed to the Biblical view of nature that they are attempting to defend, they are faced with the colossal and somewhat embarrassing problem of synthesising two irreconcilables into a meaningful whole.
To be continued
Sam Drucker
References (My numbering, not Keddie's)
1. E. L. H. Taylor, The Christian Philosophy of Law, Politics and the State, Nutley, N. J., Craig Press, 1965, pp 142 ff.
2. C. Van Til, The Defense of the Faith, Philadelphia, Pa., Presb. & Reformed, 1967, pp 67 ff.
3. C. Van Til, Christian-Theistic Evidences [Syllabus], 1961, pp 85-86 ff.
4. H. Dooyeweerd, The Secularisation of Science, A.A.C.S. [mimeo] n.d., pp 3 ff.
5. Isa., 59.2-8.
6. F. N. Lee, Calvin on the Sciences, S.G.U., 1969, p 15.
7. Van Til, The Defense of the Faith, p 48.
8. J. Calvin, The Institutes of the Christian Religion [Beveridge trans.] II, 2.16.
9. Lee, op. cit., pp 16-19, cf. Taylor, op. cit., pp 46 ff.
10. R. J. Rushdoony, By What Standard?, Philadelphia, Pa., Presb. & Ref., 1965, p 24. See Rushdoony, Van Til (Modern Thinkers series, P & Ref.) for an analysis of Van Til's thought on this point, pp 16 ff.
11. C. Van Til, Particularism and Common Grace, L. J. Grotenhuis, n.d., p 15.
12. H. Van Riessen, The Christian Approach to Science, Hamilton, Ont., A.R.S.S., 1966, p 58.
13. H. Van Riessen, The Society of the Future, Philadelphia, Pa., Presb. & Ref., 1952, p 137.
14. Col 2.3.
15. Lee, op. cit., p 20.
16. ibid, p 20.
17. R. E. D. Clark, The Christian Stake in Science, Exeter, Paternoster, 1967, p 29.
18. C. Van Til, The Doctrine of Scripture, [Syllabus] den Dulk, 1967, pp 48-49.
19. The Bible is to be understood as being normative for science (and all things). For instance, the Biblical fact of miracles means that our science must never rule out the possibility of the miraculous, i.e. the intervention of God in the world in such a way as to use means other than the natural laws that He has established. Modern science consistently denies this normative principle.
20. Taylor, op. cit., p 60.
Sunday, August 29, 2010
History a Warning to Episcopal Diocese of Sydney (Part 6)
This is my sixth and final instalment of "History a Warning to Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney". All quotes (except for the Australian political quote) can be found in and referenced in the first five parts.
R. J. Sheehan provided a helpful analysis of the slide that occurred within the evangelical church in England in the Nineteenth Century. Sheehan drew encouragement from a steadying he saw in the 1980's but I doubt he would be content with the present situation.
Concerning the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney I and many others observe distinct and troubling parallels destroying evangelicalism within what has been termed the largest evangelical Episcopalian Diocese in the world.
To parody the words of an Australian politician who recently and ruthlessly deposed her leader and attempted to justify the action - "A good government had lost its way."
An Episcopalian Diocese which, for approximately two centuries, had seemingly resisted Higher Criticism, Liberal Theology and Anglo-Catholicism proudly presents itself as a bastion of evangelical conservatism. Indeed it would declare itself to be one with evangelicals of early Nineteenth Century England of whom W.R Glover said "The inerrancy of the Bible was so intimate a part of their religious thought and life that a denial of it seemed to threaten the destruction of the faith itself. "
But as R. J. Sheehan observed in England after the attack of Higher Criticism, and objective observers note of the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney, the rhetoric has failed to match the actions. Old Testament history has been stripped of much of its authority. Concepts and themes prevail over historical events and their timing in earth history. The latter are "questioned, contradicted and reconstructed."
It was too much for Higher Criticism to assault the New Testament first. That had to come later - once the Old Testament battle had been won. Anyone who "preached the Gospel" was a potential prisoner if only their foundation in the inerrancy of Old Testament Scripture was first undermined. The theology of the Old Testament without the "facts" had to be maintained and as Sheehan also observed - "Thus the history of the Bible could supposedly be understood in terms of the theory of evolution and the Book's basic central message remain unchanged."
Just as theological seminaries of Nineteenth Century England became off limits to any Old Testament scholar who didn't espouse the Higher Criticism method so has become the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney's theological seminary, Moore Theological College, off limits to Biblical Creationist scholars. Indeed, students espousing the Biblical Creationist position have been cautioned with serious sanction. I am happy to be corrected on this. Would any reader confirm the presence on faculty of any Old Testament scholar in the past twenty years who has held to the Biblical Creationist position i.e. six twenty-four hour days of creation approximately six thousand years ago?
Just as Higher Criticism conquered evangelicalism in England in the late Nineteenth Century via submission of allegedly evangelical clergy it has likewise triumphed in the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney. They all declare and "preach the Gospel" but they have already questioned, contradicted and reconstructed to the point of dismissing the foundation of Old Testament history in Creation. External influences opposed to biblical history are given authority to dictate the timing of subsequent Old Testament events and the consequence is a confused and destabilized reading of Scripture.
Not that you would think anything wrong if you read the statements emanating from leaders within the Diocese. "Peace", "Peace" for your evangelical conscience is what you are to receive with utterances such as "And yet this trustworthy, powerful word of God has been entrusted to us, with the responsibility to guard it, to hold firmly to it, to rightly handle it. I can think of no greater human responsibility than to hold firmly to the trustworthy and faithful word of God, taught as a good deposit entrusted to us by the Holy Spirit. Only then will we be able to exhort, to comfort with sound, healthy teaching." and "We are going to beware of intellectual fads." delivered by Dr John Woodhouse, Principal, Moore Theological College in his recent Eternity article.
One could imagine Dr Woodhouse is speaking only of the New Testament because, according to previous statements and actions, he, at best, entertains all views on the matter of the Creation account in Genesis. You see, Dr Woodhouse is firmly in the camp of the "mixed multitude who would not side with either the old evangelical view of Scripture or with the new view of Scripture, who held the key to the decline [in the Nineteenth Century]. They would not discipline error and so they were overwhelmed by it. The consequence of their indecision and cowardice was that whereas, 'The early nineteenth century saw a quickening of religious life all over Europe . . . when the nineteenth century closed Christianity was at a low ebb'."
With influences such as Karl Barth, the "wolf in sheep's clothing", so widely admired within the Diocese, the battleground is about to shift from the Old to the New Testament. The one thing readers can confidently take from Dr Woodhouse's Eternity article is "History suggests what is taken for granted by believers today may be forgotten by the next generation of believers, and denied by the one after that." The rot is well set within. Cowardice has brought the allegedly evangelical Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney to the point reached by the Evangelical Church in England in the late Nineteenth Century.
R.J. Sheehan observed that Calvinism had been something of a stay against the decline in evangelicalism in England in the Nineteenth Century. In the end it did not prevent the decline in England nor has it prevented the decline in the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney. Unbelief is unbelief no matter what the doctrine.
The "death throws" of evangelicalism within the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney are real. New life through the Holy Spirit is the only remedy. Let us pray for such an activity of God's Holy Spirit with urgency. Who knows, maybe some of the alleged evangelicals of the Diocese will stop, look back and see where their cowardice has taken them. Maybe they will repent, believe and be instruments in God's hands for good.
Sam Drucker
R. J. Sheehan provided a helpful analysis of the slide that occurred within the evangelical church in England in the Nineteenth Century. Sheehan drew encouragement from a steadying he saw in the 1980's but I doubt he would be content with the present situation.
Concerning the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney I and many others observe distinct and troubling parallels destroying evangelicalism within what has been termed the largest evangelical Episcopalian Diocese in the world.
To parody the words of an Australian politician who recently and ruthlessly deposed her leader and attempted to justify the action - "A good government had lost its way."
An Episcopalian Diocese which, for approximately two centuries, had seemingly resisted Higher Criticism, Liberal Theology and Anglo-Catholicism proudly presents itself as a bastion of evangelical conservatism. Indeed it would declare itself to be one with evangelicals of early Nineteenth Century England of whom W.R Glover said "The inerrancy of the Bible was so intimate a part of their religious thought and life that a denial of it seemed to threaten the destruction of the faith itself. "
But as R. J. Sheehan observed in England after the attack of Higher Criticism, and objective observers note of the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney, the rhetoric has failed to match the actions. Old Testament history has been stripped of much of its authority. Concepts and themes prevail over historical events and their timing in earth history. The latter are "questioned, contradicted and reconstructed."
It was too much for Higher Criticism to assault the New Testament first. That had to come later - once the Old Testament battle had been won. Anyone who "preached the Gospel" was a potential prisoner if only their foundation in the inerrancy of Old Testament Scripture was first undermined. The theology of the Old Testament without the "facts" had to be maintained and as Sheehan also observed - "Thus the history of the Bible could supposedly be understood in terms of the theory of evolution and the Book's basic central message remain unchanged."
Just as theological seminaries of Nineteenth Century England became off limits to any Old Testament scholar who didn't espouse the Higher Criticism method so has become the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney's theological seminary, Moore Theological College, off limits to Biblical Creationist scholars. Indeed, students espousing the Biblical Creationist position have been cautioned with serious sanction. I am happy to be corrected on this. Would any reader confirm the presence on faculty of any Old Testament scholar in the past twenty years who has held to the Biblical Creationist position i.e. six twenty-four hour days of creation approximately six thousand years ago?
Just as Higher Criticism conquered evangelicalism in England in the late Nineteenth Century via submission of allegedly evangelical clergy it has likewise triumphed in the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney. They all declare and "preach the Gospel" but they have already questioned, contradicted and reconstructed to the point of dismissing the foundation of Old Testament history in Creation. External influences opposed to biblical history are given authority to dictate the timing of subsequent Old Testament events and the consequence is a confused and destabilized reading of Scripture.
Not that you would think anything wrong if you read the statements emanating from leaders within the Diocese. "Peace", "Peace" for your evangelical conscience is what you are to receive with utterances such as "And yet this trustworthy, powerful word of God has been entrusted to us, with the responsibility to guard it, to hold firmly to it, to rightly handle it. I can think of no greater human responsibility than to hold firmly to the trustworthy and faithful word of God, taught as a good deposit entrusted to us by the Holy Spirit. Only then will we be able to exhort, to comfort with sound, healthy teaching." and "We are going to beware of intellectual fads." delivered by Dr John Woodhouse, Principal, Moore Theological College in his recent Eternity article.
One could imagine Dr Woodhouse is speaking only of the New Testament because, according to previous statements and actions, he, at best, entertains all views on the matter of the Creation account in Genesis. You see, Dr Woodhouse is firmly in the camp of the "mixed multitude who would not side with either the old evangelical view of Scripture or with the new view of Scripture, who held the key to the decline [in the Nineteenth Century]. They would not discipline error and so they were overwhelmed by it. The consequence of their indecision and cowardice was that whereas, 'The early nineteenth century saw a quickening of religious life all over Europe . . . when the nineteenth century closed Christianity was at a low ebb'."
With influences such as Karl Barth, the "wolf in sheep's clothing", so widely admired within the Diocese, the battleground is about to shift from the Old to the New Testament. The one thing readers can confidently take from Dr Woodhouse's Eternity article is "History suggests what is taken for granted by believers today may be forgotten by the next generation of believers, and denied by the one after that." The rot is well set within. Cowardice has brought the allegedly evangelical Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney to the point reached by the Evangelical Church in England in the late Nineteenth Century.
R.J. Sheehan observed that Calvinism had been something of a stay against the decline in evangelicalism in England in the Nineteenth Century. In the end it did not prevent the decline in England nor has it prevented the decline in the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney. Unbelief is unbelief no matter what the doctrine.
The "death throws" of evangelicalism within the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney are real. New life through the Holy Spirit is the only remedy. Let us pray for such an activity of God's Holy Spirit with urgency. Who knows, maybe some of the alleged evangelicals of the Diocese will stop, look back and see where their cowardice has taken them. Maybe they will repent, believe and be instruments in God's hands for good.
Sam Drucker
Sunday, August 22, 2010
History a Warning to Sydney Episcopalian Diocese (Part 5)
In my earlier blogs I cited the shift which occurred in traditional evangelicalism in England in the Nineteenth Century as observed by R. J. Sheehan in Banner of Truth journal, Issue 278, November 1986. I then, in my blog (Part 4), introduced extracts of an article found in the July 2010 issue of Eternity by Dr John Woodhouse, Principal, Moore Theological College, Sydney, to show a comparison between the compromising evangelicals of England in the Nineteenth Century and the evangelicals of the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney today.
There is a very real similarity and, sadly, it is rife in the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney. How did it get here? Who was the host who slipped upon our shores unnoticed as the carrier of a theological 'virus' destined to destroy traditional evangelicalism or almost all of it within the Diocese. To achieve this outcome so quietly yet effectively the carrier had to present as healthy and the resort to shape evangelical thinking from the Twentieth Century to the present.
It was Karl Barth, a revered critic of Liberal Theology but within his 'baggage' of thought there lay the seeds of destruction for traditional evangelicalism. It is notable to hear and read of theological influences within the Episcopal Diocese of Sydney who declare their admiration for the work of Karl Barth. One current Bishop within the Diocese puts the works of Karl Barth at the top of his favoured reading. Indeed, this same Bishop unwittingly disclosed his Barthian condition by declaring on this blogspot and elsewhere his doubts about the supernatural miracle of the parting of the Red Sea and, in a less public discussion, questions about the Virgin Birth of Christ Jesus.
Well, what is it that Barth has put upon evangelicalism? I shall defer to Terry A. Chrisope's March 1991 review (Banner of Truth journal) of a paper written by J. Gresham Machen in April 1928. It is repeated here:
Among the papers of J. Gresham Machen (housed at Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia) there is a manuscript of unusual interest for the student of Machen's life and work. Running to nineteen pages of typescript, the manuscript bears the title, Karl Barth and 'the Theology of Crisis' A note at the foot of the first page indicates that the paper was 'read to a small group of ministers in Philadelphia, April 23, 1928'
What is so intriguing about the above paper is that J. Gresham Machen is commonly known as the leading evangelical critic not of Barthianism but of theological liberalism during the 1920s in America. Machen had thrown himself into an intense struggle on behalf of biblical Christianity and against the dilution of biblical teaching which he believed was inherent in theological liberalism. He was embroiled in this struggle, both within his own Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. and on a broader front as well, throughout the entire decade of the 1920s. As the manuscript under consideration makes clear, however, Machen was keeping abreast of theological developments in Europe and had become aware of a relatively recent protest against liberalism led by the Swiss theologian Karl Barth. That Machen, as an American evangelical, should take cognisance of this movement and publicly comment on it as early as 1928 bears testimony not only to his awareness of the European theological scene but also to his concern for the health and well-being of historic Christianity. Machen at that time was engaged in a severe personal struggle, both academic and ecclesiastical in nature, yet his range of vision was not limited to any narrow personal concerns; he addressed broader issues as he saw the need. In the light of attempts in our own day to promote the theology of Karl Barth among evangelicals, Machen's analysis of Barthianism (even in the latter's incomplete form of 1928) may be something to which contemporary evangelicals would to well to give he heed.
Machen began his treatment of Barthianism with a description of the man and the teaching behind the movement. A near contemporary of Machen, Karl Barth, was born in 1886 (Machen was born in 1881) and was educated in German universities before serving in pastorates in Switzerland. Barth eventually revolted against the socialism and liberalism to which he had formerly adhered, and he formed a school of thought which included such men as Eduard Thurneyson, Freidrich Gogarten, and Emil Brunner (though, Machen notes, there were some differences among the views of these men). The literary organ of the school was the journal Zwischen den Zeiten (Between the Times), from which Machen must have derived a good deal of his knowledge of its teaching and direction. With characteristic modesty, Machen in inserted a disclaimer at this point in his treatment, taking note of the difficulty of understanding Barthian teaching, alleging his own incompetence as a critic, and professing the incompleteness of his knowledge of the school. He then proceeded with a description of the Barthian teaching as he understood it.
Several elements of Barthianism emerge from Machen's treatment. First, at the root of the Barthian view was a conviction of 'the awful transcendence of God' (p. 2). This conviction demanded rejection of all forms of liberal theology with its nearly exclusive emphasis on the immanence of God. A second component of this theology was a new found stress on sin and the cosmic effects which sin had wrought, particularly the moral estrangement of the world from God. This estrangement resulted in a gulf between man and God, a gulf that man himself could not bridge; it was merely sinful pride that led man to imagine that he could do so. Thirdly, in the darkness and helplessness of this situation, God himself has bridged the chasm. God has come to man in the revelation of his Word, a word both of wrath and of grace. Fourthly, that Word of the grace of God has come supremely in the person of Jesus Christ. The incarnation, the coming of God in the flesh, must be received by faith; and only God by his Spirit produces faith in the human heart as the proper response to the incarnation (Machen observed at this point that Barth taught the doctrine of the Trinity, but one that is 'hardly the doctrine that has been held by the historic Church', p. 7). In the fifth place, the coming of the Word of God places man at the point of decision: How will he respond to God and his Word? With obedience or with rebellion? For God or for the world? It is this crisis of decision that gives the 'theology of crisis' its distinctive character and name. Sixthly, the Christian life continues as a life of faith. Christians do not yet live by sight, so Christian theology must be expressed in a series of questions, antinomies or paradoxes. This is what Machen called 'the strange "dialect" of Karl Barth' (p. 7); he confessed his inability to understand it. And yet, according to Barth, the church does have a positive message, a message derived from the Old and New Testament scriptures (which contain the Word of God) and centring on Jesus Christ, the only Mediator between God and man.
What, Machen asked, are we to make of all this? It all sounds so orthodox, so like the evangelical Christianity of Calvin or Bunyan or the Shorter Catechism. Indeed, Barth claimed to be a follower of Calvin and of Paul, and, Machen noted, the Barthians had been attacked with the ignominious accusation that their teaching was nothing other than 'orthodoxy' after all. This charge the Barthians had indignantly denied. How then did they differ from historic Christianity? Machen found the difference in two central questions (ignoring for the moment other details of disagreement): 'they differ in the epistemology, and they differ in their attitude toward the plain historical information that the Bible contains' (p. 9).
With regard to the first point, the question of epistemology, Machen expressed uncertainty respecting the true nature of the Barthian position. He suspected that there was 'a large measure of agreement between the orthodox and the Barthians regarding the knowledge that is at the basis of Christianity' (p. 9). In particular, he appreciated their restoration of theology to a place of importance and dignity (in contrast to the centrality of religious experience in liberal thought). He also applauded Brunner's and Barth's serious attitude toward doctrinal differences among professing Christians, especially in the light of liberalism's theological tolerance.
And yet, despite Machen's appreciation of the Barthian reaction against modern theological anti-intellectualism, he questioned whether the knowledge of God contained in 'this new teaching' was 'real knowledge at all' (p. 11). Machen was particularly concerned about the claim that faith must be held distinct from all reasoning, that argumentation and apologetics are unnecessary. While he was more than willing to agree that 'argument alone never made a man a Christian' (p. 11), he was unwilling to concede that argument was therefore superfluous. The Spirit of God operates precisely upon human reason in order to overcome the effects of sin and enable men to grasp the truth. Machen's central concern here was with the objectivity of truth and he confessed to having an 'uneasy feeling' (p. 12) regarding the Barthian epistemology on this score. He was not quite certain that Barth's position did not incorporate a subjectivism which undermined the objectivity of truth by making Christian doctrines true only to the person who accepted them by faith. This, Machen believed, would constitute an 'epistemological abyss' (p. 12), and served to mask, behind Barth's seemingly traditional terminololgy, a profound difference with historic Christianity.
The second of Machen's reservations regarding Barthian teaching was related to the attitude entertained by that school toward the historical information contained in the Bible. In particular, he saw the Barthians as attempting 'to make the Christian faith quite independent of the findings of scientific history with regard to the life of Christ' (p. 13). (As witness to this tendency, Machen drew attention to the inclusion in Zwischen den Zeiten of the work of Rudolf Bultmann, who believed that it was impossible to know with certainty anything about the person of Jesus.) This position, Machen feared, did not mean merely that historical science, conducted on naturalistic principles, could not establish the essential facts upon which Christianity is founded, but rather meant that 'we can hear the Word of God in the New Testament, as addressed to our own soul, no matter what the facts about Jesus of Nazareth were' (p. 14). He thus understood the Barthian position (Brunner excepted, to some extent) as tending toward a sharp division between faith and the facts of history. This, of course, allowed the Barthians to accept the findings of negative historical criticism of the Bible while at the same time maintaining faith intact. But a biblical Christian faith, Machen held, cannot be indifferent to history or to the findings of historical criticism, for the New Testament bears witness to events that purportedly occurred in history.
The problem with the position of Barth and Brunner was not that it was too radical, but that it was not radical enough. Machen applauded their rejection of the 'immanence philosophy' (p. 15) which was at the root of theological liberalism, but he believed that they must go further. They also must attack the immanence philosophy as it was applied to historical criticism of the New Testament, and the particular point of attack must be the presuppositions that underlay modern criticism. 'Modern skepticism is, indeed, imposing, as it is applied to the New Testament field. But it may fall away like a house of cards if once its presuppositions are attacked' (p. 15). Machen was presumably referring to the naturalistic assumptions undergirding much negative criticism of the New Testament. Correct presuppositions, those of biblical supernaturalism, must replace false ones, thus allowing the message of the New Testament to be received at face value. But it was just at this point that the Barthians were silent. Here, then, in 'the attitude of Barth and his associates toward historical criticism', was 'a deadly weakness of the school' (p. 16).
Intimately related to this question was the attitude of the Barthians toward the deeds and words of Jesus as contained in the Gospel accounts. Machen thought he perceived (he expressed himself very carefully here) a tendency in the direction of indifference toward the historical acts and teachings of Jesus. While he again praised the renewed emphasis on the redeeming work of Christ, his death and resurrection, which he observed among the Barthians (though, significantly, he confessed uncertainty as to exactly what they meant by resurrection'), Machen was nevertheless uneasy about how little remained of a positive portrait of Jesus in Barthian hands. 'One has the disturbing feeling that Barth and his associates are depriving the church of one of its most precious possessions, the concrete picture of Jesus of Nazareth as he walked and talked upon this earth' (p. 17. The logic of their position, it seemed to Machen, fostered indifference regarding the question of the kind of person Jesus was during his earthly life. This was something in which he perceived danger. 'In their effort to avoid a clash with naturalistic criticism, these teachers must not be allowed to deprive us of the Jesus whom we love, the Jesus of the Gospels, the Jesus who spake words such as never man spake, the Jesus who went about doing good' (p. 18). For Machen, it was by just such a Jesus that modern people are confronted with terrible immediacy through the message of the Gospel and thus are brought to the crisis of decision. For all Machen's hesitation regarding the teaching of Karl Barth, he was thankful for Barth's reminder of that crisis. He was simply concerned that it be the full biblical Jesus with which modern people are confronted.
Much could be made of Machen's perceptiveness in treating Karl Barth as a major theological figure in 1928, his acuteness of judgment in suggesting that the Barthian movement may have inaugurated 'a new era in the history of the Church' (p. 15), and his initiative in offering an evangelical critique of Barthianism at a time when few other American evangelicals had taken note of the movement. Machen's response to Barth was timely indeed. And yet it may prove just as timely and relevant in our own day. Observers of contemporary evangelicalism have recently noted a slide away from former stoutly-held positions (see, e.g., 'Evangelical Megashift', Christianity Today, Feb. 19, 1990, pp. 12-17). And calls have issued from some quarters for evangelicals to use Barth's methodology as a paradigm for evangelical theology in the present (see Bernard Ramm's After Fundamentalism, 1983). In the face of such trends, evangelicals may do well to listen once again to the voice of J. Gresham Machen.
Another long post so I must end here without further comment, except to say I will pull it all together in my next and, hopefully, my final blog on the decline of evangelicalism within the Episcopal Diocese of Sydney.
Sam Drucker
There is a very real similarity and, sadly, it is rife in the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney. How did it get here? Who was the host who slipped upon our shores unnoticed as the carrier of a theological 'virus' destined to destroy traditional evangelicalism or almost all of it within the Diocese. To achieve this outcome so quietly yet effectively the carrier had to present as healthy and the resort to shape evangelical thinking from the Twentieth Century to the present.
It was Karl Barth, a revered critic of Liberal Theology but within his 'baggage' of thought there lay the seeds of destruction for traditional evangelicalism. It is notable to hear and read of theological influences within the Episcopal Diocese of Sydney who declare their admiration for the work of Karl Barth. One current Bishop within the Diocese puts the works of Karl Barth at the top of his favoured reading. Indeed, this same Bishop unwittingly disclosed his Barthian condition by declaring on this blogspot and elsewhere his doubts about the supernatural miracle of the parting of the Red Sea and, in a less public discussion, questions about the Virgin Birth of Christ Jesus.
Well, what is it that Barth has put upon evangelicalism? I shall defer to Terry A. Chrisope's March 1991 review (Banner of Truth journal) of a paper written by J. Gresham Machen in April 1928. It is repeated here:
Among the papers of J. Gresham Machen (housed at Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia) there is a manuscript of unusual interest for the student of Machen's life and work. Running to nineteen pages of typescript, the manuscript bears the title, Karl Barth and 'the Theology of Crisis' A note at the foot of the first page indicates that the paper was 'read to a small group of ministers in Philadelphia, April 23, 1928'
What is so intriguing about the above paper is that J. Gresham Machen is commonly known as the leading evangelical critic not of Barthianism but of theological liberalism during the 1920s in America. Machen had thrown himself into an intense struggle on behalf of biblical Christianity and against the dilution of biblical teaching which he believed was inherent in theological liberalism. He was embroiled in this struggle, both within his own Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. and on a broader front as well, throughout the entire decade of the 1920s. As the manuscript under consideration makes clear, however, Machen was keeping abreast of theological developments in Europe and had become aware of a relatively recent protest against liberalism led by the Swiss theologian Karl Barth. That Machen, as an American evangelical, should take cognisance of this movement and publicly comment on it as early as 1928 bears testimony not only to his awareness of the European theological scene but also to his concern for the health and well-being of historic Christianity. Machen at that time was engaged in a severe personal struggle, both academic and ecclesiastical in nature, yet his range of vision was not limited to any narrow personal concerns; he addressed broader issues as he saw the need. In the light of attempts in our own day to promote the theology of Karl Barth among evangelicals, Machen's analysis of Barthianism (even in the latter's incomplete form of 1928) may be something to which contemporary evangelicals would to well to give he heed.
Machen began his treatment of Barthianism with a description of the man and the teaching behind the movement. A near contemporary of Machen, Karl Barth, was born in 1886 (Machen was born in 1881) and was educated in German universities before serving in pastorates in Switzerland. Barth eventually revolted against the socialism and liberalism to which he had formerly adhered, and he formed a school of thought which included such men as Eduard Thurneyson, Freidrich Gogarten, and Emil Brunner (though, Machen notes, there were some differences among the views of these men). The literary organ of the school was the journal Zwischen den Zeiten (Between the Times), from which Machen must have derived a good deal of his knowledge of its teaching and direction. With characteristic modesty, Machen in inserted a disclaimer at this point in his treatment, taking note of the difficulty of understanding Barthian teaching, alleging his own incompetence as a critic, and professing the incompleteness of his knowledge of the school. He then proceeded with a description of the Barthian teaching as he understood it.
Several elements of Barthianism emerge from Machen's treatment. First, at the root of the Barthian view was a conviction of 'the awful transcendence of God' (p. 2). This conviction demanded rejection of all forms of liberal theology with its nearly exclusive emphasis on the immanence of God. A second component of this theology was a new found stress on sin and the cosmic effects which sin had wrought, particularly the moral estrangement of the world from God. This estrangement resulted in a gulf between man and God, a gulf that man himself could not bridge; it was merely sinful pride that led man to imagine that he could do so. Thirdly, in the darkness and helplessness of this situation, God himself has bridged the chasm. God has come to man in the revelation of his Word, a word both of wrath and of grace. Fourthly, that Word of the grace of God has come supremely in the person of Jesus Christ. The incarnation, the coming of God in the flesh, must be received by faith; and only God by his Spirit produces faith in the human heart as the proper response to the incarnation (Machen observed at this point that Barth taught the doctrine of the Trinity, but one that is 'hardly the doctrine that has been held by the historic Church', p. 7). In the fifth place, the coming of the Word of God places man at the point of decision: How will he respond to God and his Word? With obedience or with rebellion? For God or for the world? It is this crisis of decision that gives the 'theology of crisis' its distinctive character and name. Sixthly, the Christian life continues as a life of faith. Christians do not yet live by sight, so Christian theology must be expressed in a series of questions, antinomies or paradoxes. This is what Machen called 'the strange "dialect" of Karl Barth' (p. 7); he confessed his inability to understand it. And yet, according to Barth, the church does have a positive message, a message derived from the Old and New Testament scriptures (which contain the Word of God) and centring on Jesus Christ, the only Mediator between God and man.
What, Machen asked, are we to make of all this? It all sounds so orthodox, so like the evangelical Christianity of Calvin or Bunyan or the Shorter Catechism. Indeed, Barth claimed to be a follower of Calvin and of Paul, and, Machen noted, the Barthians had been attacked with the ignominious accusation that their teaching was nothing other than 'orthodoxy' after all. This charge the Barthians had indignantly denied. How then did they differ from historic Christianity? Machen found the difference in two central questions (ignoring for the moment other details of disagreement): 'they differ in the epistemology, and they differ in their attitude toward the plain historical information that the Bible contains' (p. 9).
With regard to the first point, the question of epistemology, Machen expressed uncertainty respecting the true nature of the Barthian position. He suspected that there was 'a large measure of agreement between the orthodox and the Barthians regarding the knowledge that is at the basis of Christianity' (p. 9). In particular, he appreciated their restoration of theology to a place of importance and dignity (in contrast to the centrality of religious experience in liberal thought). He also applauded Brunner's and Barth's serious attitude toward doctrinal differences among professing Christians, especially in the light of liberalism's theological tolerance.
And yet, despite Machen's appreciation of the Barthian reaction against modern theological anti-intellectualism, he questioned whether the knowledge of God contained in 'this new teaching' was 'real knowledge at all' (p. 11). Machen was particularly concerned about the claim that faith must be held distinct from all reasoning, that argumentation and apologetics are unnecessary. While he was more than willing to agree that 'argument alone never made a man a Christian' (p. 11), he was unwilling to concede that argument was therefore superfluous. The Spirit of God operates precisely upon human reason in order to overcome the effects of sin and enable men to grasp the truth. Machen's central concern here was with the objectivity of truth and he confessed to having an 'uneasy feeling' (p. 12) regarding the Barthian epistemology on this score. He was not quite certain that Barth's position did not incorporate a subjectivism which undermined the objectivity of truth by making Christian doctrines true only to the person who accepted them by faith. This, Machen believed, would constitute an 'epistemological abyss' (p. 12), and served to mask, behind Barth's seemingly traditional terminololgy, a profound difference with historic Christianity.
The second of Machen's reservations regarding Barthian teaching was related to the attitude entertained by that school toward the historical information contained in the Bible. In particular, he saw the Barthians as attempting 'to make the Christian faith quite independent of the findings of scientific history with regard to the life of Christ' (p. 13). (As witness to this tendency, Machen drew attention to the inclusion in Zwischen den Zeiten of the work of Rudolf Bultmann, who believed that it was impossible to know with certainty anything about the person of Jesus.) This position, Machen feared, did not mean merely that historical science, conducted on naturalistic principles, could not establish the essential facts upon which Christianity is founded, but rather meant that 'we can hear the Word of God in the New Testament, as addressed to our own soul, no matter what the facts about Jesus of Nazareth were' (p. 14). He thus understood the Barthian position (Brunner excepted, to some extent) as tending toward a sharp division between faith and the facts of history. This, of course, allowed the Barthians to accept the findings of negative historical criticism of the Bible while at the same time maintaining faith intact. But a biblical Christian faith, Machen held, cannot be indifferent to history or to the findings of historical criticism, for the New Testament bears witness to events that purportedly occurred in history.
The problem with the position of Barth and Brunner was not that it was too radical, but that it was not radical enough. Machen applauded their rejection of the 'immanence philosophy' (p. 15) which was at the root of theological liberalism, but he believed that they must go further. They also must attack the immanence philosophy as it was applied to historical criticism of the New Testament, and the particular point of attack must be the presuppositions that underlay modern criticism. 'Modern skepticism is, indeed, imposing, as it is applied to the New Testament field. But it may fall away like a house of cards if once its presuppositions are attacked' (p. 15). Machen was presumably referring to the naturalistic assumptions undergirding much negative criticism of the New Testament. Correct presuppositions, those of biblical supernaturalism, must replace false ones, thus allowing the message of the New Testament to be received at face value. But it was just at this point that the Barthians were silent. Here, then, in 'the attitude of Barth and his associates toward historical criticism', was 'a deadly weakness of the school' (p. 16).
Intimately related to this question was the attitude of the Barthians toward the deeds and words of Jesus as contained in the Gospel accounts. Machen thought he perceived (he expressed himself very carefully here) a tendency in the direction of indifference toward the historical acts and teachings of Jesus. While he again praised the renewed emphasis on the redeeming work of Christ, his death and resurrection, which he observed among the Barthians (though, significantly, he confessed uncertainty as to exactly what they meant by resurrection'), Machen was nevertheless uneasy about how little remained of a positive portrait of Jesus in Barthian hands. 'One has the disturbing feeling that Barth and his associates are depriving the church of one of its most precious possessions, the concrete picture of Jesus of Nazareth as he walked and talked upon this earth' (p. 17. The logic of their position, it seemed to Machen, fostered indifference regarding the question of the kind of person Jesus was during his earthly life. This was something in which he perceived danger. 'In their effort to avoid a clash with naturalistic criticism, these teachers must not be allowed to deprive us of the Jesus whom we love, the Jesus of the Gospels, the Jesus who spake words such as never man spake, the Jesus who went about doing good' (p. 18). For Machen, it was by just such a Jesus that modern people are confronted with terrible immediacy through the message of the Gospel and thus are brought to the crisis of decision. For all Machen's hesitation regarding the teaching of Karl Barth, he was thankful for Barth's reminder of that crisis. He was simply concerned that it be the full biblical Jesus with which modern people are confronted.
Much could be made of Machen's perceptiveness in treating Karl Barth as a major theological figure in 1928, his acuteness of judgment in suggesting that the Barthian movement may have inaugurated 'a new era in the history of the Church' (p. 15), and his initiative in offering an evangelical critique of Barthianism at a time when few other American evangelicals had taken note of the movement. Machen's response to Barth was timely indeed. And yet it may prove just as timely and relevant in our own day. Observers of contemporary evangelicalism have recently noted a slide away from former stoutly-held positions (see, e.g., 'Evangelical Megashift', Christianity Today, Feb. 19, 1990, pp. 12-17). And calls have issued from some quarters for evangelicals to use Barth's methodology as a paradigm for evangelical theology in the present (see Bernard Ramm's After Fundamentalism, 1983). In the face of such trends, evangelicals may do well to listen once again to the voice of J. Gresham Machen.
Another long post so I must end here without further comment, except to say I will pull it all together in my next and, hopefully, my final blog on the decline of evangelicalism within the Episcopal Diocese of Sydney.
Sam Drucker
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
