“So he sent horses and chariots and a heavy military force there, and they came by night and surrounded the city. Then the attendant of the man of God arose early and went out, and behold, a military force with horses and chariots was all around the city. And his young man said to him, “Alas, my master! What shall we do?” So he said, “Do not fear, for those who are with us are more than those who are with them.”” (2 Kings 6:14–16, LSB)
Yesterday I wrote that “sin makes us stupid.” You can read that post here. But in the continuing saga of Elisha, we also see that faith makes us courageous.
The King of Aram was determined to get Elisha and silence him. He sent what is described in 2 Kings 6:14 as ancluded not only armed soldiers but also horses and chariots “heavy military force,” which i. Not that any of that scares God, or even Elisha. But it did scare Elisha’s servant.
Can you imagine that poor young man? He got up in the morning and probably went out to the well to make some of that good dark roast Damascus coffee for himself and his master, and what does he see? An enormous army at his front door! Maybe he backed up slowly. Maybe he screamed like a child. Who knows how he reacted initially, but what we read is that he reported to his master his dismay: “What shall we do?”
Elisha’s reaction is calm and cool. He doesn’t rush to look out the window. He doesn’t start pacing or figuring out how he can talk himself out of being killed or arrested. He doesn’t begin counting up all his valuables to see if he has enough to bribe the commander of this grand army. Nope. Elisha, in my imagination, takes a slow sip of his coffee and smiles as he tells the servant to calm down.
“Don’t be afraid,” he says to his attendant. Elisha seems to know something that this young man doesn’t. Don’t panic? Don’t be afraid? Clearly, Elisha didn’t have a full grasp of his faculties. How could they not panic? How could they not be afraid? Today they were most likely going to die. At best, they would be imprisoned and beaten! Don’t be afraid?
The servant saw a great army of the enemy of Israel, but Elisha knew that there is more out there than what our limited human eyes can see. We might be tempted to think that Elisha could see more, but the Bible doesn’t say he saw anything. I think he could only see what his young man could see—an overwhelming situation that would make all of us panic. So what gives? Why was Elisha so calm?
The prophet of God knew what all people of faith know—that this world is made up of material and immaterial realities. We cannot see all that is before us. But with the eyes of faith, we can entrust ourselves to the God who sees it all. Not only could God see the King of Aram, but He can also see our predicaments as well. Elisha knew this, and thus, he was cool and settled even if he didn’t see anything more than his servant.
Hebrews 11:1 says, “Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen” (LSB). Elisha took the opportunity to show his young servant (as well as Israel, and us too), what only faith understands, that God is greater than any problem we face. He is a Warrior and King, and He is our Defender and Shield. God tells us that in His Word, so we need to believe Him for what He has said. But for our benefit, Elisha prayed that the curtain, just this once, would be pulled back so that our feeble, faithless eyes could see what is ordinarily invisible. And wow!
Elisha wasn’t afraid. Not because he could see the unseen. But because He believed God with the eyes of faith. And that faith makes men and women of God courageous in the face of troubling circumstances. However it might look, we need to remember that God is in control, and there is much more at play behind the scenes than we will ever know.
It is a bright and relatively warm day today here in West Michigan, where often this time of year is cold and dreary. The sun shining brightly will soon enough give way to dark skies, bitter cold, ice, and shorter daylight hours. For a person who has lived his whole life in sunny Southern California, the darkness can feel oppressive at times.
The winters in Michigan can sometimes echo the spiritual and cultural climate we are feeling right now. The darkness and gloom seem to grow, and we are only at the beginning of winter. Certainly, there will be bright days, when the clouds will part and the sun will peek through. But soon enough, the clouds will return and the bleakness will return. Winter must run its course, and so must human history.
Hebrews 6 gives some excellent counsel as Christians think about how to face the future–with realism, and hope. Today I’d like to point out three truths that I found to be particularly comforting:
When Facing An Unknown Future, We Must Rely on God’s Certain Promises.
“For when God made the promise to Abraham, since He could swear by no one greater, He swore by Himself, saying, “I WILL GREATLY BLESS YOU AND I WILL GREATLY MULTIPLY YOU.” (Hebrews 6:13–14, LSB)
When the Lord spoke to Abram and told him to take his family out of Ur of the Chaldeans, we need to remember that He didn’t tell Abram where he was going. And after the Lord told Abraham that He would make him the father of many nations, He didn’t explain in detail how this would happen. In each step of God’s plan, Abraham was in the dark and was only able to walk by faith and not by sight. God doesn’t owe us a full explanation of His plan and how it will all work out. He often doesn’t give us His plan to review and approve. Most of the time, we just need to step out in faith and go where He sends us trusting that He will work it all out in the end.
In the above verses (Heb 6:12-14), the writer of Hebrews reminds the Christians that he is writing to that all the promises of God are based upon the bedrock of God Himself. Governments, banks, and people make promises every day, but the promises they make are only as good as their reliability and stability. Some government promises are better than others. Some people can be believed more than others. But God’s promises are built upon His perfect, unfailing character and can be completely trusted in every aspect.
2. For Those Who Trust God, We Must Wait Patiently and Avoid the Temptation to Force Our Own Way
“And so, having patiently waited, he obtained the promise.” (Hebrews 6:15, LSB)
Interestingly the writer to the Hebrews states that Abraham waited patiently because Genesis seems to show us his impatience at times as well. Abraham tried to “help God” by lying twice about who Sarah was when he feared he would be murdered so the men could take her as their own. So Abraham lied in order to “help” God keep him alive. When he worried about his age becoming an issue for having children (he had none at this point), he gave in to Sarah’s suggestion that he take her maiden Hagar to be their “surrogate” mother to bear a son. Even after the Lord gave the promise and several reassurances, Abraham and Sarah doubted–could a couple that were both nearing a century of age each become first-time parents? Abraham would see with his own eyes that God’s promises–no matter how outlandish they might seem–are never failing.
Many Christians doubt the promises of God toward His Church, and the nation of Israel. How could God possibly save all of Israel (Rom 11:1, 26), and that Christ will usher in His Kingdom in His time? He has given us plenty to do while we await His return, but we cannot force our own way to compel God as if we could do so. The Lord will return, and not a second later or earlier than He has ordained. We must not sit twiddling our thumbs, nor working to do what only He can do.
3. Even in Times of Greatest Despair and Uncertainty, We Must Not Rely on Feelings, or What Our Eyes Can See, But on the Irrevocable Promises of God
“For men swear by one greater than themselves, and with them an oath given as confirmation is an end of every dispute. In the same way God, desiring even more to show to the heirs of the promise the unchangeableness of His purpose, guaranteed it with an oath, so that by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have taken refuge would have strong encouragement to take hold of the hope set before us.” (Hebrews 6:16–18, LSB)
In this world, we see only dimly, and even what we see is partial. Our feelings as well can be very unreliable and can sometimes betray us or even lead us into sinful responses. The writer to the Hebrews speaks in the above verses of men making oaths in order to support their words. We expect that those who make an oath should keep their promises, but we also know that even the most honest person sometimes has to break his or her word because circumstances beyond our control can force us to do so.
But God, who is not limited in power, and will never lie, has made promises to us that give us “strong encouragement to take hold of the hope set before us.” Yes, difficult and dark times are on the horizon and even among us in the times we are living in. But what we see, and what we feel are not the sole reality. Even more real, and more dependable are the promises of God to us.
These three truths act like an anchor for our souls in our stormy world. Jesus, our Great Captain, has gone before us, and our duty as His children, is to simply follow Him. “This hope we have as an anchor of the soul, a hope both sure and confirmed and one which enters within the veil, where a forerunner has entered for us—Jesus, having become a high priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.” (Hebrews 6:19–20, LSB)
“But, “Ah, Lord Yahweh!” I said, “Behold, the prophets are saying to them, ‘You will not see the sword nor will you have famine, but I will give you true peace in this place.’” Then Yahweh said to me, “The prophets are prophesying lies in My name. I have neither sent them nor commanded them nor spoken to them; they are prophesying to you a vision of lies, divination, futility, and the deception of their own hearts. “Therefore thus says Yahweh concerning the prophets who are prophesying in My name, although it was not I who sent them—yet they keep saying, ‘There will be no sword or famine in this land’—by that sword and famine those prophets shall meet their end!” (Jeremiah 14:13–15, LSB)
As the penalty for Judah’s sin was imminent, the majority of voices that claimed to speak for God declared peace and prosperity. And although the people already didn’t like the prophecies of Jeremiah, in contrast with the positive prophecies of the false prophets, Jeremiah’s words from the Lord seemed overly dramatic and harsh, leading people to heap upon him further hatred.
Our world has always been filled with so-called prophets that seek a hearing for themselves as a way to enrich their pockets or draw followers to themselves. They exist now in the 21st Century as they did in Jeremiah’s day. And today, their dangerous lies are even more potent since we now live in a world where “image is everything” and “the medium is the message.” Books, TikTok videos, outrageous stunts, and pop music are used in the arsenal of these false teachers to grow their popularity and audience. And although their ability to blind others with these lies has grown, the lies themselves are still the same–“Peace, peace. The judgment of God will not come. He is a God of love and would never punish you for being you. After all, He is the One who made you this way.”
In this vacuum there continues to be the need for God’s people to speak up as the Jeremiah’s of our day. They need to have tender hearts–for the people who need to hear the truth because they are the objects of God’s destructive judgment, but they need to have tender hearts toward God and His inerrant Word so that they will not compromise, water down, or alter His message to our world. Thereis objective truth and God has made it known to the world. And there are severe consequences for all those who buy into the lies of the false prophets, just as there were in Jeremiah’s day, and just as certainly as there will be on that Day when all mankind will stand before the Great Judge and give an account for their sins.
Dear Christian, we are living in a day when we cannot compromise our message. The false prophets of our world are lulling the world to sleep and giving them a false sense of security even as the smoke of the coming judgment of God is rising. We cannot remain silent nor can we be fearful of what men may do to us. Open your mouth and speak the faithful and true words of our God to this generation. If we won’t do it, who will?
In my last two posts (read them here and here), I laid out the danger of those that seek a middle ground between biblical fidelity (biblical fundamentalism) while also chasing acceptance by the liberal/modernist/progressive church and academy. Those that have sought acceptance in this way often find that they have made a deal with the devil that brings about either a theological slide, or forces them to abandon the hope of ecumenical cooperation because the stakes are too high.
These historical examples are worthless if we don’t stop and take some time to consider what this means for the situation in the church today. Certainly some of those that tried the middle ground and failed would warn us if they were still living (You can read about some of Billy Graham’s regrets here). So, how can history help and warn us?
Considerations for Today
I wish I could teach this subject as an odd historical lesson that we have learned from we should now move one, but we have not. Today the same faulty logic is being promoted among many conservative Christians, churches, and denominations.
Consider how many Christians today do not think that doctrine is important, but only what one feels about Christ? How many evangelicals see Roman Catholicism as basically compatible with Protestant Christianity, and say things like, “We believe the same things and worship the same God.” This same false idea is spoken of by some regarding Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Oneness Pentecostals, and other aberrations of historic Christianity. The whole Charismatic Movement is driven by emotions over doctrine.
Fearing that they would be seen as judgmental, many Christians are content to accept all that come in the name of Christianity without question. The results have been disastrous. London pastor Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones spoke in 1966 about the dangerous middle-ground that Christians in the 20th century were mired in regarding the idea that doctrine divides and we mustn’t judge people’s faith by what they believe:
I argue that people who do not believe the essentials of the faith, the things that are essential to salvation, cannot be guilty of schism. They are not in the church. If you do not believe a certain irreducible minimum, you cannot be a Christian, and you are not in the church. Have we reached a time when one must not say a thing like that? Have evangelicals so changed that we no longer make an assertion like that?[1]
–D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones
Seeing what was on the horizon of the theological compromise in America, J. Gresham Machen said in 1924:
Paganism has made many efforts to disrupt the Christian faith, but never a more insistent or insidious effort than it is making today. There are three possible attitudes which you may take in the present conflict. In the first place, you may stand for Christ. That is the best. In the second place, you may stand for anti-Christian Modernism. That is next best. In the third place, you may be neutral. That is perhaps worst of all. The worst sin today is to say that you agree with the Christian faith and believe in the Bible, but then make common cause with those who deny the basic facts of Christianity. Never was it more obviously true that he that is not with Christ is against Him.[2]
–J. Gresham Machen
I certainly agree that the Bible speaks against a brawling, pugnacious spirit (1Tim 3:3; Titus 1:7). This is good and true, but the Bible also calls us to fight for some things, including doctrine (1Tim 1:18-20; 6:12; 1Cor 10:4-6). This is the basis or our spiritual war.
Like the modernists who followed Friedrich Schleiermacher, many in conservative Christian churches affirm his idea that Christianity is less about what you believe and more about what you feel in your heart. This dangerous idea sets the stage for the outright rejection of all orthodox doctrines of our faith. We are seeing the ravages of this idea among our young people leaving the faith because they have no doctrinal anchors for their souls. They are adrift upon a sea of subjectivity and the church has aided that.
Today, the church and denominations often function like big money corporations that are very slow to change and reluctant to put at risk the surface sense of unity for fear of putting at jeopardy the large amount of financial giving that benefits it. Because of this, “statesman” leaders arise within the church and denomination that seek to walk the middle ground and keep peace among all parties. This is a long cry from Jesus words:
Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you. You are the salt of the earth, but if salt has lost its taste, how shall its saltiness be restored? It is no longer good for anything except to be thrown out and trampled under people’s feet. (Matthew 5:10–13 (ESV)
Many have lost their saltiness because they refuse to suffer hardship, persecution, and being reviled for their faith. The middle ground has proven to be not only ineffective, but deadly. May the Lord raise up more courageous Christians who are not afraid to speak up for truth, even if it may cost them friends and influence in this life.
[1] D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, “Evangelical Unity: An Appeal,” in Knowing the Times, (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth Trust, 1989), 254.
In my last post, I laid out an abbreviated history of the fundamentalist/modernist controversy and a working definition of what I mean by fundamentalism. You can read my first part here. In part 2, I will give two historical examples of why this middle ground is a dangerous compromise for those that desire to stay true to the biblical doctrines. My final post will address some considerations for what this means in the Church today.
Seeking the Middle with New Evangelicalism
Around the time of the establishment of the World Council of Churches, the inauguration of a new movement was underway. Seeking to leave the separatistic fundamentalism that seemed to be more insulated from the world, conservative evangelical men such as Charles Fuller, Carl F. H. Henry, E.J. Carnell, Harold Lindsell, Harold J. Ockenga, and Billy Graham sought to influence the liberal denominations and scholars while still maintaining conservative evangelical doctrine through what they called “new evangelicalism.” All these men held to fundamental doctrine but felt that more needed to be done to reunite the churches, win back the denominations, and engage the liberal church.
The New Evangelical movement established (among other things) Fuller Theological Seminary (1947), the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association (1950), and Christianity Today magazine (1956). Graham sought a kinder, gentler evangelicalism as evidenced in his vision for Christianity Today, a magazine begun by Graham and his father-in-law Nathan Bell. Of CT, Graham said, “It was my vision that the magazine be pro-church and pro-denomination and that it become the rallying point of evangelicalism within and without the large denominations.”[1] Over time, and under the influence of Dr. Bell, Graham had moved from separating from apostate denominations to seeking their approval and cooperation in hopes of winning them back to conservative theology.
This also proved true for Graham’s crusades as well. In 1957, the year after CT was launched, Graham held his famous New York crusade in Manhattan where he fully broke with his fundamentalist roots and connections by cooperating with “a group that was predominantly non-evangelical and even included out-and-out modernists. It also meant sending converts back to their local churches, no matter how liberal those churches might be.”[2] Iain Murray notes that newspapers at the time of the crusade reported Graham saying, “We’ll send them to their own churches—Roman Catholic, Protestant, or Jewish…The rest is up to God.”[3]
The mindset of new evangelicalism was such that if evangelical Christians could shed their embarrassing fundamentalism and its unwillingness to bend, then liberalism would be willing to let them sit at the table as equals. As someone has said this “deal with the devil” was such that if conservatives would call liberals “Christians,” then liberals would call conservatives “scholars.”
Church historian George Marsden observes, “ Such successes in culturally influential religious circles were leading Graham toward the conviction that he could make marvelous inroads into America’s major denominations if he could jettison the disastrous fundamentalist image of separatism, anti-intellectualism, and contentiousness.”[4] That Graham was in fact moving in this direction is made abundantly clear in a letter written by Graham to Harold Lindsell, then a professor as Fuller Seminary, regarding Graham’s vision for Christianity Today, to “plant the evangelical flag in the middle of the road, taking a conservative theological position but a definite liberal approach to social problems. [Christianity Today] would combine the best in liberalism and the best in fundamentalism without compromising theologically.”[5]
Fuller Seminary, BGEA, and Christianity Today stand as the most obvious examples of this failed philosophy, and today each of them stand as a testimony to the bankruptcy of the idea that one can seek a middle ground without compromising, and the eventual theological slide is clearly seen not only upon these institutions, but upon evangelicalism today.
Seeking the Middle within Presbyterianism
This challenge to historic Christianity happened across denominational lines. Another important example of this was in the Presbyterian Church U.S. denomination (not to be confused with the later PCUSA denomination that emerged from it). The flagship school of the PCUS for many years was Princeton Seminary, and as other schools, it was deeply affected by the incursion of theological liberalism in its faculty. Among the few remaining conservative professors stood J. Gresham Machen, professor of New Testament. Seeing the influx of liberalism into Christianity as a whole, Machen wrote in his book Christianity and Liberalism (1923) that “it may appear that what the liberal theologian has retained after abandoning to the enemy one Christian doctrine after another is not Christianity at all, but a religion which is so entirely different from Christianity as to belong in a distinct category.” In other words, liberalism is not Christianity at all, but another religion altogether.
This stand for orthodox Christian doctrine at Princeton came to a head with the denomination and faculty in 1924-1925, when the Auburn Affirmation was signed by 1,274 ministers in the PCUS. The Affirmation made it clear that the fundamentals of the faith (particular the first five listed from page 1 of my notes) did not need to be affirmed by PCUS candidates for ordination. This allowed for new ministers to deny these core doctrines privately while being ordained for ministry, so long as they subscribed to the Bible and Westminster Confession of Faith.
Conservative in theology but seeking a middle road for the sake of unity, Charles R. Erdman, professor of theology at Princeton, sided with the so-called moderates in the PCUS General Assembly and created a peace commission to “study” the issue. The commission was to be made up of liberals and conservatives, but only conservatives that sought peace above all else.[6] Erdman himself was Premillennial, a Bible conference speaker, and a contributor to The Fundamentals. But all of these didn’t matter when it came to his alliances. Seeking the middle ground, Erdman held the door for liberals to walk in and overtake the denomination and seminary without question. As fundamentalist Ernest Pickering wrote, “This new evangelicalism approaches the liberal bear with a bit of honey instead of a gun.”[7]
Realizing that the PCUS was apostate and lost to modernism, Machen and the remaining conservative faculty members left and began Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia, PA in 1929. In 1936 he began the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC) denomination after being suspended by the PCUS regarding his establishment of an independent mission board that only supported conservative missionaries. The establishment of a new denomination and separation from the PCUS came at great personal cost to Machen who lost many friends for his abandonment of the PCUS. Was Machen overreacting? He didn’t think so. He wrote, “It is no wonder, then, that liberalism is totally different from Christianity, for the foundation is different. Christianity is founded upon the Bible. It bases upon the Bible both its thinking and its life. Liberalism on the other hand is founded upon the shifting emotions of sinful men.”[8] Machen saw his actions as contending for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 3).
[1] Billy Graham, Just as I Am, (London: Harper Collins, 1997), 291.
[2] George Marsden, Reforming Fundamentalism: Fuller Seminary and the New Evangelicalism (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1987), 162.
Always Reforming 