modernism

Biblical Truths vs. Ecumenical Unity

/ Richard Bargas / Leave a comment

 “And Jehu the son of Hanani the seer went out to meet him to his face and said to King Jehoshaphat, ‘Should you help the wicked and love those who hate Yahweh and so bring wrath on yourself from Yahweh?’”  (2 Chronicles 19:2, LSB)

Working well with others is something we were hopefully taught as small children. Learning to get along with people, even people we don’t often agree with, is a mark of maturity and a necessity in any healthy society.

But when discussing religion, particularly Christianity, do the same ideas of cooperation and friendly interfaith dialogues need to be pursued? If you are ecumenical, you’d probably answer in the affirmative, pointing out that Jesus was a peacemaker and taught His disciples to love all people.

Those, such as myself, who don’t agree with the central ideas of ecumenism would agree that Jesus came to bring peace and that we are to love all people. We should treat all people with care and respect, not just those who believe what we believe or look like we do.

However, Christianity makes truth claims, and those propositional truths often come into direct conflict with the ideas and philosophies of the world and those of all other religions and traditions. Ecumenism seeks to flatten out beliefs in favor of the lowest common denominator so that we can work together in harmony. For instance, Judaism, Islam, and Christianity come from an Abrahamic root. All three religions are also monotheistic. But if you poke just below these surface truths, you will find a lot of disagreement. Enough that wars continue to rage because of these critical underlying differences.

I find it no small matter that God Himself doesn’t embrace this ecumenical spirit that some claim in His name. In the Old Testament, false idols and their altars are repeatedly torn down, and their prophets are put to death. In the New Testament, warnings against idolatry continue (1 John 5:21; Colossians 3:5; 1 Thessalonians 1:9),  with the result that external idols of wood and stone were still rejected, along with the internal idols of the heart.

In the above passage of 2 Chronicles 19, God rebukes the relatively godly king of Judah for working with the famously wicked king of Israel, Ahab. Ahab and Jehoshaphat partnered to fight a common enemy, which resulted in Ahab’s death in battle (2 Chronicles 18). And even though King Jehoshaphat forced King Ahab to seek out the Lord’s will before going to battle, as we see in the verse above, God was not pleased.

Hanani, the Lord’s prophet (called a “seer” in those days), went out for a face-to-face meeting with the king. God was angry, even though Jehoshaphat had maintained his godly reign, unlike so many other kings. Why? Because in partnering with Ahab to help him defeat an enemy, he showed love to one who hated Yahweh.

Some people justify their cooperation in ecumenical programs and fellowships because they say they will be able to maintain their biblical fidelity. Some even believe that they will be able to influence the ungodly and apostate by showing them what steadfast biblical faithfulness looks like. But let’s be honest, healthiness doesn’t spread like disease. It works the other way around. God knows that. That’s why He forbade the intermingling of the diseased with the healthy in His laws. That’s why it was such a big deal for Jesus to touch the sick and the dead. A rotten apple spoils the whole barrel. It never works the other way.

My biggest concern is not simply whether it works or doesn’t. Our biggest concern as Christians should be what God thinks about it. As we see throughout the Bible, and clearly in His response to Jehoshaphat, we risk bringing the wrath of God for the wicked upon ourselves when we love those who hate Him.

The Balance of Emotion and Truth in Worship

/ Richard Bargas / Leave a comment

“Now David and all Israel were celebrating before God with all their strength, even with songs and with lyres, harps, tambourines, cymbals, and with trumpets.” (1 Chronicles 13:8, LSB) 

The modern evangelical church faces numerous challenges. Passion and “vibes” aren’t lacking, though. In fact, the modern evangelical movement emphasizes and showcases its emotional focus, often displaying its energy and excitement as proof positive that they love God. I’d argue that loving God with our hearts just as much as our minds is a biblical principle that many churches need to be reminded of. However, I’d also contend that too many churches ride the wave of emotionalism, believing that the outward expression of these “worship experiences” is God’s primary concern. It’s not.  

Now, if I were part of this movement of emotional excess, swaying to the moody singing with the lights down low and hands raised high, I wouldn’t need to provide any proof. After all, how I feel is enough. But I want to argue against that, and so I will offer biblical proof, the only true proof that really counts.

The passage from 1 Chronicles 13:8 is part of an intriguing section of the Old Testament. It is often cited to support emotion-driven worship. First, let me emphasize that God is concerned about us worshiping Him in truth. In John 4:24, Jesus said to the Samaritan woman, “God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.” (John 4:24, LSB). I am not suggesting that we must choose between emotion and truth, but truth takes precedence over emotion. To worship the Lord in error, even if we are excited and passionate about it, is egregious. 

Along with truth, we must realize that God is holy and not like men. Hosea 11:9 says, “For I am God and not man, the Holy One in your midst, And I will not come in wrath” (Hosea 11:9, LSB). In Isaiah 12:6, the Lord states, “Cry aloud and shout for joy, O inhabitant of Zion, for great in your midst is the Holy One of Israel” (Isaiah 12:6, LSB). Holiness doesn’t only mean sinless; it also means not creaturely. Although Jesus came as a man, He is the God-man. He is unique and not created.

First Chronicles 13:8 describes the passionate and energetic worship of a small group of worshippers as they attempted to bring the Ark of the Covenant into Jerusalem. However, if you read a little farther in the chapter, you will find a shocked and terrified king standing beside a dead man. What happened? God struck down one of the men in the procession, named Uzzah, for daring to touch the Ark with his hands when it appeared to be falling from the cart it was being transported on.

Didn’t God see their passion? Didn’t God see that Uzzah only meant well? What happened? Again, God is more concerned with truth and His holiness than energy and passion. In chapter 15, we see that the lesson was learned. Verse 2 says, “And David said, “No one is to carry the ark of God but the Levites; for Yahweh chose them to carry the ark of God and to minister to Him forever” (1 Chronicles 15:2, LSB).

David had given up hope of moving the Ark of God, so he placed it in a nearby farmhouse after Uzzah died. It remained there for a time, but he wanted to bring it to Jerusalem again. This time, however, he remembered that God wants to be worshiped in truth and holiness as well as passionate energy. When he made his plans, he didn’t place the Ark on an ox-cart as he had done before. Instead, he enlisted the Levitical priests and informed them that this was how Yahweh chose to have his Ark moved. 

As he spoke to the priests, he ensured they were prepared to encounter this holy God. He instructed them: “and said to them, “You are the heads of the fathers’ households of the Levites; set yourselves apart as holy, both you and your relatives, that you may bring up the ark of Yahweh, the God of Israel, to the place that I have prepared for it” (1 Chronicles 15:12, LSB). 

We also read how David arrived at this conclusion in the next verse: “Because you did not carry it at the first, Yahweh our God broke out against us, for we did not seek Him according to the legal judgment” (1 Chronicles 15:13, LSB).

Some within modern evangelicalism dismiss all of this, believing that truth and holy reverence stifle emotion and passion. They’re mistaken. It channels those feelings properly toward God and away from ourselves. Worship isn’t meant to be performative, yet it often is in the church today. Instead, it should elevate the heart to God, humbling us as we offer ourselves in reverent love as His people.

Once David had everything in order, according to God’s prescribed rules for worship, the Ark was moved. Was it somber? Was it more like a funeral march because truth and reverence were required? Absolutely not. Joy was evident. In verse 25 we read, “So it was David, with the elders of Israel and the commanders over thousands, who went to bring up the ark of the covenant of Yahweh from the house of Obed-edom with gladness” (1 Chronicles 15:25, LSB). That passion spread, and we read in verses 27-28, “Now David was clothed with a robe of fine linen with all the Levites who were carrying the ark, as well as the singers and Chenaniah the leader of the singing with the singers. David also wore a linen ephod. Thus all Israel was bringing up the ark of the covenant of Yahweh with shouting, and with sound of the horn, with trumpets, with loud-sounding cymbals, with harps, and lyres” (1 Chronicles 15:27–28, LSB).

What we observe is that even while adhering to the law, there was still joy, passion, gladness of heart, and a celebration of God. There wasn’t the wild and unregulated worship that the pagans practiced. Instead, the One True God was worshiped as He desires, in Spirit, Truth, and Holiness. 

Legalism is as Deadly as Liberalism

/ Richard Bargas / Leave a comment

“And he said to them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, ‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’ You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men.” (Mark 7:6–8)

After chastening Christ for his disciples’ failure to observe all of the ritual washings of their tradition, the Pharisees received the above response from Jesus which should stand as an open rebuke to many within the “fundamentalist” camp.

I define a “fundamentalist” in its most basic, historic, and orthodox sense—those that hold to the biblical fundamentals of the Christian faith. I would also add that a fundamentalist is willing to contend for that faith that was once for all delivered to the saints. This stand of willingness to content would differentiate me from some of my evangelical brothers. I believe that all fundamentalists are evangelical (as historically defined), while not all evangelicals are fundamentalists.

But there are some that have added there own “fundamentals” to the historic beliefs of fundamentalism, and because of this, they have been more than willing to separate from others over these issues. I think there is much room for discussion on several of these things, because many of them are important and their inclusion or exclusion will have a great impact upon the local church context.

However, there are some issues that, although important, have been elevated to a place that they should not be elevated. Additionally, there are some who have added to the “fundamentals” those things which are not biblically required, but are issues of personal conscience. My thoughts from Mark 7:6-8 and Jesus’ rebuke bring me to reflect upon those elevated issues that are not sin, but can be treated as sin in the judgment of some—including those issues of personal conscience which become sin for all believers in the minds of the weak.

Whether it is the teaching that those that don’t use the King James Bible are damned and their churches are apostate, or that women with short hair who wear pants are dressing like men or of objectionable moral character, or that worship for the church must be on Saturday, or that Jesus turned the water into grape juice at the wedding in Cana because all consumption of alcohol is sin—these and several others are the traditions of men parading themselves as the commands of God.

I don’t think God cares if you use the KJV or whether the women in church wear pants or not, or whether your communion service uses wine, as the Jews used in their Passover feasts. The problem is when those that care do so to the degree that they push their conviction upon all Christians in a way that Scripture does not, and in doing so elevate their word above God’s Word.

Satan is just as pleased when we add to God’s Word as he is when we take away from it. Both are wrong and both are damning. The lips might be saying all the right things, but as Jesus says, the heart can be completely wrong, and not pleasing to the Lord.

What good does it do to obey every jot and tittle of the cultural fundamentalist’s “gospel” if in the end you are adding to God’s Word, perverting His gospel, and not truly worshipping Him? Instead, may we all be committed to recovering true fundamentalism in our commitment to every Word of God bringing joyful worship that is the overflow of the heart.

Fundamentalism, Modernism, and the Dangerous Middle (part 3)

/ Richard Bargas / 4 Comments

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.

[2] Quoted in Beale, 159.

Fundamentalism, Modernism, and the Dangerous Middle (part 2)

/ Richard Bargas / 1 Comment

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.

[3] Murray, 29, fn. 2.

[4] Marsden, 159.

[5] Ibid., 158.

[6] David O. Beale, In Pursuit of Purity: American Fundamentalism Since 1850 (Greenville, SC: Unusual Publications, 1986), 158.

[7] Murray, 31.

[8] J. Gresham Machen, Christianity and Liberalism (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.,1923), 67.