The Book's Purpose

• Explain the current state of evangelicalism and the contributing historical events
• Establish the fundamentals upon which Christians should agree
• Call upon Christians to lovingly and truthfully confront a compromising culture and an accommodating church with the claims of the Bible
• Identify the mark of love, whereby the watching world may recognize us as Christians

The Book's Message

Within our generation, evangelicalism abandoned the concepts of Scripture’s inerrancy and sufficiency, an abandonment that marked the rapid collapse of Western culture evident today. To recover, we must lovingly, but firmly, oppose compromise and accommodation within the church. Otherwise, the collapse of Western culture and the rise of totalitarianism within our once-free society will be inevitable.

What Really Matters

Since the 1920s, American culture has seen dramatic shifts scientifically and socially. From the splitting of the atom to the divorce of American marriages, something fundamental has changed. The pursuit of freedom as a wholehearted rejection of limitation lies at the root of this shift. This view of freedom sees boundaries and limitations as evil in and of themselves and seeks to disentangle itself from all restraint.

Pursuing freedom in an absolute sense disrupts the balance between freedom and form. A free culture relies on the form given it by its laws and morality to maintain order. Societies that lose this delicate balance may for a time become chaotic, as the forms of law and morality lose hold and unrestrained behavior reigns. But no country can tolerate chaos long, and eventually an arbitrary totalitarianism fills the void.

As this battle engages all of American culture, how has the evangelical church responded? Too often, it has been accommodating, compromising, and altogether imitative of the spirit of this age. By doing so, it has abandoned the vital role of bringing to bear upon the culture the spiritual weaponry given us by God: truth, righteousness, faith, the gospel, salvation, the Word of God, and prayer (Ephesians 6:10-18). In place of these, the church has engaged culture on its own terms using worldly wisdom. In doing so, the church no longer has anything to say to the culture.

Now Western morality has fragmented without a unifying Christian ethos. It has wholly turned from God, a turn resulting in a darkening of our moral understanding and bringing us ever closer to the realization of judgment from God. Western civilization is self-destructing before our very eyes, and Christians must realize they cannot abstain from engaging these forces. To do so, we must understand how we came to this point.

In the mid-seventeenth century, the Enlightenment began to influence European thought. As a movement which prized human reason and skepticism, it reached its apex in Germany in the eighteenth century. It undermined human perception of the authority of God’s Word, an undermining that led to the establishment of higher-critical methods of biblical interpretation and ultimately Christian liberalism.

The movement took shape in America during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. By the 1930s, most of the mainline denominations had succumbed to it. In the mid-1930s, an event occurred that marked a critical turning point in evangelical history. This event involved Dr. J. Greshem Machen, of the Northern Presbyterian Church, who was a believer in biblical inerrancy and who brilliantly defended the fundamentals of the Christian faith against liberal Christianity’s onslaught. However, his denomination defrocked him, an event that caused front-page headlines and a split of the denomination.

Higher criticism stands against almost every historical doctrine of Scripture. It denies the supernatural, elevates human reason, rejects the fall of mankind, denies the deity of Christ and His resurrection, supports the perfectibility of mankind, and undermines the plain reading of the Bible.

Since then, Christianity has steadily accommodated to the spirit of this age. We must strive to regain our Christian distinctive, boldly but lovingly opposing those who would have the church accommodate the prevailing cultural notions. Failure to do so will not only affect the church, but our national culture and heritage as well.

Marking the Watershed

A watershed is the line along the ridge of a mountain range marking the separation of drainage. Snow that sits along a ridge just a few feet apart ends up sometimes thousands of miles apart after it melts, because of such watersheds.

The issue of biblical inerrancy and authority is a watershed issue within the evangelical church. Subtle changes in the beliefs of some Christians, while seeming to be only slight departures from traditional Christian doctrine, end up drifting thousands of miles from orthodox Christianity. In our day, we have Christians willing to say they consider themselves to be faithful believers, yet also consider the Bible to be full of errors.

Such a view is incapable of remaining faithful to what the Bible teaches about itself. Nor will it provide a sure foundation during the difficult times which are to come. Anything less than full confidence in the inerrancy of Scripture undermines the Christian faith. It is a watershed issue.

A Christian ethos grounded in biblical morality provided the form for our country’s freedoms when it was founded. Only faith in the inerrancy of Scripture~biblical absolutism~is able to withstand our culture’s slide into moral relativism. The Bible gives unadulterated absolute truth in the face of Christian neo-orthodoxy and secular humanism, and unless the church will lovingly but forcefully defend it, very difficult days face us as a country.

Evangelicals must begin by marking a line regarding this issue. To deny biblical inerrancy is to deny a foundation of the Christian faith. We must reject the subjectivism of the relativism of our age, and unwaveringly stand upon God’s Word as divine revelation. We must oppose, firmly and lovingly, the dichotomy which would on the one hand uphold parts of the Bible as inspired while on the other hand deny the remainder as mythical or outdated. The Bible is not to be judged by culture, but rather it stands in judgment of culture.

There are those within evangelicalism who are happy to believe in inerrancy while meaning something completely different. They do so by creating loopholes, where the Bible becomes inerrant “where it touches upon issues of faith.” Or, they say they believe the Bible in spite of its mistakes. Likewise, they accept certain aspects of Scripture while rejecting what it says regarding the cosmos, history, or human relationships as simply “culturally oriented.”

For several generations, the evangelical church has not rejected these views. Sadly, they are leading the movement into compromise. The watershed issue has become whether or not the Bible is what it claims to be, and whether or not Christians live like it. Consequently, major cultural issues like abortion are defended with reasons such as the happiness of the mother or the quality of life of the murdered child.

We have come to the point in Western civilization when moral absolutes are so soundly rejected that almost anything goes. Sadly, the church has not been watchful. We are not the salt we were called to be in our culture. If we believe in and obey the truth, then we are mandated to confront this trend. We are bound to do so lovingly, but earnestly. Our reflex reaction cannot be accommodation, for we are called to defend the truth.

The Practice of Truth

It requires courage to draw a line on a doctrinal issue like biblical inerrancy. But if we love the truth, we have no other choice. We are to do so while upholding both the love of God and the holiness of God. Practicing truth does not require us to relinquish elements of the culture like the humanities in a full retreat from society, and certainly errs if it confuses primary and secondary points of doctrine. But it must be confrontational.

When the church began its struggle with neo-orthodoxy, few realized that it was no less than the gospel which was at stake. Enlightenment thinking sought to remove the superstition from the faith and practice of Christianity by subjecting theology to Enlightenment thinking. This led to the denial of Christ’s deity, an undermining of the authority of the Bible, and confusion regarding the meaning of salvation.

In defense of historic evangelicalism, Benjamin B. Warfield, James Orr, W. H. Griffeth Thomas, and G. Campbell Morgan, published a series of paperbacks called The Fundamentals. In 1923, Dr. J. Gresham Machen published Christianity and Liberalism to expose the heresy of liberal Christianity. These actions sought to uphold five essential truths:

1. “the inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible”
2. “the deity of Christ and His virgin birth”
3. “the substitutionary atonement of Christ’s death”
4. “the literal resurrection of Christ from the dead”
5. “the literal return of Christ”

The church, at this critical point, separated into two distinct groups among those upholding the fundamentals. Some sought to remain within liberal denominations and work for change, while others sought the purity of the visible church and came out from them. The former began to fall into complacency, while the latter displayed a hardness and lack of Christian love. The net result was that no observable love between two groups of Christians was displayed.

These facts are instructive for us in this time. We must guard against two equally destructive tendencies while we seek to uphold the truth. The first is to become hard and loveless toward those with whom we differ. We must remember what the real battle line is: upholding in faith and conduct the inspiration of the whole Bible or not. We may have secondary disagreements with those who agree with us on this issue, and we should be sure they remain secondary for the sake of Christian unity and the example of brotherly love. Second, we should be aware of the tendency to accommodate for the sake of false unity or false victories. The watershed must be clearly marked.

Historic, biblical Christianity believes there is a real truth, a “flaming truth,” over and against humanistic and liberal Christianity’s relativism. To fail as evangelicals to uphold this truth is spiritual adultery. Loyalty to the creeds, the Scripture, and the divine Bridegroom require that we both believe and practice this truth before a watching world.

“The church belongs to those who by the grace of God are faithful to the Scriptures.” It is therefore imperative that the church recover godly, loving church discipline and exercise it against those who would seek to compromise the faith and practice of the visible church. This should be done on a personal and human level when possible, and at the institutional level if necessary. Our desire for faithfulness toward truth may even require us, with great regret, to separate for the sake of the purity of the visible church.

We live in a post-Christian world, and we are losing both the church and the culture to its influences. We may, with diligence and the grace of God, slow the slide towards complete secularism if we will learn from the past, resist compromise, lovingly but firmly confront and discipline those in error, and strive for the purity of faith and practice within the visible church. We cannot remain untouched by the cultural slide if we do not.

Connotations and Compromise

During the debate over liberalism during the 1920s and 30s, those promoting the inerrancy of Scripture worked to clarify the fundamentals of the Christian faith. They believed themselves to be Biblebelieving Christians, but soon their work began to be referred to as fundamentalism. Eventually, the term began to be associated with a particular form of opposition to the liberal beliefs, one noted for its harsh and loveless tone.

Thus, Bible-believing Christians came to be known as evangelicals. This distinguished them from the more negative connotations of fundamentalism and highlighted their identification with Christ’s command to be salt and light in their culture. During this time, from the mid-1940s onward, people began to understand the implications of this new paradigm. But just as the fundamentalists separated and isolated themselves, the new evangelicals swung too far the other way and fell into a state of accommodation. The net effect of both was the same: the culture remained unchallenged with the truth of God. A Christian faith that has accommodated the culture around it no longer has anything to say against that culture~it is robbed of its message.

Here again we must remember our purpose to lovingly but forcefully confront error. Standing on the side of scriptural inerrancy in belief and practice, we must draw the line on these issues and not fear to proclaim those with a lower view of Scripture to be false evangelicals.

The loss of these distinctions has led directly to one of the great moral horrors of the twentieth century: abortion. The Bible teaches that man has intrinsic value not in relationship to society, usefulness, or even his own happiness, but because he is made in the image of God. By rejecting this biblical principle, those professing Christian faith, and the culture, may then justify themselves in killing innocent unborn children for any reason at all. This opens the door to killing unwanted children outside the womb, or taking the life of anyone who becomes burdensome or inconvenient.

Because it is so closely linked with biblical inerrancy, the question of human life has by extension become a watershed issue for the church. One cannot hold the Bible as inerrant and authoritative and fail to recognize the special place human life holds in creation and in the personhood of unborn children. “If we are not willing to take a stand even for human life, is there anything for which we will stand?”

Forms of The World Spirit

Elements within the evangelical church in our day is confusing the kingdom of God with some sort of socialistic program. The gospel is reduced to a method whereby wealth is redistributed in an effort to stamp out the consequences of evil and injustice in society. These parts of the evangelical church misunderstand the cause of evil, thinking that a socialistic program will fix the sin nature, which is the real cause of such horror and suffering.

Socialism has failed everywhere it has been tried. By accommodating to this worldly system, liberal Christianity unwittingly becomes complicit in the eventual atrocities that will be done in the name of redistribution. In its call for justice and compassion, it is at first difficult to discern a difference between it and similar biblical injunctions. However, it is watershed issue because though both ideas appear similar, the secular concept of socialism is not rooted in biblical principles and therefore logically ends miles apart from biblical practices of compassion and justice. This issue calls for action on the part of faithful Christians, but for caution as well.

First, we must be careful to remember that America has never been fully or perfectly Christian. While much of America’s history has ties to Reformation principles, there are areas of our past for which even a mostly Christian ethic was insufficient to guard against, such as sinful ideas like slavery and prejudice. We should seek to admit and reject such errors.

Second, we must use wealth compassionately. It is better to have little wealth to give than to gain wealth unjustly. And finally, there is great danger in confusing Christianity with America. Let us strive to be faithful stewards of what has been given to us, but let us remember to be balanced in our approach.

Having said that, Christianity has profoundly affected the history of our country. Not all the founders were Christians, but most at least acknowledged the existence of a Creator and understood the implications of His existence. Contemporary culture would have us disbelieve this, as if all American history was as relativistic and secular as we are today. We must lovingly but forcefully dispute this revision of history.

Nowhere in our culture do these battles rage more violently than at the universities. Evangelicals have all but abandoned the academic arena, leaving in their place scholars with humanistic or neo-orthodox philosophies. “Evangelical Christians should be better scholars than non-Christians because they know that there is truth in contrast to the relativism and narrow reductionism of every discipline.” Too often, however, the Christian becomes a casualty. The Christian must arm himself with belief in the sufficiency of the Bible and a willingness to be lovingly confrontational, because the Marxist professor is not afraid to teach his philosophy and it should not remain unchallenged.

Another movement threatening the integrity of evangelicalism is the move towards ecumenicism. While even the unbelieving world recognizes the conflict between members of the ecumenical movement, evangelicals in their rush to draw others into their error gloss over the real dangers and conflicts such false unity brings with it. Ecumenicism is fundamentally at odds with historic Christian orthodoxy in that it is incapable of exercising church discipline on the issue of doctrine and that the movement itself threatens to mislead the church.

Ecumenicism strongly tends to lend political support to tyranny in the belief that socialism can bring about utopia. In our own culture, we have strayed so far from biblical principles that there is little left but to pray for God’s mercy in judgment. Ecumenicism’s support of tyrannical governments is in direct opposition to the Christian’s call to love our neighbor. We cannot hope for a utopian society and tolerate the existence of vicious injustice and cruelty as is often seen in socialist governments. The Bible does not teach us to expect a fallen world to produce a utopian society. But because liberal Christians reject the authority of the Bible, it is easy to see how they fall into this trap. However, if this accommodation stands unchallenged, we cannot say we love our neighbor.

A final challenge to biblical Christianity is feminism. Evangelicals have surrendered ground on this issue, opening the door to all kinds of cultural issues affecting marriage, the family, sexual morality, gender roles, homosexuality, and divorce. The Bible teaches that marriage is not a human institution, but is a mystery revealed to us by God. He teaches us in His Word very clearly what the roles of men and women are to be and how the institution of marriage reveals something of the church’s relationship to Christ.

Evangelicals have accommodated the world spirit on the issue of feminism. It cheapens marriage, teaches that marriage and family are forms of oppression, and promotes the central idea that that male and female are equal without distinction. However, the biblical teaching has two aspects: 1) males and females have equal, infinite value before God and relative to one another; and 2) males and females possess complimentary, but not equal, expressions of His image. This truth gives freedom to both men and women to be equal, yet acknowledge and appreciate the differences between themselves. All of this is to be considered within the context of the biblical boundaries for their roles.

The world spirit on this issue believes in equality without distinction. It refuses to acknowledge God’s authority in this regard and promotes absolute, autonomous freedom from these distinctions. Accommodating this mentality results in an inability to defend against the cultural mentalities regarding abortion, homosexuality, and divorce. The evangelical world has failed to adequately defend and display obedience in these areas.

These issues are vitally important at this hour in our nation’s history. Only a biblically informed theology promoted with conviction and love can counter the tide of relativism sweeping through the church and our culture.

Praying for the Pastor

Evangelicalism has become worldly by accommodating the spirit of our age. Because of this, it is impossible to consider a united evangelicalism without first drawing a line as to what evangelicalism entails. There are only three options for the Christian:

1. loveless confrontation
2. no confrontation
3. loving confrontation

In this struggle, only loving confrontation is the biblical response. We must be careful to respond with the proper balance of love and holiness, and be sure to respond only to the key watershed issues.

Let us remember the real issue: obedience to God’s Word against the spirit of autonomous freedom so prevalent today. Let us choose our allies wisely: “Conservative humanism is no better than liberal humanism; authoritarianism from the left is no better than authoritarianism from the right. What is wrong is wrong, no matter what tag is placed on it.” Accommodation is a slippery slope which leads to more and more accommodation. Let us lovingly begin to reject it in hopes of restraining our culture’s moral slide.

Radicals for Truth

We need a radical and revolutionary message. No message is more radical or revolutionary than that which stands in direct opposition to the world spirit of our age. The Bible answers for us all of our deepest questions, questions of purpose, origins, history, morality, sociology, and spirituality. It gives context for the search for truth and touches upon all of reality.

Unfortunately, evangelical accommodation has been all one way. The culture has not accommodated at all~it continues its slide into moral relativism and its logical conclusions. We need a new generation of evangelicals who are willing to stand against the culture, to take a truly radical position, and proclaim the truth of God’s word. More than this, they must be willing to stand against those within the church who would silence the Christian voice through compromise. They must firmly and lovingly reject such accommodation, confront those in error, and oppose falsehood within the church and the culture.

If we fail to do this, the evangelical movement will be lost to the cause of Christ forever.

The Mark of a Christian

Just before the end of His ministry, Christ left his followers with a distinctive sign to display. By it, they could identify one another, and the world could identify them. While many signs and symbols have been employed by the church over the centuries, this one exceeds them all: love one another.

We are called first and foremost to love our brothers in Christ. This does not excuse us from loving our fellow man in obedience to the second most important command given in God’s law. However, Christians are to display a special type of love for one another that distinguishes them as followers of Christ. This carries with it, however, a double edge.

To properly love a fellow Christian, we must be able and willing to identify who is a brother and who is not~especially in our generation. “We must both distinguish true Christians from all pretenders and be sure that we leave no true Christians outside of our consideration … We [also] must include everyone who stands in the historic-biblical faith whether or not he is a member of our own party or group.”

If we fail on this point, the world has the right to judge us unfaithful followers of Christ on the basis of His own command. This does not mean we are not Christians, and we must repent when we fail to love biblically. But this mark is to distinguish us in the eyes of the world.

Scripture goes even further. If love for one another is the mark of a follower of Christ, then unity among believers is evidence of the validity of the gospel of Christ. If the world is to believe that God sent Christ, the evidence is in a unified Body of Christ.

This unity is not to be an external and superficial unity, but a true unity. It requires that the church establish doctrine, and hold one another to faithful belief and practice of it. It does not mean believers will agree on all points, but they must agree on the central points. Organizational or ecclesiastical oneness will not do. Neither will an appeal to the unity of the invisible church, for such a unity cannot be seen by the watching world. Nor can we appeal to a positional or legal unity, for the same reason.

This unity must be visible and observable. It begins with a willingness to practice both God’s holiness and God’s love. It means we must ask forgiveness of those we have wronged. It means we must openly forgive those who have wronged us. We must disagree with one another in a spirit of love, and sometimes separate with regret and tears. Our love toward one another should be costly and practical. We should approach disagreements with a purpose to solve the issue, rather than win the debate.

In our desire to defend the truth against those who compromise with the world, we must admit and resist the equally dangerous mistake of forgetting to display our Christian love and oneness. The watching world may not understand disagreements over issues of faith and practice, but they will understand that something is different if we handle such disagreements with unity and love toward one another. Let us be mindful then of our duty to love all men, and especially our brothers in Christ, while we promote the truth of God’s Word both within the church and before a watching world.