The Bizarre Mindset of Post-Modernism

Jay Bakker, son of Jim Bakker and Tammy Faye Messner, has a new ministry of his own in Minneapolis. Bakker recently celebrated  gay marriage by partaking of the Lord’s Supper with rainbow-colored communion bread. Bakker is typical of the post-modern, edgy, un-Biblical and heretical fringe of evangelicalism. In his company would be men like Rob Bell. communion19n-3-web

I have really tried to understand why people take such un-Biblical positions on issues which are so clear-cut. I know the reasons, I just don’t understand them!

1. Typically they have a low view of Scripture

2. Therefore the Bible does not contain final authority for Christian faith and life

3. Their exposition of Scripture is frequently non-existent or pitiful

4. They play to emotions rather than Biblical truth

5. Their worldview tends to be amazingly man-centered

6. Their theology, such as it is, is frequently heretical and un-Biblical

7. This last charge is meaningless to them, because to them, God has not spoken authoritatively and decisively on anything

The reason Bakker is evidently enjoying success in his new “bar/church” venture is because he is not confronting his “congregation” with their sin. The Gospel is clear on this matter – repent and believe (Mk 1:14-15). God is holy, and He commands His people to act holy as well (Lev 19:2; 1 Pet 1:16). There are certain standards expected of Christians. True salvation entails repentance from sin.

It is so sad to see such heresy enjoying such apparent success. I doubt a Bible preaching man could garner a fraction of the attention Bakker is getting, or even a fraction of the congregation.

I will be starting an intermittent series very soon, where I review and comment on a book which speaks to this mindset, specifically a low view of Scripture. The book is older (1991), but Bakker is nothing more than a product of this un-Biblical way of thinking. It breaks my heart that this heresy is considered Christianity.

What is Dispensationalism?

Introduction

This paper is not an apologetic for dispensationalism as a system. It is simply a brief overview of the system from friendly sources–a faithful survey of what dispensationalists believe. For book-length overviews, see especially (a) Charles Ryrie, Dispensationalism (reprint: Chicago, Moody: 2007) for traditional dispensationalism, and (b) Michael Vlach, Dispensationalism: Essential Beliefs and Common Myths, revised ed. (Los Angeles: Theological Studies Press, 2017) for progressive dispensationalism.
Now, to business!

Worship

Worship is “the expression of an authentic response to God in appropriate forms.” God has always demanded an authentic response; reverence, love, etc, encapsulated best by Christ Himself (Deut 6:5; Mt 22:37). There must also be an appropriate form of response. Man has an obligation to respond in a specific and appropriate manner, and the form of the worship God desires has changed throughout the dispensations (Means, 1865, 531).

Dispensationalism

A dispensation is a particular way God administers His rule over the world as He progressively works out His purpose for world history (Showers, 1990, 30). God’s purpose for world history is to bring about His Kingdom. It is presumptuous and un-Biblical to presume God is not ruling and reigning over the course of events now, and it is equally un-Biblical to deny God’s eternal plan is marching towards some decreed end in the future. Therefore, it is appropriate to distinguish between the eternal, universal extent of His rule and the method of His rule (McClain, 1959, 21). The extent of God’s rule is all-encompassing, but the method of His rule has changed periodically throughout Scripture with each successive dispensation.

dispensations

God has changed the administration, or manner, of His rule several times throughout Scripture (Heb 1:1-2). Distinguishing characteristics of a dispensation are (Ryrie, 2007, 40);

  1. A change in God’s governing relationship with man,
  2. A resulting change in man’s responsibility, and
  3. Corresponding revelation to reveal both of the above.

Man’s responsibility in any dispensation is to worship God in the way He commands by (1) an authentic, heartfelt response which takes (2) the appropriate form. The genuine response of the believer has always been an unchanging requirement; Rolland McCune (2009, 125) observed; “faith in God’s revelation was required not only for redemption from sin but also for fulfilling one’s dispensational obligations (Gen 15:6).” The form of that response, however, has changed throughout human history as God periodically alters the method of His rule. This paper will explore the different forms of worship throughout these different dispensations.

God’s Purpose

God’s purposes for His creation are to bring about His Kingdom entirely for His own glory. Christians can confidently point out where everything began (Genesis), and most can also point to how it will all end (Revelation 20-21). How God is working out His plan in between these two events is the issue! The dispensational system provides a coherent, Scriptural blueprint to understand how and why God is advancing His Kingdom for His own glory.

His Kingdom

What was created perfect was ruined by willful sin; God is advancing His plan for setting His creation right once again, culminating in a new heavens and a new earth in the eternal state (Rev 21). The personal, visible worship Adam and Eve used to enjoy in the garden was no longer possible with sinful men; after the fall man could not look upon God and still live (Gen 3:8; Ex 33:20). Christ taught us that our earnest prayer should be for God’s kingdom to come (Mt 6:9-15). We should look forward to this blessed event and pray for His will to be done. Through the framework of dispensations, God’s progressive plan to achieve this very end is clearly evident.

For His Glory

This is a difficult concept for unbelievers and, unfortunately, even many Christians to believe. It is not about man – it is about God! The innate selfishness of mankind has allowed far too many Christians to believe they are the center of God’s plan and purposes. This is incorrect; God desires to be worshipped in spirit and in truth (Jn 4:24).

A poor, but useful analogy is that of a father ruling his household. The father has the right to expect his children to obey his rules if they wish to remain in the house. He is owed this respect, after all, it is his house! Any parent would agree that children should honor and respect their parents (Ex 20:12) out of a pure heart because they want to, not because they have to. In the same manner, God has the inherent right to demand proper worship and respect by virtue of who He is (Lev 19:2; 1 Pet 1:16). Therefore, it is a terrible mistake to make ourselves the center of God’s purposes.

Our salvation was done for a purpose; “so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus,” (Eph 2:7). Elsewhere, in Ezekiel, God makes it quite clear that His promised restoration of Israel in the MillennialKingdom will be done for His glory, not their own.

Therefore say to the house of Israel, Thus says the Lord God: It is not for your sake, O house of Israel, that I am about to act, but for the sake of my holy name, which you have profaned among the nations to which you came. 23 And I will vindicate the holiness of my great name, which has been profaned among the nations, and which you have profaned among them. And the nations will know that I am the Lord, declares the Lord God, when through you I vindicate my holiness before their eyes (Eze 36:22-23).

plan

Dispensation of Innocence (Gen 1:3 – 3:6)

God’s Revelation

In this glorious state before the fall of man, the world God had created was “very good” (Gen 1:31). Man was created in the image of God (Gen 1:26-27; 2:5b); the only one of His creatures to have this distinction. This makes man special and unique before God. He was created by the very breath, or creative force, of God (Gen 2:7). This image was not physical, but relational. Just as God has authority and power over everything, man was given special authority over God’s creation (Gen 1:28; 2:15). Adam was appointed a steward of God’s creation, meant to have dominion over it all. Eve was created to be a help and companion to Adam in fulfilling this task (Gen 2:18). Man was meant to work the ground, not laze around idly all the day long (Gen 2:5b).

Man’s Worship Responsibility

Adam’s “principal mission” (Matthews, 1996, 209) was to work and keep the garden (Gen 2:15). Numerous subordinate responsibilities included commands to reproduce and fill the earth, subdue it and have dominion over all other creatures (Gen 1:28). The original Hebrew of Gen 2:15 may be better translated as “to worship and obey” rather than the phrase “to work and keep” so familiar to English readers (Sailhamer, 45). Man’s obligation is to appropriately respond to this specific form of worship God desired.

Failure to worship God appropriately constitutes willful rebellion. God clearly defined eating from the fruit of the forbidden tree as rebellion (Gen 2:16-17) to the “worship” he demanded (Gen 2:15). This is strikingly similar to the familiar pattern of blessings and cursings from Deut 28-30. Moses presented Israel with two stark choices, both of which would fit seamlessly in this Genesis narrative; “see, I have set before you today life and good, death and evil,” (Deut 30:15). Proper worship of God entailed authentic, heartfelt response in the appropriate way (Gen 2:15). Willful deviation from this command was rebellion, which would be punished (Gen 2:16-17). “The prohibition against eating the fruit of the ‘tree of knowledge’ gave Adam the opportunity to worship God through loyal devotion,” (Matthews, 211).

Man’s Rebellion

However, Adam and Eve did willfully violate God’s commandment for worship. In so doing, they introduced sin into the world and were expelled from the garden (Gen 3:22-24). “The state of unconscious innocence gave place to a state of conscious rebellion,” (Andrews, 1901, 11).

Their rebellion ushered in the next dispensation in God’s eternal program. God’s grace can be clearly seen in His promise of redemption through their offspring (Gen 3:15) and in a covering for their sin. God’s judgment for their rebellious failure to maintain proper worship is redemptive in purpose, not vindictive (Hamilton, 2005, 46).

innocence-1024x768

Dispensation of Conscience (Gen 3:7 – 8:14)

God’s Revelation

Once sin entered into the world and man had knowledge of good and evil (Gen 3:22), conscience, which is written on man’s heart (Rom 2:14), was the ruling factor or restraint upon man’s sinful lusts. “Obedience to the dictates of conscience was man’s chief stewardship responsibility” in this new dispensation (Ryrie, 60). Scripture records that immediately after consuming the fruit, Adam and Eve were ashamed and hid from fellowship with God (Gen 3:8). There was “a consciousness of guilt or shame before God,” (Keil, 2011, 60). God provided revelation about this new dispensation immediately after the fall (Gen 3:14-24).

Man’s Worship Responsibility

Though Scripture does not explicitly record this new revelation, offerings are an implied part of worship in this dispensation (Gen 4:3-4). Life inside the garden, in the previous dispensation, was “blissful communion with God without mediation,” (Matthews, 259). Sin fundamentally changed this relationship, and the first record of life outside the garden depicts Cain and Abel presenting offerings to God.

Cain brought merely an offering of fruit from the ground (Gen 4:3) which found no favor with God (Gen 4:4b), and Cain became very angry as a result (Gen 4:5). Abel, in contrast, brought a costly blood sacrifice “of the firstborn of his flock.”

Man’s Rebellion

Cain’s failure is representative of mankind’s corporate rebellion and rejection of proper worship (Gen 6:5-6). He responded with both an insincere heart and in the wrong manner. “Abel’s thanks came from the depths of his heart, whilst Cain merely offered his to keep on good terms with God,” (Keil, 69). Cain’s attitude was false, and his subsequent anger betrayed a counterfeit love for God (Gen 4:5b). His rebellion resulted in a willful transgression of God’s requirement for a bloody sacrifice.  Scriptural evidence supporting the specific requirement of a bloody sacrifice are circumstantial (Gen 3:21; Heb 9:22), but Crawford’s reasoned statement here is virtually unanswerable; “with the single exception of Cain’s rejected offering, there is no other sacrifice or record before the time of Moses that did not consist of the shedding of animal blood,” (Crawford, 1853, 276).

Therefore Cain responded insincerely to God and in a completely inappropriate manner. He desired to worship in the wrong way and God simply will not accept the wrong form of worship (Gen 4:5). Cain left in exile and founded a large city which flourished (Gen 4:17-24). Scripture records absolutely no worship from Cain again. In contrast, the descendents of Seth “began to call upon the name of the Lord,” (Gen 4:26). Their proper worship undoubtedly consisted of doing good and not evil, in accordance with their conscience, and responding to the Lord with offerings and sacrifices at appointed times.[1]

The corporate failure of mankind to maintain a right heart for God or worship Him appropriately is evident in that “the earth was corrupt in God’s sight, and the earth was filled with violence,” (Gen 6:11). Mankind’s thoughts were “only evil continually,” (Gen 6:5). Noah, however, was “blameless in his generation” and “walked with God,” (Gen 6:9). Evidently Noah, alone among mankind, still loved God and worshipped Him correctly as his forefathers had (Gen 4:26). His Godly character is very apparent – Noah’s immediate response upon exiting the ark after the catastrophic flood was to make a blood offering to God (Gen 8:20-21), illustrating the authentic response of a true believer in this dispensation. It is extremely significant that God’s response came only after He smelled “the pleasing aroma” (Gen 8:21) of the offering. “Man is still fallen; but through an offering on an alter he may yet find God’s blessing,” (Sailhamer, 93) which immediately followed (Gen 8:21b-22).

conscience-1024x768

Dispensation of Human Government (Gen 8:15 – 11:9)

God’s Revelation

He would never curse the ground because of men or strike down any living creature with a flood again; the earth’s seasons would remain (Gen 8:21-22; 9:9-11).

Man’s Worship Responsibility

Man’s responsible worship is to multiply and fill the earth (Gen 9:1,7). Subordinate to this overarching responsibility, God revealed that all creatures would now fear man (Gen 9:2) and would be able to be eaten for food (Gen 9:3).

The first vestiges of human government are introduced to people as they multiplied and filled the earth, specifically as a “form of control upon the lawless impulses of men,” (McClain, 46). This government took the form of capitol punishment (Gen 9:6).

“If God on account of the innate sinfulness of man would no more bring an exterminating judgment upon the earthly creation, it was necessary that by commands and authorities He should erect a barrier against the supremacy of evil,” (Keil, 97).

Man’s Rebellion

The great rebellion of man in this dispensation was that, rather than spreading out and multiplying on the face of the earth (Gen 8:17; 9:7), mankind gathered together in defiance of God’s command to build a city to prevent their dispersion (Gen 11:4).

God’s judgment is to confound their language, frustrating mankind’s attempt to form what may be termed a “one world government” (Gen 11:6-7). Mankind leaves and disperses throughout the earth, as God initially commanded (Gen 11:8, 9b).

Man’s sin is that of selfishness; choosing autonomy over God. “The sin of the people does not lie in the desire to build a city . . . It is the motivation behind this undertaking that is most prominent.” They desired to build themselves a city which reached to the heavens, to make a name for themselves so they would not be scattered abroad (Gen 11:4). “This is the pagan concept of immortality,” (Hamilton, 75).

It was deliberate rebellion against God’s express command. Man’s responsibility for true worship in this dispensation is to abide by their innate knowledge of right vs. wrong, to multiply over the earth and govern corporately over one another. Man’s basic problem is that he always seeks to worship in his own way; “the characteristic mark of man’s failure up to this point in the book has been his attempt to grasp the ‘good’ on his own rather than trust God to provide it for him,” (Sailhamer, 105). Man’s corporate failure to worship God appropriately, borne out of a hostile heart, brought about a change in God’s administration.

conscience

Dispensation of the Patriarchs (Gen 11:10 – Ex 18:27)[2]

God’s Revelation

Rather than working corporately with all of mankind, God now choose to mediate His will through one man and eventually one people. “God turned away from man in the collective sense and called out one particular man through whom the divine regal will is to be accomplished on earth,” (McClain, 49).

God commands an idolatrous man, Abraham (Josh 24:2), to leave the land of his family and journey to a new land God will show him. He makes several distinct promises to Abraham, (1) to make a great nation from him, (2) to bless him, (3) to make his name great, (4) to make him a blessing, (5) to bless those who bless Abraham and curse (or judge) those who judge him, and (6) bless all people on earth through Abraham (Gen 12:1-3). “Abram is the vehicle of the divine gift for the nations. This suggests that a specific plan is envisioned for the blessing upon the nations,” (Matthews, 2005, 117).

God guaranteed Abraham He would be faithful to make a nation from him (Gen 15:5). God went even further, making a covenant with Abraham, promising He would provide a land for the nation (Gen 15:18). God, by passing between the severed pieces of Abraham’s sacrifice, condescended in an extraordinary fashion to place Himself as the weaker party of the covenant (Bartholomew & Goheen, 2004, 56). The covenant with Abraham foreshadowed the covenant with the theocratic kingdom of Israel (Ex 19:1-6), with David (2 Sam 7:16) and the first advent of Christ Himself (Mk 1:15).

Man’s Worship Responsibility

The Patriarch’s worship responsibility is four-fold (McCune, 125-126). First, to believe in God’s promises given in the covenant (Gen 15:6). Second, to receive the sign of the covenant – circumcision (Gen 17:10). Failure to do so will result in exile (Gen 17:14). Third, separation from the other heathen nations. Isaac and Jacob both married Israelite women (Gen 24:3-4; 28:1-2), and Abraham explicitly forbid marriage with foreigners. Fourth, they must remain in the land of promise (Gen 26:2-3).

The Patriarchs executed responsible and faithful worship throughout this dispensation. Regardless of individual moral failings common to all men (Gen 12:10-20; 20:2; 25:32; 26:7; 27:35; 38), they remained faithful followers of God. Abraham’s immediate response after hearing God’s revelation is to worship Him (Gen 12:7). Abraham is still blessed with material wealth upon his return from Egypt (Gen 13:2) and maintained worship afterward (Gen 13:4). The Lord blessed Isaac during his life (Gen 26:12-14). Jacob also maintained proper worship (Gen 33:20).

Scripture provides ample context to demonstrate the sojourn to Egypt was part of God’s sovereign plan from the beginning (Gen 15:13-16), to be executed at His own specific time. Isaac was told to not go to Egypt (Gen 26:2-5), and later Joseph was allowed to (Gen 46:2-4). This event was orchestrated and decreed by God (Gen 45:5-8; 50:20), who promised to bless Israel in Egypt and did so (Gen 46:3; Ex 1:7). This is hardly the result of judgment; rather, it confirms that the Patriarchs, sinful and fallible men though they were, executed faithful and responsible worship. Dispensational attempts to defend the Patriarch’s “failure” by appealing to the tension between God’s sovereignty and man’s free will ignore plain Scriptural context and are unconvincing.[3]

patriarchs

Dispensation of the Law (Ex 19:1 – Acts 1:26)

God’s Revelation

After He led His people up out of Egypt, God forged these tribes of Abraham into a theocratic kingdom at Sinai (Ex 19:1-6). Sinai refined Israel’s understanding of the original promise to Abraham. As Stephen Dempster observed “[t]he promise of this covenant is that an obedient Israel may bring God’s creation blessing to the world,” (Dempster, 2003, 101). God has several goals in mind (Ex 19:5-6); (1) Israel would be a peculiar treasure for God out of all the nations; (2) Israel would be a kingdom of priests for God, and (3) Israel would be a holy nation.

God’s promise to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob continues in a new form. Israel will be a showcase nation, a testimony for God to all the nations of the world, called to live by laws which reflect the character of the one true God (Bartholomew & Goheen, 66).

Victor Hamilton observed, “[t]he purpose of the covenant is to create a new relationship. The purpose of the law is to regulate or perpetuate an existing relationship by orderly means,” (Hamilton, 189). Continuing on, Hamilton quoted from Brevard Childs and noted, “The law defines the holiness expected of the covenant people,” (189). The law itself was not based on fear; faithfulness was predicated on an all encompassing love for God (Deut 6:1-13). Too often, Christians focus on the fact of Israel’s elect status among the nations and the behavior expected of her (Ex 20 – Lev 27) while ignoring why God demanded such behavior in the first place.

Man’s Worship Responsibility

Israel’s theocratic role was to be a holy, set apart people and thereby lead the Gentile nations to God by her own holy example. She would mediate God’s holiness to the other nations. In the same manner that Christians are commanded to be the “light of the world” (Mt 5:16) individually, to draw people to Christ by their testimony, God desired a specific people, Israel, to do this nationally.

Israel’s assignment from God involved intermediation. They were not to be a people unto themselves, enjoying their special relationship with God and paying no attention to the rest of the world. Rather, they were to represent him to the rest of the world and attempt to bring the rest of the world to him. In other words, the challenge to be “a kingdom of priests and a holy nation” represented the responsibility inherent in the original promise to Abraham (Stuart, 2006, 423).

Ezekiel 18 is one of the most striking passages on the failure of Israel to maintain proper worship with God. Faith alone has always been the grounds for salvation, in any dispensation (Gen 15:6; Rom 4:5; Eph 2:8-9). Appropriate worship is mankind’s responsibility, the fruit of a regenerated heart. “These stipulations provided a concrete, practical outworking of faith in the God who redeemed Israel from Egypt and gave the people His law.” Israel failed in this respect (Alexander, 1986, 824).[4]

Righteousness before God consisted in keeping the law to best of one’s ability (Eze 18:5-9). A man who “walks in my statutes, and keeps my rules by acting faithfully—he is righteous; he shall surely live, declares the Lord GOD,” (Eze 18:9). Israel’s worship failure as a theocratic nation was corporate, but its collective failure resulted from innumerable individual rebellions. A man is responsible to God for his own sins (Eze 18:10-13). “The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself,” (Eze 18:20c).

Complete forgiveness is promised for a heartfelt return to God and proper worship (Eze 18:21-23). God, in every dispensation, desires men to be saved. “Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked, declares the Lord GOD, and not rather that he should turn from his way and live?” (Eze 18:23). Blessings would result from obedience to God’s specific revelation; cursing would follow from disobedience (Deut 28-30).

Man’s Rebellion

There was a pervasive heart issue throughout Israel’s entire theocratic history – Israel repeatedly fell into rebellion and blasphemed the name of God by their idolatrous worship. As Ezekiel documented, this happened at the very establishment of the Mosaic Covenant (Eze 20:5,8,13), prior to the wilderness judgment (Eze 20:15-16) and during the wilderness years (Eze 20:19) the Israelites were specifically commanded to “walk in my statutes, and be careful to obey my rules.” Failure to worship God appropriately is “treacherous,” (Eze 20:27).

Israel failed to drive the nations out of the land and was judged (Joshua 2:1-3). After Joshua’s death, she “abandoned the Lord” and served other gods. The true God was unknown to Israel within a generation of Joshua’s death (Joshua 2:10-15). God appointed judges to rule over the Israel, and this period culminated with devastating civil war and general debauchery (Judges 21:25). The historical kingdom reached its pinnacle in Solomon, when the temple was dedicated and God re-iterated the covenant promise He had already made to David (1 Kgs 9:1-9). Nations round about Israel began to know God through Israel’s holy example; “the queen of Sheba heard of the fame of Solomon concerning the name of the LORD,” (1 Kgs 10:1). After Solomon’s death, the nation fractured into civil war (1 Kgs 12:16-24).

After Solomon’s death, God’s promised judgment (Deut 30:17-20; 1 Kgs 9:1-9) began to be fulfilled. No king was ever again chosen directly by God, but took the throne by inheritance or by force.

The depth of Israel’s worship failure is very striking when one considers the change in the office of the prophet. Originally, at the establishment of the historical kingdom, prophets advised the king and their revelation from God was for immediate application, not future events glimpsed through a glass darkly.

“The prophet spake for his own time; his words were fitted to meet the exigencies of the day; they were pre-eminently practical. The word spoken, whether to the king or people, was to enable them to fulfill present duty, not to discern in detail the remote future,” (Andrews, 80).

However, Israel’s rebellion of false worship would result in a cessation of God’s presence among His people and a need for reliance on the written word instead.

“The period of writing prophets parallels the period of the decline and end of the historical kingdom,” (McClain, 115). Prophets now began to write for the future generations, not to merely guide the current generation. “The transition, therefore, from spoken to written prophesy marks an epoch in the history of the elect people,” (83).

The sickness of Israel was pervasive, encompassing the moral, social, economic and spiritual spheres (McClain, 116). The call was always the same; return to the Law and be blessed;

“Thus says the LORD: “Stand by the roads, and look, and ask for the ancient paths, where the good way is; and walk in it, and find rest for your souls,” (Jer 6:16).

The departure of the Lord’s glory from the temple in Jerusalem shortly after the captivity signified “the end not only of Israel’s political supremacy but also of her religious supremacy,” (McClain, 123).[5]

“Israel might have fulfilled its calling to be ‘a kingdom of priests and a holy nation,’ and that it did not was its sin; and the captivity brought the merited judgment,” (Andrews, 406). Israel’s failure can be reduced to one simple point – she did not love God with all her heart, soul and might (Deut 6:5), therefore she did not worship Him appropriately.

“And many nations will pass by this city, and every man will say to his neighbor, “Why has the Lord dealt thus with this great city?” And they will answer, “Because they have forsaken the covenant of the Lord their God and worshiped other gods and served them,” (Jer 22:8-9).

law

Dispensation of Grace (Acts 2:1 – Rev 19:21)

God’s Revelation

Here was revealed the mystery of the church age and the Gospel of Jesus Christ, which “is the power of God unto salvation to everyone who believes; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek,” (Rom 1:16).

A new arrangement for God’s dealing with men, this current dispensation was new revelation given to the apostles that the world did not have before (Eph 3:2-3), “which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit,” (Eph 3:5). Gentiles were now revealed to be “fellow-heirs” in the family of God (Eph 3:6).

Rolland McCune aptly remarks, “the new revelation from God is so vast that it cannot be easily reduced to a nice catalogue,” (132). Christ died for the sins of the world, that whosoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life (Jn 3:16). What every previous dispensation looked forward to by blood sacrifices was now made clear; Christ was the perfect lamb without blemish – the final sacrifice. “Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world,” (Jn 1:29). His sacrifice atoned for sins, and as our High Priest Christ intercedes for His children (Heb 5:7-10).

Gentiles have been grafted into God’s covenant promise to Abraham (Rom 11:17). “God raises up a seed unto Abraham out of the Gentiles by engrafting them through faith in the Christ, and accounting them as the children of Abraham by virtue of their Abrahamic justifying faith,” (Peters, 1884, 396). God is taking out of the world certain people for His name (Acts 15:14). “When the body of Christ is complete, the Lord will come; Gentile times will finish and Israel shall be put in again,” (McClain, 1973, 202).

God’s eternal plan involves two distinct groups – Israel and the Church. God revealed that the Church was an integral part of His plan. The kingdom that was promised to Israel (2 Sam 7:16) is still future. The Jews were waiting for the promised King who would rule over Israel, whose reign would never end. They didn’t recognize Christ was that King. Jesus revealed this present dispensation once it became very clear the Jews were rejecting Him (Mt 21:43). The church, as a corporate body of born again believers, is considered a “nation” of sorts in Scripture (Gal 3:7-9; Rom 10:19), with the same purpose but different method.

Man’s Worship Responsibility

McCune outlined several responsibilities for man in this dispensation (132). Man must receive God’s marvelous gift of salvation, offered to all, by faith (Rom 10:10; Acts 16:31). Believers must worship God in the local church, be baptized, attend worship faithfully and partake of the Lord’s Supper (Acts 2:41-42; Heb 10:24-25). The outworking of a truly regenerated heart will be a desire to live a Godly life (Titus 2:11-14). Renald Shower’s words here cannot be improved upon, “grace practices discipline over believers for the purpose of prompting them to reject a godless lifestyle and to adopt a Godly one,” (44).

He must also spread the Gospel to the world indiscriminately (Mt 28:18-20); which includes discipleship for new believers. This is an active evangelism, rather than the passive ingathering characteristic of the Mosaic Dispensation. Men must pattern the holy ideal of the Kingdom of God in their own lives while passionately reaching out to others with the Good News of Jesus Christ. What Israel failed to do corporately, Christians in this dispensation are called to do individually. God is not mediating His grace through Israel any longer, but dealing with the whole world once again.

Man’s Rebellion

A quick glance around contemporary society proves man has not worshipped God appropriately. John Walvoord, commenting elsewhere in Daniel on the errs of post-millennialism, wrote “for the past century or more the church has been an ebbing tide in the affairs of the world, and there has been no progress whatsoever in the church’s gaining control of the world politically. If the image [in Dan 2] represents Gentile political power, it is very much still standing,” (Walvoord, 2012, 89). Paul wrote to Timothy, warning him that “evil people and impostors will go on from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived,” (2 Tim 3:13). This is surely the case in society today.

The witness of Scripture testifies that both the Gentile world and Israel will be deceived by the Antichrist following the rapture of the Church (Dan 7:25; 9:27; 2 Thess 2:6-12). The moral, social and spiritual decay in modern society is merely a foretaste of the debauchery to come, culminating in the Antichrist – the ultimate antithesis of Jesus Christ, a man wholly give over to Satan and self-worship (Dan 7:25), every bit as sinful as Christ is holy. “He is Satan’s masterpiece, a human being who is Satan’s substitute for Jesus Christ,” (Walvoord, 353). The fact that mankind will someday willingly worship such a creature is proof of a widespread failure to accept proper worship of God in this present age.

grace

Dispensation of the Millennium (Rev 20:1-15)

God’s Revelation

Christ will return to this world with His saints[6] at his side (Rev 19:14) and defeat the Antichrist conclusively (Dan 7:11b, 22, 26; 9:27; 11:45b). Satan will be bound for 1000 years and cast into the lake of fire (Rev 20:2-3). The Millennial Reign of Christ, the kingdom promised to Israel (Gen 12:1-3; Ex 19:1-6; 2 Sam 7:16) and already offered and rejected by her once (Mt 21:43) will be established at long last (Dan 2:35b, 44a; 7:13-14, 27; Rev 20:6).

Those believing Gentiles and Israelites from the Dispensations of Innocence through the Law will be resurrected to join Christ in the Kingdom. The church has already been raptured prior to the tribulation. Everybody who did not believe in God will be resurrected and judged at the end of the Millennial Reign (Dan 12:1-4; Rev 20:4-6).[7]

Israel and the Church will both worship Christ in spirit and in truth and receive their promised and decreed ends (Amos 9:11-15; 2 Cor 11:2; Rev 19:7-9).

Man’s Worship Responsibility

Those who entered the Kingdom from the Tribulation and their children are responsible to obey Christ’s rule (Rev 19:15). All other believers will have resurrected bodies and be glorified; their sanctification is already complete.

Man’s Rebellion

Mankind will fail here, too. As the earth is re-populated during Christ’s rule for a period of 1000 years, man will still have the option to conform outwardly and yet still remain in willful rebellion against God. McClain observes,

Some people have been genuinely concerned about the problem of sin in an otherwise perfect Kingdom of God in human life. And, of course, Scripture makes it perfectly clear that sin will be present during the MillennialKingdom. The fact that Satan must be bound so that he cannot deceive the nations during the age of the Kingdom (Rev 20:3) shows that in the people of that age there will remain the inclination to respond to satanic temptation. And the prediction that a great multitude will thus respond as soon as Satan is loosed (Rev 20:7-8) only confirms the existence of a sinful human nature (499).

Because Christ Himself is ruling, disobedience to His law will be a very rare exception. “We are not told of any transgression till near the end, when Satan is unloosed  . . . This implies that till this unloosing there was at least general obedience to God’s will under the rule of the Messiah,” (Andrews, 355).

Satan’s brief, final rebellion is dealt with astonishingly quickly. The rebellious men who reject the visible, present Lord for Satan are snuffed out as like a candle (Rev 20:9b); “as the light given them has been great, so is their punishment,” (Andrews, 356).

mill

Lessons from the Dispensations

It is not the point of this monograph to examine the implications of the dispensations at length, but one overarching principle stands out quite clearly. Man is utterly unable to save Himself, is completely dependent on God’s grace, and God deserves all the glory He demands and then more. Man’s sin is clearly evident in every dispensation. There is a collective, corporate failure to worship God appropriately or respond to His revelation out of a pure heart. Jeremiah’s words to Judah, though addressed to Israelites, are entirely appropriately to all of mankind in any dispensation;

“Heaping oppression upon oppression, and deceit upon deceit, they refuse to know me, declares the Lord,” (Jer 9:6).

Paul echoes this most fundamental truth in his letter to the Romans (Rom 1:18-32).

lessons

Summary

Christ’s statement on worship transcends every dispensation; “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind,” (Mt 22:37). Such an all-encompassing love for God will produce an authentic desire to worship Him in spirit and in truth (Jn 4:24). Man’s revelation from God has changed throughout human history as God progressively unfolded His plan for His creation. The mark of true worship has been the proper response to Him in accordance with the revelation given. In this, man has continually failed in a corporate sense.

Adam in Eden fell through temptation; the world before the flood was corrupt and evil. The nations descended from Noah ignored God’s command to scatter and multiply. Israel went after foreign gods, ignored her covenant responsibilities and crucified her Messiah. The Church is now dealing with apostasy which will grow ever worse, “and at last all the light and happiness of the Kingdom do not keep many of its subjects from rebellion when the Devil is unloosed,” (Andrews, 356).

In an individual way, however, man has positively responded to God’s revelation out of a pure heart and worshipped God appropriately throughout human history. He is “not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance,” (2 Pet 3:9). Salvation, in any dispensation, has always consisted of an authentic response to God, and corresponding worship in appropriate form.

Praise Him that so many have loved Him, do love Him today, and will love Him in ages to come. Scripture gives divine assurance that, no matter the wiles of Satan and the appetites of sinful men, God will triumph. Christ will rule and reign, defeat Satan once and for all and deliver up the Kingdom to His Father, then all who love God will “dwell in the house of the Lord forever,” (Ps 23:6b).

Bibliography

Alexander, Ralph H. “Ezekiel,” vol. 6, The Expositors Bible Commentary, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1986.

Andrews, Samuel J. God’s Revelations of Himself to Men. New York: Putnam, 1901.

Bartholomew, Craig and Michael Goheen. The Drama of Scripture. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2004.

Cooper, Lamar E. “Ezekiel,” vol. 17, The New American Commentary, ed. E. Ray Clendenen. Nashville: B&H, 1994.

Crawford, Thomas J. The Doctrine of Holy Scripture Respecting the Atonement. Edinburgh and London: William Blackwood and Sons, 1853.

Dempster, Stephen. Dominion and Dynasty: A Theology of the Hebrew Bible. Downers Grove: IVP, 2003.

Hamilton, Victor P. A Handbook on the Pentateuch, 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005.

Keil, C.F. “Pentateuch,” vol. 1, Commentary on the Old Testament. Peabody: Hendrickson, 2011.

Matthews, Kenneth A. “Genesis: 1-11:26,” vol. 1a, The New American Commentary, ed. E. Ray Clendenen. Nashville: B&H, 1996.

Matthews, Kenneth A. “Genesis: 11:27-50:26,” vol. 1b, The New American Commentary, ed. E. Ray Clendenen. Nashville: B&H, 2005.

McClain, Alva J. The Greatness of the Kingdom. Winona Lake: BMH, 1959.

McClain, Alva J. Romans: The Gospel of God’s Grace. Chicago: Moody, 1973.

McCune, Rolland. A Systematic Theology of Biblical Christianity, vol. 1. Detroit: DBTS, 2009.

Means, J. O. “What Is The True Conception Of Christian Worship?” Bibliotheca Sacra 022:88 (Oct 1865): 531.

Peters, George N.H. The Theocratic Kingdom, vol. 1. New York: Funk & Wagnall’s, 1884.

Ryrie, Charles C. Dispensationalism. Chicago: Moody, 2007.

Sailhamer, John H. “Genesis,” vol. 2, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990.

Showers, Renald E. There Really is a Difference. Bellmawr: Friends of Israel, 1990.

Stuart, Douglas K. “Exodus,” vol. 2, The New American Commentary, ed. E. Ray Clendenen. Nashville: B&H, 2006.

Thomas, Robert L. Revelation 8-22. Chicago: Moody, 1995.

Walvoord, John F. Daniel, ed. Charles Dyer and Phillip Rawley. Chicago: Moody, 2012.

Walvoord, John F. Revelation, ed. Philip Rawley and Mark Hitchcock. Chicago: Moody, 2011.


[1] Some dispensationalists do not agree with the traditional dispensational understanding of Gen 6:3, in that the “Spirit” is an inward restraint upon men’s activities; see McClain, Kingdom, 44-45 and Showers, Difference, 36 for this view. Arguments for the “Spirit” being the imparting of long life (“breath of life”) from Matthews, “Genesis,” 332-334 and Keil, “Pentateuch,” 84-85 are sound.

[2] Some dispensationalists disagree with the traditional dispensational understanding that the Patriarchs “failed” and were judged in any sense at the close of this dispensation.

[3] See McClain, Kingdom, 51 and McCune, Systematic, 127 (footnote #58) for these arguments.

[4] See also Lamar E. Cooper, “Ezekiel,” vol. 17, The New American Commentary, ed. E. Ray Clendenen (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 1994), 187. Both Alexander and Cooper emphasize that Ezekiel is speaking of judgment for sins, not necessarily eternal salvation in this passage. Due to the abysmal spiritual conditions of the day, many Israelites in Judah who thus sinned undoubtedly never exercised saving faith in God, but some certainly did. Regardless, the point germane to this paper is that Israel corporately failed to exercise proper worship in this dispensation.

[5] Eze 8:4; 8:12; 9:3-8; 11:23;21:26-27.

[6] Robert L. Thomas, Revelation 8-22 (Chicago, IL: Moody, 1995), 388. Walvoord [John F. Walvoord, Revelation, ed. Philip Rawley and Mark Hitchcock (Chicago, IL: Moody, 2011), 290-291] believes angels are present also.

[7] Thomas, Revelation, 420. The first resurrection is the righteous to eternal life, all the righteous (Rev 20:4-5). All of the righteous believers will be resurrected before the millennial reign begins, in various stages. Thus “first” does not denote a one-time event, but more of a category. It is the category encompassing the resurrection of all the just in Christ. The second resurrection is for the wicked and ungodly (Rev 20:5) – those who denied Christ and suppressed the truth in unrighteousness until the bitter end.

 

Witnessing to a Godless Culture

We are increasingly living a world that (1) denies there are standards for anything, and (2) is Biblically illiterate. Join us as we watch the Apostle Paul deal with these very same issues on Mar’s Hill.

* This video and the accompanying notes were originally produced for an apologetics class I teach at my church, hence the opening and closing credits! I pray this modest study will be of use to some of you . . .

Notes – Acts-17

How Did Books Get Into the Bible?

Ever wonder why some Christian writings are in the Bible and others aren’t? Have you ever heard about “lost” Gospels that never made it into the canon? Why didn’t they?

We’ll take a look at this in the video, and respond to Dr. Bart Ehrman’s implication that writings the church considered “heretical” might deserve a place in the Bible. Even if you don’t care about Dr. Ehrman’s charge and just want to know the criteria for canonicity, this is a helpful video. Enjoy!

The Historic Roots of Fundamentalism

This article is a work in progress. More information may be added as I conduct more research. As it stands now, this modest article is a very brief history of the Christian fundamentalist movement in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. 

In this article, I’ll very briefly outline what historic fundamentalism is; specifically American fundamentalism. I cannot hope to discuss the genesis of the movement in a comprehensive fashion here, but hopefully it is helpful to the fundamentalist community at large, both as an all-too brief summary introduction to the movement or as a refresher to faithful warriors still on the field of battle!

This material will be old-hat to many of you. Some may never even read it because it may tread the same ground you’ve trod many times before. I believe it is important, however, to remind ourselves of how fundamentalism started, and visit old battlefields of the past periodically. We cannot understand our movement unless we grasp how it all began.

This is the first in a three part series examining, in sequence, (1) the historic roots of fundamentalism, (2) the historic roots of evangelicalism and (3) the idea of secondary separation.

What is Fundamentalism?

Just what in the world is fundamentalism? Numerous authors have provided their own definitions throughout the years.

George Marsden writes,

“A fundamentalist is an evangelical who is angry about something. That seems simple and is fairly accurate. . . . A more precise statement of the same point is that an American fundamentalist is an evangelical who is militant in opposition to liberal theology in the churches or to changes in cultural values or mores, such as those associated with ‘secular humanism.’ In either the long or the short definitions, fundamentalists are a subtype of evangelicals and militancy is crucial to their outlook. Fundamentalists are not just religious conservatives; they are conservatives who are willing to take a stand and to fight,” (4).

William Ayer observes,

“Fundamentalism represents a resurgence of ancient practices, which began not with Martin Luther but at Pentecost. Fundamentalism is apostolic, and the doctrine of justification goes back to Paul. That branch from which the fundamentalist movement sprang lived obscurely through the ages and had never been completely silenced even in the Dark Ages. . . . What fundamentalism did was to awaken the slumbering apostolicism from lethargy. The theme of the Reformation, like the cry of the fundamentalists today, was ‘back to the Bible and the Apostles,’ with no mediator between men and God except Christ. Fundamentalists are in the direct line of succession to those preaching this same message (2-3).

David O. Beale, in his excellent history of fundamentalism, gives perhaps the best definition of the movement:

“Ideally, a Christian Fundamentalist is one who desires to reach out in love and compassion to people, believes and defends the whole Bible as the absolute, inerrant, and authoritative Word of God, and stands committed to the doctrine and practice of holiness. . . . Fundamentalism is not a philosophy of Christianity, or is it essentially an interpretation of the Scriptures. It is not even a mere literal exposition of the Bible. The essence of Fundamentalism goes much deeper than that – it is the unqualified acceptance of and obedience to the Scriptures” (3).

Fundamentalism is not denominational centric. It is authentic and historic Christianity in action. Theological liberals may scoff and sneer at this “quaint” theology, but forget they have departed from historic Christian traditions. Beale quoted an opponent of fundamentalism as stating, “fundamentalism is . . . survival of a theology which was once universally held by all Christians . . . The Fundamentalist may be wrong; I think that he is. But it is we who have departed from the tradition, not he (4).

Broadly, the historic fundamentalist distinctives are these (Moritz 46):torreys-fundamentals

–          The inerrancy of Scripture

–          The virgin birth of Christ

–          The substitutionary atonement of Christ

–          The bodily resurrection of Christ

–          The authenticity of miracles

Genesis

Fundamentalism as an identifiable movement can be traced to a reaction against liberal theology coming out of Europe in the latter part of the 19th century – Ernest Pickering matter-of-factly called this “the poison from Europe!” (1). The corporate church was confronted with a number of critical issues, all of which had a profound effect on the entire theological landscape:

1. Philosophers began to elevate reason and materialism above the objective revelation of the Bible. Where it had once been considered the handmaiden of theology, philosophy now began to stand in opposition to Scripture.

2. Naturalistic science rejected the traditional biblical concepts of the world and humanity

3.  Historical and literary criticism as systems began to reinterpret traditional Christianity by the new parameters of the Enlightenment.

4. Higher criticism, typified by the works of Friedrich Schleiermacher, sought to re-interpret Scripture. There was a distinct emphasis on humanism, elevating man rather than God. Revelation was “not an in-breaking of God, but an upsurging of divine humanity (Schleiermacher 50). Religion was not an objective truth, but more of a subjective feeling.

Schleiermacher wrote:

Schleiermacher
Schleiermacher

Religion is an immediate, or original, experience of the self-consciousness in the form of feeling. It is immediate, in that it is not derived from any other experience or exercise of the mind, but is inseparable from self-consciousness; and it is feeling, in that it is subjective experience and not objective idea, and in this respect it is identical with the self-consciousness, Religion is not an act of knowledge nor the result of a process of knowing. If it were the former, its source would lie in human activity. If it were the latter, its content would be doctrine, dependent upon prior processes of the intellect, and subject to all the uncertainties which pertain to scientific investigation. The measure of knowledge would be the measure of piety; religion would be a mere acquirement or possession and no essential element of human nature . . . Religion, then, as consisting in feeling, denotes a state of our being, and hence in religion man is not primarily active but receptive (Theology 119-120).

Under such pressure, Christian doctrine was adjusted in some denominations to accommodate the conclusions of science (thus ruling out creation), philosophy and criticism. Orthodox Christian were alarmed at this onslaught against precious Biblical truths. It was into this theological abyss that “fundamentalism” was born. It was an orthodox, Biblical reaction to distinctly un-Biblical theology.

The way fundamentalists react to this liberal theology, both historically and currently, adds another two other distinctive aspects to the five historic points above – militant and separatist. “It’s common basis is a set of biblical doctrines and beliefs, and its esprit is principally its militant separatism. Fundamentalism is a movement, not an attitude of belligerence, ugliness, or a negative mentality as often depicted” (McCune 16).

 Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy[1]

As theological liberalism made inroads into orthodox seminaries and mainline denominations, an inevitable conflict arose between those who advocated the “new thought” coming out of Europe and those who resisted such change and stuck to Biblical orthodoxy. McCune is careful to observe this was not merely a clash with secular culture; “the controversy concerned the truth-claims and belief-system of fundamental Christianity versus an essentially new religion. It was a fight over the retention and control of denominations, mission agencies, colleges, and seminaries” (18).pcharles-briggs2

Prior to 1930, Fundamentalists practiced Biblical separation by attempting to purge their denominations of liberal theology; they tried to preach the liberals out of the denominations (Beale 8). I would also add they tried to write them out of the denominations too; the publication of The Fundamentals illustrates this point. The authors hoped The Fundamentals (published 1910-1915) would win over those sitting atop the theological fence and convince the liberals of the error of their ways. This series is viewed as the starting point of fundamentalism as an identifiable movement. It was a series of twelve books, filled with many articles. The authors were mostly fundamentalist Presbyterians and Baptists; the writers were interdenominational in their perspectives. Historic fundamentalism is therefore cross-denominational in scope.

After 1930, to the present day, Fundamentalists have instead practiced separation by separating themselves from liberal and apostate churches and denominations (Beale 9). The movement had re-grouped around new leaders. Many familiar organizations and schools today are the result of this practice of Biblical separation, including Westminster Theological Seminary, Grace Theological Seminary, Bob Jones and the GARBC, to name but a very few.

McCune included an excerpt from a contemporary, liberal Christian newspaper in his text which is well worth reproducing here:

Two worlds have crashed, the world of tradition and the world of modernism. The God of the fundamentalist is one God; the God of the modernist is another. The Christ of the fundamentalist is one Christ; the Christ of modernism is another. The Bible of the fundamentalist is one Bible; the Bible of modernism is another. The church, the kingdom, the salvation, the consummation of all things – these are one thing to the fundamentalists and another thing to modernists. But that the issue is clear and that the inherent incompatibility of the two worlds has passed the stage of mutual tolerance is a fact concerning which there hardly seems room for any one to doubt (“Fundamentalism and Modernism” 5-6).

 The Bottom Line

1. Historic fundamentalism has its roots in Biblical separation from clear-cut, apostate, false teaching.

2. Historic fundamentalism evinces a willingness to stand fast and actually fight against false teaching and for Biblical truth.

3. Historic fundamentalism is an inter-denominational movement.

It remains to be seen how fundamentalism differs from evangelicalism, and what “false teaching” and secondary separation actually consists of in the context of the fundamentalist movement. We’ll examine these issues in another article.

Works Cited

Ayer, William Ward, speech to the National Association of Evangelicals, April 1956, quoted in Louis Gasper, The Fundamentalist Movement, 19301956 (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981), 2–3

Beale, David O, In Pursuit of Purity: American Fundamentalism Since 1850 (Greenville, SC: BJU, 1986), 3.

Marsden, George, Understanding Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 4.

McCune, Rolland, Promise Unfulfilled: The Failed Strategy of Modern Evangelicalism (Greenville, SC: Ambassador International, 2004), 16.

Morrison, Charles C. “Fundamentalism and Modernism, Two Religions,” The Christian Century (Jan 3, 1924), 5-6. Quoted from McCune, Promise Unfulfilled, 18.

Moritz, Fred, “Maranatha is Fundamentalist,” Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal 1:1 (Spring 2011) 46.

Pickering, Ernest, The Tragedy of Compromise: The Origin and Impact of the New Evangelicalism (Greenville, SC: BJU, 1994), 1.

Schleiermacher, Friedrich, The Christian Faith, 50

—————— The Theology of Schleiermacher, ed. George Cross (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago, 1911), 119-120. Emphasis mine.


[1] For an excellent summary on this issue, see Ernest Pickering, Biblical Separation: The Struggle for a Pure Church (Schaumberg, IL: Regular Baptist Press, 1979), 93-111, or McCune, Promise Unfulfilled, 3-26.

The Historic Roots of Evangelicalism

What in the World is Evangelicalism, Anyway?!

Dennis Walton, a contemporary critic, wrote:

“One area in which the New Evangelicals are united is the willingness to compromise for the sake of fellowship. This spirit could possibly be identified as the genius of the movement. Allowing varying opinions in nearly every field of doctrine, they are united in a willingness to sacrifice conviction for fellowship. Evidence of this spirit is seen in a statement by E, J. Carnell, “Since love is higher than law, the organization is servant of the fellowship…Christ alone would rule the church. Laws are made for the unrighteous. Here is the final norm: Polity is good or bad to the degree that it promotes or hinders fellowship.” This statement obviously subordinates doctrine to love, or fellowship,” (1961, 17).

Harold Ockenga, a leading figure in the new evangelical movement, observed:

“New-evangelicalism was born in 1948 in connection with a convocation address which I gave in the Civic Auditorium in Pasadena. While reaffirming the theological view of fundamentalism, this address repudiated its ecclesiology and its social theory. It differed from fundamentalism in its repudiation of separatism and its determination to engage itself in the theological dialogue of the day. It had a new emphasis upon the application of the gospel to the sociological, political, and economic areas of life,” (1976, 11).

Contemporary, critical cartoon by Donald Pfaffe (1959):

evangelicalism

George Dollar remarked:

“This new type of evangelical thought and attitude has many virtues—many of them having descended from historic Fundamentalism and others arising from an honest attempt to correct some glaring weaknesses within . . . The areas which it has sought to correct include those of academic integrity, social betterment, discussions with non-Fundamentalists, and journalistic excellence in order to attract the religious, the respectable, and the intellectuals whatever their doctrinal convictions. Another area of study has been that of cooperation with all existing religious bodies, denominations, and groups for the purposes of infiltration, not separation. In fact many prominent men in this movement openly advocate closer ties with those whom old-time Fundamentalism tagged apostates and Liberals,” (1962, 21-22).

A New Mood

During the first half of the twentieth century, ― “fundamentalist” and “evangelical” meant roughly the same things. People might use either name to describe those who preserved and practiced the revivalist heritage of soul winning and maintained a traditional insistence on orthodoxy. After the Fundamentalist-Modernist controversies, however, fundamentalism became increasingly prone to fracture. Pickering (1994) observes that evangelicalism was born with a particular “mood.” This particular mood was a marked dissatisfaction with a militant ministry philosophy. Pickering remarked that the militant excesses of some fundamentalists “disheartened younger men, and  . . . propelled them toward a softer and broader position,” (7-8).

The National Association of Evangelicals (NAE), founded in 1942, admits their organization was formed in response to a consensus that a new course must be charted, one that did not perpetuate the mistakes of excessive militantism:

“Evangelical Christianity, while remaining outside the cultural mainstream, established a thriving subculture, centered around engaging personalities and independent institutions. The downside to this emerging popular movement was that many radio preachers, Christian college presidents, and pulpiteers tended to speak and act independently with seeming little regard for the big picture. Instead of acting like brothers, they acted like rivals, weakening the possibilities of meaningful Christian witness” (“History”).

The schism was never over doctrines of the so-called “fundamentals.” The clashes between fundamentalism and evangelicalism frequently centered around the biblical parameters of ecclesiastical and personal separation. Most self-proclaimed fundamentalists today could sign the NAE creed! (“Statement of Faith”). It is not about doctrine, it is about a particular philosophy of ministry.

 Specific Causes of Schism

Rolland McCune (2004, 27-52) and Ernest Pickering (1994, 7-11) have both outlined their own views of the cause of this split. There is considerable overlap in their analysis;

 Picture1

There is simply no space to adequately cover all of these issues, but a brief survey of some of them will be attempted here.

Unity or Separation?

There was a general impetus to present the fundamentals of the faith in a positive, not simply defensive, way (McCune, 29). Evangelicals were more willing to forgive doctrinal differences for the sake of the Gospel. The NAE was formed in 1942, according to its formal history, “when a modest group of 147 people met in St. Louis with the hopes of reshaping the direction of evangelical Christianity in America.” Ockenga challenged Christians to put aside denominational differences for the sake of a more consolidated witness for Christ (NAE, “History”).

Well-known fundamentalist leaders such as John R. Rice and Bob Jones Sr. and Jr. initially supported the NAE, but eventually left over the organization’s different philosophy of separation. “These departures consolidated the leadership of the NAE in the hands of those with less restrictive convictions who wanted a softer stand and a far less militant direction,” (McCune, 31).

Fundamentalists could not bring themselves to endorse ecclesiastical unity to the same extent. The philosophy of evangelicalism seemed to be, “Be positive, not negative!” Pickering (1994) astutely observed, “while this statement has an emotional appeal to many, it is not a Biblical philosophy. Scripture is both positive and negative – it is for some things and against others,” (8).

These men continued to reject and oppose liberalism, but dropped militancy as a primary aspect of their identity. George Marsden argued that, “aspiring to be a broad coalition of theologically conservative Protestants, they usually tolerated some other theological differences, including Pentecostalism. Evangelism, as epitomized by Billy Graham, remained their central activity, although the forms of presentation now sometimes avoided accentuation of the offensiveness of the Gospel,” (as cited in Pickering, 1994, 11).

The Social Issue

Carl F. H. Henry penned a book in 1947, The Uneasy Conscience, in which he decried the lack of social involvement in fundamentalism.

“If the Bible believing Christian is on the wrong side of social problems such as war, race, class, labor, liquor, imperialism, etc., it is time to get over the fence to the right side. The church needs a progressive Fundamentalist with a social message (xx).

“Fundamentalism is the modern priest and Levite, by-passing suffering and humanity . . . by and large, the Fundamentalist opposition to societal ills has been more vocal than actual,” (2-3).

McCune argues that an anti-dispensational bias was at the root of this call for social consciousness (36). It would be over-reaching to suggest that dispensationalism was virtually synonymous with fundamentalism – it was not (McCune, 1996, 179-180). However, McCune argues that theology was the root of this renewed social activism; posttribulationism “emancipated them from dispensational pessimism and gave their societal activism biblical legitimacy,” (2004, 36-37, see especially footnote #42). Pickering agreed with McCune and tied evangelical theology directly to a repudiation of separation; “new evangelicals were not separatists and hence resisted the inevitable conclusions brought about by the acceptance of dispensational thought,” (1994, 17).

George Dollar (1962) argued for an altogether different philosophy of ministry;

“It is true that Fundamentalists have never turned their pulpits into forums for discussion of racism, labor, and slum clearance. It is true that most Fundamentalists have not made startling pronouncements on how to have world peace, how to integrate the races, and how to promote brotherhood in the midst of discord. The Fundamentalist has directed his attention to the salvation and sanctification of the individual—and indirectly to the alleviation of societal injustices,” (30).

This anti-dispensational bias converged with a general dissatisfaction with a militant philosophy – thus social activism came to typify evangelicalism as a movement.

Scholarship

Disenchanted fundamentalists also reacted against a perceived anti-intellectual bias among their brethren. “Narrow-mindedness” was repudiated. A contemporary critic, Douglas Walton, noted “the absence of intellectual respectability was a very sore spot . . . the result has been a striving to attain that status,” (1961, 26).

Pickering, in a 1964 review of a work by Ronald Nash advocating new evangelicalism, took issue with Nash’s pursuit to “recapture a place of respectability in the modern religious and academic world.” Contemporary critics seem to be unanimous in decrying the new evangelical’s quest for scholarship and prestige. Dollar wrote, “it would seem that the major prerequisite for joining the evangelical elite is the number of degrees one can brandish, the impressive list of schools attended, and the staggering account of authors read and quoted,” (1962, 26).

It is a profound mistake to suggest fundamentalism is anti-intellectual. Admittedly, there are some among us who espouse this view and they are certainly wrong. It is also incorrect to impugn the motives of evangelicals who are scholars. The problem arises when Christian scholarship stops being about serving the Church and starts being about respectability and prestige in the eyes of men. The new evangelicalism explicitly sought this prestige and therefore drew swift condemnation from contemporary fundamentalists.

 Bottom Line

An article appeared in the magazine Christian Life in March, 1956. It was a collaboration between many prominent advocates of the new evangelicalism. Entitled “Is Evangelical Theology Changing?,” it enumerated eight points about their new movement (Crum, et al. 16-19);

  1. A friendly attitude toward science
  2. A re-evaluation of the work of the Holy Spirit
  3. A move away from dispensationalism
  4. A more tolerant attitude toward varying views on eschatology
  5. Renewed emphasis on scholarship
  6. Renewed emphasis on social responsibility
  7. Re-examination of Biblical inspiration
  8. Willingness to dialogue with liberal theologians

Above all, this groundbreaking article advocated an altogether different philosophy of ministry. There was, initially, broad agreement on essentials of the faith, but new evangelicalism was different. It was a negation of “embarrassing” militancy for the sake of evangelism. “That’s why to the man on the street fundamentalism got to be a joke. As an ignorant, head-in-the-sand, contentious approach to the Christian faith, it seemed as out-dated as high-button shoes,” (16).

The roots of historic evangelicalism emphasized unity over separation and sought to engage in the theological dialogue of the day. It had a distinctly different “attitude” or “mood” than fundamentalism. Any thinking Christian simply must grasp this point – it is not doctrine which separates the two camps; it is a philosophy of ministry.

The next article in this series will examine the concept of secondary separation, surveying the views of a variety of fundamentalists on the issue.

Works Cited

Crum, T.B., Erb, P., Grounds, V., Henry, C.F.H., Horton, S.M., Kalland, L., Kantzer, K., . . . Young, W.C. Is Evangelical Theology Changing? Christian Life (March 1956), 16-19.

Dollar, George W. Dangers in New Evengelicalism. Central Bible Quarterly, CNEQ 05:2 (Summer 1962), 21-32.

Henry, Carl F. H. (1947). The Uneasy Conscience of Modern Fundamentalism. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

McCune, Rolland. Doctrinal Non-Issues in Historic Fundamentalism. Detroit Baptist Theological Journal 1 (Fall 1996), 171-185. http://www.dbts.edu/journals/1996_2/nonissue.pdf. Accessed 18APR13.

McCune, Rolland. (2004). Promise Unfulfilled: The Failed Strategy of Modern Evangelicalism. Greenville, SC: Ambassador.

National Association of Evangelicals. History. http://www.nae.net/about-us/history/62. Accessed 15APR13.

National Association of Evangelicals. Statement of Faith. http://www.nae.net/about-us/statement-of-faith. Accessed 15APR13.

Ockenga, Harold J. (1976). Foreward. In Harold Lindsell, The Battle for the Bible (11). Grand Rapids: Zondervan.

Pfaffe, Donald. Views of New Evangelicalism. Central Bible Quarterly, CNEQ 02:2 (Summer 1959).

Pickering, Ernest. Book Reviews. Central Bible Quarterly, CNEQ 07:2 (Summer 1964).

Pickering, Ernest. (1994). The Tragedy of Compromise: The Origin and Impact of the New Evengelicalism. Greenville, NC: BJU.

Walton, Dennis M. An Identification of New Evangelicalism. Central Bible Quarterly, CENQ 04:3 (Fall 1961), 9-38.