During the prophetic ministry of Isaiah, there came a time when the people of Israel could no longer bear the words of truth which he uttered. Beyond the content of his message, Isaiah undoubtedly infuriated the populus with his dogmatic, unyielding presentation of that truth (Isa. 28:9, 10). At one particular point the children of Israel were moved to exclaim, "Prophesy not unto us right things, speak unto us smooth things, prophesy deceits" (Isa. 30:10). Their outburst belies the great contempt which they held for God's word and the forthright manner in which His prophet had propagated it. Unfortunately, the gratuitous insolence characteristic of these apostate Jews was not put to rest by their deaths. Such attitudes prevail today in many circles among our brethren, but especially among some of the "younger generation" of Christians with whom we are acquainted.

The purpose of these articles will be to survey the attitudes and beliefs among some of my fellow brethren aspiring to preach who to one degree or another are caught up in the fanciful interpretations of fellowship and grace propounded by some "older but not wiser" brethren in the Lord. These words are written out of a deep love and concern for their souls and continued profitable service for the Master in His kingdom. We have no "axes to grind," or "grudges to bear," nor are we seeking to "forge a name" for ourselves in the "mind of the brethren." It is with a prayerful and heavy heart that we are moved to pen these words and we would that such were not necessary at this time.

Perhaps it is superfluous to mention, but this "second generation" of Christians that has grown up in the post-war period has done so in a radically different environment than that of the preceding one. Out of the relatively complacent Eisenhower era of the fifties came the turbulent sixties, a time of explosive social upheaval. With the advent of television and its hypnotic hold upon the nation's youth, the era of "instant communication" began. This present "crop" of Christians consequently matured in a period in which they were unwittingly inundated with information at every conceivable angle. Within this maelstrom of data, the postwar youth, in his desperate search for order in a world of complexity, reached out for a unifying principle or system and discovered what he considered to be an irreconcilable dichotomy: war versus peace. He abruptly began defining everything in terms of these two concepts. Thus, associated with war was, of course, Vietnam, the "establishment" in government, the police, all forms of authority (such as teachers, preachers, parents, etc.) and anything else that represented dogmatism; on the other hand, he associated with peace such things as the hippie movement, hard rock music, campus revolts, drugs, and anything else that represented freedom from authority or accepted standards.

Prior to the sixties, there was no true "outlet" in which these "feelings" could be expressed. In the early sixties, however, an event occurred which was to open the floodgates for social upheaval. To paraphrase Francis Schaeffer, "If a bell would ring every time something important happened, the bell would have rung loud and long right then." Schaeffer is referring to the Free Speech Movement which occurred on the Berkeley campus of the University of California. Here was the first real "outlet" in which these repressed concepts toward war and peace could be expressed. From this time onward, the American youth would witness more and more opportunities to express himself in his dichotomy of values. To keep the philosophical overtones to a minimum: these concepts generally have swept the nation and an entire generation of young people who were gullibly awaiting something, anything to which they could belong or participate in that they might quench their need for meaning or direction, swallowed the entire package. This quickly evolving movement included, as its most prominent feature, a system of situation ethics; morality and truth were now decided by the poll-takers-if 517c of the people believe pre-marital sexual activity is acceptable, or abortion is desirable, or suicide is commendable, then by the power invested by themselves in themselves, It Is So!

It was inevitable that such concepts would infiltrate the Lord's body. This generation has been indoctrinated, brainwashed, and conditioned to react against "war," "defense," "militancy," "contention," and other such words with contempt. To this group of young people, the connotations which these words conjure up are repulsive and abhorrent by their very nature. In contradistinction, such words as "love," "peace," "harmony," "unity," "brotherhood," etc., are pleasing to their ears and essential elements of their vocabulary. Thus blinded, it is easy to understand why so many are being taken in by the current "fellowship-unity" cult among us. They are not about to fight, and will not fight, and cannot be made to fight! Their only conviction is that convictions are not necessary! When called upon to take a stand or set forth their views, one is met either with a "dignified silence," or a supposedly apologetical "I'm just studying it out." To these it is "contentious" and thus "sinful" to be as Paul, "set for the defense of the gospel!"

Some of the young men with whom we are acquainted have been mesmerized by the persuasive sophistry of our modern day "prophets of peace." These prophets have wailed "Peace, Peace," but there is no peace-only sad mockery of God's plan for unity. When the faithful have pleaded, "Stand in the ways and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way; and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls (Jer. 6:16) the resounding reply has been "We will not walk therein!" In effect, they intimate, "Prophesy not unto us right things, speak unto us smooth things, prophesy deceits, get you out of the way, turn aside out of the path, cause the Holy One . . . to cease from before us."

The men who are leading the current ecumenical efforts long ago abandoned the notion that unity could be based upon obedience to God's revealed word, but for a time their following remained small and isolated. Today,, however, it is a wide and sweeping movement in its influence, especially among the young and is finding fertile soil everywhere that brethren are weary of standing and fighting for the truth. The hue and cry of these brethren is unity in diversity (doctrinal situationism) and they have, in essence; thrown up their hands and exclaimed, "We are divided over doctrine, therefore, for the sake of unity, let's toss doctrine out the window!"

Much has been said of late about "second generation" preachers being "turned off" by the forthrightness in the declaration of the truth by "first generation" preachers. To our mind, it is rather nauseous to see so many "first generation" preachers as there are, who should be in the forefront of the battle against the doctrines of Satan, so preoccupied with "kowtowing to" and pampering our young princes of the faith. "Kind dispositions, patient approaches, and calm reactions," as one editor has suggested, are in order but not to the compromising of the truth! Some of the older preaching brethren, who in the past perhaps contended earnestly for the faith, have now passed on to a greater, more nobler cause, namely, being erstwhile "pals and buddies" of my fellow brethren in their quixotic quest for union. Such are rushing to the defense of my "poor, misunderstood" brethren, but in the process betray their own lack of soundness. In regard to these, a younger preacher, striving to emulate the faithful and strong men who love the truth and will stand for it at all costs, cannot but shake his head in disgust.

In our next article we will attempt to deal specifically with the fundamental beliefs and characteristics of some of the "second generation" of Christians with whom we are acquainted.

Truth Magazine, XVIII:3, p. 9-10
November 15, 1973