Truth Magazine

By Steve Wolfgang

The frustration of wrestling with and writing this article has been intense. Although I agreed when asked as a staff member to submit an article on this topic, I knew from the beginning that it would be impossible to include everything which should be said within the allotted space limitations. There has simply been so much written within the last five years along regarding this subject that one could not begin to discuss it fully in yet one more book let along a short article. I have therefore found it necessary to simply provide a thumb-nail sketch of the major outlines of the recent controversy, and by the use of footnotes(1) document other sources to which one may turn if one wishes to explore this controversy further. One who wishes only to have an introduction to the subject may simply read through the body of the article and ignore the footnotes; others may wish to pursue this study further, in which case I have attempted to provide references to the bulk of the most recent material. I do not labor under the delusion that everyone should be interested in such matters or that everyone wants to (or should want to) spend much time reading “evangelical” literature. To be quite honest, I do not read every chapter of every book nor every article in every paper which crosses my desk (though I try to keep up fairly well, since I serve on the staff, with what is written in Truth Magazine). I simply know of no better (in fact, I know of no other) way to approach a subject about which so much has been written so recently without surveying the literature on the subject.

First, a definition of terms is in order. What is meant by “modernism” and by “neo-evangelical”? There have been numerous definitions proposed for each term and perhaps the best way to approach these terms is through a historical survey. The term “modernism” has many definitions outside the realm of religion(2) but within religious circles referred technically to a movement within Catholicism in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.(3) Historians have quibbled about the exact features of the movement as it expanded, but gradually it came to refer to a general attitude toward the world and the Bible itself, whether held by Catholics, Protestants, atheists, humanists, or others. “Modernists”(4) or “liberals” generally came to be identified as those whose view of the Bible and its relationship to the twentieth-century world allowed for “errors” (as they defined them) in the Scriptures. These included not only errors of “fact” pertaining to geography, history, mathematics, scientific knowledge, etc., but to what these individuals perceived as an outdated and fundamentally mistaken view of human nature and the whole philosophy of human existence. This view point usually included favorable reception of the “higher criticism” of the Bible, and acceptance of biological evolutionary theories in one form or another (sometimes adapted as “theistic” evolution), a less than rigid view of morality, and often a “social gospel” type orientation in religious activities and structures. During the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, a group of individuals who came to be known as “Fundamentalists” became quite vocal in their opposition to the “modernists”; perhaps the most widely publicized encounter between the two groups occurred in the Scopes Trial at Dayton, Tennessee, in 1925, basically involving the evolution issue but with references to other questions as well.(5) Both before and after this most visible representation of the conflict, innumerable smaller and less publicized battles occurred, and many denominations (along with their headquarters, seminaries, mission boards, and para-church organizations) ruptured, resulting in the formation of many new churches, seminaries, mission boards, etc. Despite a smattering of~educated leaders (the best known of which was probably J. Gresham Machen, who left Princeton Theological Seminary and, with a handful of others retreated to Philadelphia to found Westminister Theological Seminary), Fundamentalists were often caricatured as ignorant, uncultured, anti-intellectual bigots (not altogether without basis in fact).

By the 1940’s however, a new generation of young people raised in Fundamentalist churches began to emerge, particularly in the wake of World War 11, unsatisfied with what they considered to be the narrow emphasis of the “Fundamentalists” but unwilling to accept most of the more liberal or critical views espoused by “Modernists.” Generally accepting the label “Evangelicals” or “Neoevangelicals,” and led by a corps of bright young students and professors with graduate degrees from some of the better or more prestigious universities in this country and abroad, significant numbers of “laymen” coalesced around various institutions which came to represent the “evangelical” cause.(6) Carl F. H. Henry’s critique, The Uneasy Conscience of Modern Fundamentalism, appeared in 1947, the same year in which Fuller Theological Seminary was founded. Fuller had on its faculty in the early years men whose names came to be synonymous for “evangelicalism:” Henry Harold Lindsell, Everett F. Harrison, Gleason L. Archer, Edward John Carnell, Geoffrey W. Bormiley, George Eldon Ladd, and others.(7) Two years following, the Evangelical Theological Society was formed to provide a forum for expression of a more conservative viewpoint than often found in major seminaries. That same year, 1949, also saw the beginning of the Billy Graham evangelistic crusades, which came to represent on a popular level a general expression of conservative evangelicalism. By 1956, the fortnightly periodical Christianity Today(8) was founded to provide an alternative forum for the expression of views unacceptable in more liberal publications such as The Christian Century (founded and edited at first, interestingly enough, by a former member of the Disciples of Christ, Charles Clayton Morrison). James DeForest Murch, a prominent individual among the “independant” Christian Churches (the North American Christian Convention, and their seminary, Cincinnati Bible [now Christian] Seminary), also maintained high visibility among the evangelical movement.(9)

By the 1960’s several books(10) could describe a rather strong and well-defined movement with a basically conservative theology centered around belief in the miraculous (usually, but not always emphasizing items such as the virgin birth of Christ, the historical nature of His ministry and miracles, and especially of His resurrection), and usually a heavy emphasis on the premillennial concept of fulfilled (or, more correctly, unfulfilled) prophecy. Time Magazine could observe in 1969 that these loosely affiliated but fast growing religious bodies (which they listed as including, interestingly enough, Churches of Christ in addition to the Southern Baptist Convention, the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, and other bodies ranging from Pentecostal/holiness/Wesleyan type groups to more sophisticate “mainline” denominations) constituted “a significant majority among 67 U.S. Protestants.”(11)

But there were cracks beginning to develop in the evangelical facade. By the early 1970’s, while evangelical authors such as Bernard Ramm and Donald Bloesch could write regarding a somewhat more solidified and sophisticated evangelical “theology,”(12) they (along with other prominent evangelicals) were felt by some others in the movement to have acquiesced to a modernism at certain points. In 1976, both of the first two editors of Christianity Today (Henry and Lindsell) were writing both in that periodical and in published works about “cracks in the evangelical foundations” and the evangelicals’ “search for identity” at the “brink of crisis.”(13) Henry concerned himself to a large extent with a yet newer generation of evangelicals, having grown up in the post-World War II evangelical churches, or having been converted in innumerable evangelical campaigns conducted by Graham, Bill Bright, and others in cities and on campuses. This generation partook of the revolutionary spirit characteristic of the 1960’s, and bemoaned what they considered to be a lack of social conscience among evangelicals.(14)Many evangelicals, such as Henry, agreed that there was some truth to the charge, but cautioned the younger generation against merely clothing modified Marxist political ideology in the language of evangelical religion. However, more to the point of this article, it is interesting to notice that Henry also looked askance at his fellow editor Lindsell’s efforts to ferret out those with modernistic tendencies among various evangelicals.(15)

Perhaps of all the works mentioned in this article, Truth Magazine readers may be most familiar with Lindsell’s book, The Battle For the Bible, published in 1976.(16) In it, Lindsell identifies and attempts to document various instances of a shift in the direction of modernism among post-World War 11 evangelicals. Devoting chapters to the Southern Baptist Convention and the Missouri Synod Lutherans and their recent split (along with the much publicized defection of many of the faculty of their St. Louis seminary, Concordia, to form a “Seminary in Exile” [Semines]), he then considers the shift in doctrinal requirements at Fuller Seminary. Fuller (where Lindsell taught for more than a decade) was begun as the “flagship” of evangelical seminaries, and at first required that a doctrinal statement be signed every year by each faculty member avowing belief in the inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible. This is no longer required, and over the past fifteen years inner controversies over such a statement have caused several faculty members to leave Fuller.

Truth Magazine readers interested in evaluating the details and documentation of these charges will have to read the book for themselves. It would be impossible to cover them in an article of this length. (I am sure Truth Magazine Bookstore would be delighted to supply you with copies of this or any other book I have referred to in this article!) It is worthy of notice however, that a Fuller professor, Jack Rogers, immediately edited a collection of essays(17) aimed at responding to Lindsell, written by some stellar members of the evangelical community (including some, like Clark Pinnock, and Bernard Ramm, whose writings are fairly well-known among many preachers in the Lord’s church, particularly among younger preachers). In my opinion, this book simply proves, better than Lindsell could document, the degree to which evangelical thinking has shifted on the question of inspiration and inerrancy.

The most recent addition to the burgeoning list of books on the subject is James Bar’s work on Fundamentalism. ” Barr, a British liberal theologian (by no means an evangelical), actually has misdefined his work since most of it deals not with historic fundamentalism but more recent writings of the “neo-evangelicals.” Some of the quotations he chooses to illustrate his points are taken from “evangelical” works and will be eye-opening, I believe, to anyone who has not read what some evangelical writers have been saying in the last decade or so.

It would be worthwhile to explore the relationship of the evangelical movement (and the books, commentaries, magazines, etc. which it has spawned) to the Churches of Christ; its influence has been very great in many places, I am convinced. I hope to be able in the near future to explore in greater detail some of the issues in the Fundamentalist-Modernist and “evangelical-liberal” controversies, reviewing the attendant literature. Personally, I believe much of the grace-fellowship controversy over doctrines such as imputed righteousness (a doctrine central to Reformation theology and thus to the evangelicals, who style themselves the true spiritual heirs of the Reformation) has received impetus from a good many preachers in the Lord’s church (particularly younger men) becoming overly familiar with and impressed and influenced by the reading of such material. In the same way, I think it could be demonstrated that much of the premillennial controversy in the church from 1915-1935 came about as the result of the brethren’s exposure to the Fundamentalist literature. But that is another article (or series)!

Truth Magazine XXII: 43, pp. 694-696
November 2, 1978

1. Yes, I am going to resort to the use of footnotes! I am cognizant of the fact that some do not like footnotes, and others think they are out of place in a paper such as Truth Magazine. Normally 1 share this feeling but in an article of this nature it is simply impossible to do justice to the subject in such a brief space without referring the interested reader to other material. Those not interested in pursuing the subject may ignore the numbers and skip the clutter at the end. I simply see no other solution!

2. See “Modernism” in The Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences,” Edwin R.A. Seligman, ed Vol. 10 (Macmillan, 1933), p. 564ff.

3. See the entries under “modernism” in standard reference works such as the Westminster series, A Dictionary of Christian Theology, ed. Alan Richardson, (Westminster, 1969), p. 221 ff., or The Westminster Dictionary of Church History ed. Jerald C. Brauer, (Westminster, 1971), p. 561.

4. These dictionaries discuss under “liberalism” the ideas generally associated with “modernism” in this article (see pp. 191 ff. & 496ff, respectively). For an evangelical perspective on these definitions and concepts, see entries under “Modernism in The New International Dictionary of the Christian Church, ed. 1. D. Douglas (Zondervan, 1974), and under “Liberalism” in The Wycliffe Bible Encyclopedia, ed. Charles F. Pfeiffer, Howard F. Vos, and John Rea, Vol. II (Moody Press, 1975), p. 1033f.

5. Two older works (Stewart G. Cole, History of Fundamentalism, Smith, 1931, and Norman Furniss, The Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy, Yale, 1954) have been long considered the “standard” works on the subject. A flood of recent books have appeared in the last decade, the most useful of which are the following. W illard B. Gatewood, Controversy in the Twenties (Vanderbilt, 1969) is an excellent anthology of primary source documents with good short introductions. Gatewood was a colleague of Ed Harrell at the University of Georgia while preparing this work. Ernest R. Sandeen, The Roots of Fundamentalism (Chicago, 1970) demonstrates the close relationship of millennial thought and the Fundamentalists. George W. Dollar, A History of Fundamentalism in America (Bob Jones, 1973) is totally biased in favor of the Fundamentalists (as other earlier works are often totally biased against them) but is indispensable as a handbook to sort out all of the Fundamentalist figures and institutions, in addition to being interesting reading regarding some “inside” details not found in other works. Finally, C. Allyn Russell’s anthology, Voices ofAmerican Fundamentalism (Westminster, 1976), is a biographical study of seven leaders in the movement, including J. G. Machen, J. Frank Norris, and William Jennings Bryan. An “evangelical” publication, the Christian Scholars Review, has within the last several years contained a running commentary on the subject of Fundamentalism between Sandeen, George Marsden and others which is quite revealing.

6. The best introduction I have seen yet to the confusing welter of persons, papers, and institutions flying under the evangelical “flag” is Richard Quebedeaux’s recent book, The Worldly Evangelicals (Harper and Row, 1978). For one who has no knowledge of where to begin to sort out the evangelicals, this is as good a place as any. Wuebedeaux’s earlier work, The Young Evangelicals (Harper and Row, 1974) is also good but not so thorough as the later work. If you can get only one book on the evangelicals, this should probably be it.

7. On the formation on Fuller Seminary from an inside view, see Wilbur M. Smith’s memoirs, Before I Forget (Moody Press, 1971), pp. 287-291. A recent book in honor of Smith, edited by the current editor of Christianity Today, Kenneth Kanuer, is Evangelical Roots (Thomas Nelson, 1978).

8. For inside details on the founding of Christianity Today, see Smith’s memoirs, pp. 175-182, and the biography of L. Nelson Bell (Billy Graham’s father-in-law), A Foreign Devil in China (Zondervan, 1971, by John C. Pollack), pp. 237-244. Quebedeaux also has various details from another perspective scattered throughout The Worldly Evangelicals.

9. See Murch, Cooperation Without Compromise: A History of the National Association of Evangelicals (Eerdmans, 1956), and chapters 12, 13, 17, 18, and 21 of his autobiography, Adventuring for Christ in Changing Times (Restoration Press, 1973).

10. See Ronald H. Nash, The New Evangelicalism (Zondervan, 1963); Bruce L. Shelley, Evangelicalism in America (Eerdmans, 1967); and Millard Erickson, The New Evangelical Theology (Revell, 1968).

11. Time Magazine, “U.S. Evangelicals: Moving Again,” (September 19, 1969), pp. 58-60.

12. Ramm, The Evangelical Heritage (Word, 1973), and Bloesch, The Evangelical Renaissance(Eerdmans, 1973). For a good description of the tension of evangelical thought with liberalism up to that time, see Richard J. Coleman, Issues of Theological Warfare: Evangelicals and Liberals (Eerdmans, 1972). Probably the second most useful book in describing the evangelicals (after Quebedeaux’s Worldly Evangelicals, is David F. Wells and John D. Woodbridge, The Evangelicals: What They Believe, Who They Are, Where They Are Changing (revised edition; Baker, 1977; get the revised edition, available in paperback).

13. Henry’s book, Evangelicals in Search of identity, was originally a series of articles in Christianity Today in the spring and summer of 1976, during the period of the publication of Lindsell’s book The Battle for the Bible. At the time, Lindsell was editor of CT. Henry described Lindsell’s book as “theological atom bombing,” stating further that “as many evangelical friends as foes wind up as casualties” (Time Magazine, “Bible Battles,” May 10, 1976, p. 57).

14. Several journals have sprung up among “young evangelicals” which openly espouse severe criticism of the American government’s social programs, military policies, etc. Included among the writers of this almost 1960-ish language are authors such as Daniel Berrigan, all the way to Clark Pinnock, whose works are fairly widely known at least among some younger preachers in the Churches of Christ. The most critical of them is Sojourners (formerly the Post-American – signifying the need in the editors’ minds to move beyond the current American society and values), the Reformed Journal, and perhaps others. A recent book which deals on a tamer level with the “young evangelicals’ search for social consciousness” is Donald W. Dayton, Discovering an Evangelical Heritage (Harper and Row, 1976). See also Robert Webber, Common Roots (Zondervan,1978).

15. Time, May 10, 1976, p. 57.

16. Lindsell’s book was published by Zondervan. For a work along the same lines, see John Warwick Montgomery, ed., Cod’s Inerrant Word (Bethany Fellowship, 1974). Compare Clark Pinnock, A Defense of Biblical lnfallability (Baker, 1973), and Biblical Revelation (Moody, 1971).

17. Jack Rogers, ed. Biblical Authority (Word, 1977). Other recent books written at least in part in answer to Lindsell’s broadside, are Harry R. Boer, Above the Battle? The Bible and Its Critics (Eerdmans, 1976); Stephen T. Davis, The Debate About the Bible: Inerrancy versus Infallibility (Westminster, 1977); and Herman Ridderbos, Studies in Scripture and Its Authority (Eerdmans, 1978). Quebedeaux (Worldly Evangelicals, pp. 85-88) discusses the doctrine of “limited inerrancy” proposed by Fuller Seminary’s David Hubbard, and the flat assertions in Fuller faculty member Paul K. Jewett’s Man as Male and Female that Paul was not inspired in instructions given about women, “in a word, Paul was wrong” (Quebedeaux, p. 88).

James Barr, Fundamentalism (Westminster, 1978). The most recent book I have seen regarding evangelicals is Morris A. Inch, The Evangelical Challenge (Westminster, 1978). However, advertisements in evangelical journals such as Christianity Today and Eternity are advertising even yet more books to be released this fall. Truly Solomon was “write”: of the making of many books there is no end. There is, however, an end to my patience and to this article!

By Jimmy Tuten, Jr.

Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) has been stalled somewhat by the lack of legislative approval nation wide. Radicals behind this movement have sought passage postponement until a more suitable time. This has brought about serious political overtones. However, conditions could change and passage of this insidious amendment, coming sooner than expected, could have devastating effects upon society and the church. In the August, 1978 issue of Reader’s Digest, “Six Political Reforms Most Americans Want” are discussed. On page 61, Reform 6, introduced by Senators James Abourezk (D., S.D.) and Mark Hatfield (R., Ore.) would allow Americans to initiate federal legislation when a group of voters equal to three percent of the number who voted in the last Presidential election sign a petition requesting such a vote. Although this procedure is new to the Federal Government, it is familiar to about half of the states in the Union. The threat of invoking this initiative could very well bring about the approval of ERA by a majority of 57 percent, including more men than women. By no means is ERA a dead or dying issue!

Why ERA? There are already statues on the books guaranteeing equal rights for women. They are protected by the following acts of Congress: The Equal Pay Act of 1963 as amended by the Higher Education Act of 1972; The Civil Rights Acts of 1964; the Equal Employment Opportunities Acts of 1972; Federal Minimum Wage Acts of 1974; Federal Equal Credit Opportunity Act of 1972, and these make it impossible for ERA to afford further protection for women. If inequities exist, the problem lies in the enforcement of these laws. In view of this, how can organizations such as “The National Organization of Women” (known as NOW), pushing ERA have women’s best interest at heart? If passed ERA will bring more losses than gains and protective laws for females now in existence would be sacrificed.

Advocations of ERA

While space will not permit a listing of all items ERA is pushing for, attention will be given to what this writer considers the most important. They are:

(1) Unlimited, taxpayer-funded abortions on demand, free to all women.

(2) Homosexual and lesbian rights permitted resulting in marriage to persons of the same sex and the adoption of children. Along with this is the demand for special protective legislation preventing discrimination and allowing no restrictions against teaching positions and the holding of public office.

(3) Taxpayer supported child care centers where mothers can leave their children while they assert their so-called rights.

(4) Prison reforms where negative attitudes towards homosexuality would be eliminated among prisoners and staff.

After all this writer has read on the subject I will have to agree with Senator Sam Ervin: “I don’t know but one group of people in the United States the ERA would do any good for, that’s the homosexual.”

Alterations of Home and Society

Brother Stanley Paher, who has done some excellent writing in Vanguard on equal rights for women, has listed a number of quotations from radical women who wish to vastly alter home and society as we know it. The following citations from brother Paher’s material gives us a good idea of the ulterior motives of those who support ERA. Observe what has already been said:

On Marriage: Gloria Steinam in a speech in Houston said, “For the sake of those who wish to love in equal partnership, we have to abolish and reform the institution of legal marriage.” The Document, Declaration of Feminism says, “It is important for us to encourage women to leave their husbands and not live individually with men.”

On Children: “We really don’t know how to raise children . . . .The fact that children are raised in families means there is no equality . . . .In order to raise children with equality we must take them away from families and raise them. . .” (Dr. Mary Jo Bane, Wellsley College).

On God: Gloria Steinam (quoted above) is editor of Ms. Magazine. She says, “By the year 2000 we will, I hope, raise our children to believe in human potential, not God.

On Love: “We must detroy love . . . .Love promoted vulnerability, dependence, possessiveness, susceptibility to pain, and prevents the full development of women’s human potential by directing all her energies outward in the interest of others” (Women’s liberation, Notes from the Second Year).

On Sex: In The Document, Declaration of Feminism, it is said, “Liberated sexualtiy is freedom from oppressive sexual stereotyping. The freedom to choose heterosexualtity, homosexuality, bisexuality or asexuality, but not to be bound by them.”

ERA’s Effects on Society and Church

The effect on society and the church can be seen in that Women’s Lib, in the main, is an ungodly movement. There is a supreme lack of fear towards God and respect for His infallible Word. One witnesses in the movement absolute contempt for the Word of God. This cannot help but effect society and the church and is seen in ERA’s effect on the family, on the nation and on the church.

(1) Effect on the Family:The home is Divinely instituted and Divinely regulated. God never intended that the husband and wife be competitive, but that they live together in the capacity God ordained for them. One cannot read the Old Testament nor-the New without realizing that while functionally their roles are different, Man the head of the household, woman the homemaker, there is a spiritual equality (Gen. 3:16; 1 Cor. 11:3; Eph. 5:22-24, etc.). The headship of man is a stewardship and not a privilege. The Bible teaches that the rights of the wife are protected. There is no greater function for a woman than to be a wife and mother. By no means is this an inferior function. As to their equality, God made them both in His image (Gen. 1:26-27). In Matthew 19:9, our Lord shows that the structure of the family is permanent with equal rights for the wife. Ephesians 5 is a beautiful display of functional differences cushioned with love and respect. As to children, it is the responsibility of parents to rear their offspring (Eph. 6:4; 1 Tim. 5:8).

The restless feminists pushing ERA are dissatisifed with the position which God has given them. They cannot cope with womanhood and burden us with their frustrations. Notice some of the effects of the feminist movement on the structure and soundness of the family relationship: (a) Equalized Social Security The goal is to have each husband whose wife is not employed outside of the house pay double Social Security taxes on the assumed earnings of the wife as a homemaker. It does not take a matbernatician to figure out what this would involve and that it would result in no increase in benfits for the wife since she already draws benefits from her husband’s salary. What would happen is the forcing of more wives and mothers into the already overcrowded job market. More women would have to find jobs outside of the home just to pay the taxes required. (b) Childcare Facilities. Claming sex discrimination for mothers expected to care for children, government funded childcare facilities are demanded so that a mother, either part-time or full-time, can have access to these facilities in order to pursue professional, educational and personal goals. This is to be universally available to all regardless of income. The result is getting as many children out of the home as possible and making them the wards of the state! It would become no longer the responsibility of the parents to care for children, but the state. (c) Shorter Work Weeks. Since jobs are not so widely available that all women could work if they wanted to, shorter work weeks to a suggested 30 hour week would result in the ability to hire more people. Look what this does to the fellow who is accepting his God-given role as bread winner for his family. He is barely getting by on a 40 hour work week with all the over-time he can get. A 30 hour week would force his wife out of the home (where she is happily content) into the job market. Is this woman’s best interest at heart? (d) Repeal abortion Laws. This is an anti-family resolution showing that Women’s Lib and abortion go hand in hand. The basis for such repeal is sex discrimination because it refers to one sex only. It is also argued that to be equal to men, women must have the right not to bear children. What we must realize, as some law scholars maintain, is that if ERA is passed it will do away with the right of hospitals and medical personal to refuse abortions on grounds of conscience. (e) Homosexual and lesbian rights. This is in direct conflict with what the Bible teaches about the family pattern and is a sin against the natural use of the body (Rom. 1:24-25).

(2) Effect on the Nation: While there are differences of opinion over various ramifications of obedience to civil government (Rom. 13:1-4; 1 Pet. 2:17), Christians recognize that “higher powers” are ordained of God and have enjoyed freedom of worship. If and when laws are passed that put Christians in a position of choosing to obey God rather than man, persecution is the next logical step. ERA is a precarious threat to freedoms .and guarantees now enjoyed. We cannot deal with all the admendments proposed and defeated as a result of ERA. However, observe two or three serious matters: (a) An amendment has been introduced insuring that crimes such as rape continue to be crimes under the law. Since such is enforced only against males, it is likely that it would be declared unconstitutional under the terms of ERA. (b) An effort to guarantee privacy of public restroom facilities was argued against by supporters of ERA. (c) Laws prohibiting homosexual mariages will be ruled unconstitiutional. Not only will this deteriorate the moral climate of our nation, it will destroy the family structure. People living together in homosexual marriages would qualify for joint income tax and homestead benefits. They will be allowed to adopt children. Such couples already have suits pending which if passed in their favor, would grant them rights to teach in public schools. Even private schools could not refuse them. If ERA passes, the Supreme Court would likely be forced to rule all state and local laws involving such unconstitional. (d) Laws obligating the husband to support his wife and children would be ruled unconstitutional. Women would no longer have the legal right to be full-time wives and mothers in their own homes, for such would be invalidated by ERA. Under this system wives would have equal responsibility for support of family. She would be responsible for her husband’s debts even as he is responsible for the wife’s. It would no longer be a crime for the husband to abandon his wife. Imagine the tremendous hardships imposed on a wife of 20 or 30 years, with children to support, having been abandoned to have to find a job. Suppose a separation or divorce has been in existence for some time and the man has been paying child support. Would it be retroactive? Could the husband go to court and sue the wife for support already paid? It is certainly possible! (e) In case of war women will certainly to subject to the draft and be placed along side men in combat. Before you rule this an impossibility, you had better look a little closer at ERA.

(3) Effect on the Church: Can one possibly imagine the confusion and turmoil of “Christian” women caught up in Women’s Lib asserting their rights in violation of the principles and teaching of 1 Cor. 14:34-35 and 1 Tim. 2:11. Our contributions would no longer be tax exempt and churches would have to pay taxes. Do not be lured into thinking that because churches of Christ are independent and autonomous that they are outside the law. The State could rule the church a denomination. Then there would be no end to what we might be forced to do in violation of our conscience and the Bible. It would be God or Caesar, brethern. What would it be?

Conclusion

ERA ignores and minimizes the seriousness of all sin. Not understanding that it was God who inspired Paul to write what he did in such passages as 1 Cor. 14:34, etc., they shout “male chauvinism”! Erring in trying to equate equality with absolute identity, Biblical teachings on distinctive roles are ignored and the basic makeup of sexes is completely overlooked. Men and women are far more different than similar.

Is ERA really needed? Is it the only way to remove recognized discrimination? Friends, the Equal Rights Amendment is not clear and concise in its meaning and can only lead to endless litigation in addition to known results.

Let the Women libbers have their rights, but let us not let them, spell it out for all women who have rights too. Christians and citizens must take positive steps to prevent creeping feminism from further influence destructive in nature and the undermining of God-ordained relationships. The movement ignores the natural order of things and is contrary to what the Bible teaches. God help us! But, we must first help ourselves.

Truth Magazine XXII: 44, pp. 712-714
November 9, 1978

By Mike Willis

The world around us is becoming progressively more morally degenerate. Perhaps a statement like that needs to be tempered by some modifying phrases such as limiting it to these United States as, obviously, my experience is limited to what I see and read in the papers. Or, perhaps this reflects a view of life: the belief that the world must become increasingly more corrupt immediately prior to the second coming of Jesus Christ. Certainly, this latter does not express my attitude toward morality. Yet, I cannot ignore the things which I see about me.

I am not a pessimistic person; yet, the moral degeneracy which I see about me is conducive to producing a gloomy outlook on life. Everywhere one looks, he sees righteous conduct being ridiculed and ungodliness being portrayed as something acceptable and desirable. Things which were done in the shades of darkness when I was a youth are now being practiced in broad daylight. Things we were brought up to believe were even socially unacceptable are now being given social acceptability.

One who had a baby out of wedlock was crowned with shame for the rest of her life when I was a child. Today, having a baby out of wedlock is no shameful thing in the eyes of many people. Homosexuality used to be a word that was hardly even whispered. Those who were homosexual never admitted it and only practiced it in a hidden fashion. Today, homosexuals are clamoring for social acceptance. Similar comments could be made about many other forms of immoral conduct.

An Absolute Moral Standard

In the midst of a culture which is presently changing its morals, the Christian might tend to think that what was wrong twenty years ago for him are now acceptable in the sight of God as well. No doubt some of the changes which have occurred in religion have added credence to the idea that our own moral values are subject to change. The Catholics have changed their laws pertaining to eating meat on Friday; the Mormons have changed their laws pertaining to blacks entering the priesthood. Hence, the Christian is being bombarded from every direction with the idea that God’s laws are changeable.

In the midst of a world advocating such changes, the Lord’s people need to remember that God’s word does not change. The Psalmist said, “For ever, O Lord, thy word is settled in heaven” (119:89). God’s word does not change; the Bible still condemns sin and exalts righteousness. What was considered to be sinful on the day of Pentecost is still considered sinful today, regardless if every person in the world decides to call it righteousness!

The Bible is the word of God. As the word of God, it reveals to man what is sinful. Sin is nothing other than the transgression of the law of God (1 Jn. 3:4). Inasmuch as the Bible has not changed since it was completed at the end of the first century after the death of Christ, what is sinful has not changed. The things which were considered sinful in the first century are still sinful today. The fact that two thousand years have passed and cultures have come and gone has not changed the word of God in any way. Sin is still sin.

As we consider this point, we need to be reminded that Christianity is not tempered to fit into the mold of the various cultures to which it is taken. Rather, Christianity takes the word of God into a given culture and tries to reshape that culture to bring it into conformity with the revelation of God. When Paul preached in Corinth, he did not water down the gospel to make it more acceptable to the loose moral standards of that community. Instead, he taught those in Corinth who were living with such loose moral standards that they needed to repent of their wickedness and seek the Lord’s forgiveness. Hence, the gospel does not change to fit the world; the world must change to be acceptable to God.

Application to Today’s Society

1. Divorce and Remarriage. There seems to be a tendency among many Christians to treat the standard of God’s word as expressing a morality too high for twentieth century Americans. Therefore, we are being taught to accommodate God’s revealed religion to the standards of the world around us. Hence, if a man has divorced his first wife because she burned the toast, remarries that sexy little thing down at the office, and later decides that he wants to become a Christian, some want us to believe that he can stay married to this second wife. The Bible says otherwise. Jesus said, “Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery” (Mt. 19:9).

What Jesus described in Matt. 19:9 is exactly what is taking place in our society on every hand. He labeled the resulting marriage adultery; some of my brethren do not believe that such a relationship is adultery. Rather, they are accommodating the morality of Christianity to the immorality of our present age. God’s standard has not changed. If such acts were adulterous in the first century, and Jesus said they were, they are adulterous today.

2. Drinking. Some among the brethren today are no longer willing to preach the truth about drinking. Rather, they are persuaded that drinking is not sinful so long as it is done with moderation; they think that the only form of drinking which Jesus condemned was drunkenness. Yet, read what the apostle Peter said about these forms of worldliness. He said, “For the time past of our life may suffice us to have wrought the will of the Gentiles, when we walked in lasciviousness, lusts, excess of wine, revelings, banquetings, and abominable idolatries: wherein they think it strange that ye run not with them to the same excess of riot, speaking evil of you” (I Pet. 4:3-4). Notice that Peter condemned the following different sins with reference to drinking: excess of wine, revellings, banquetings. The first one is “excess of wine” (oniophlugia) and refers to drunkenness; the second is “revellings” (komos) which refers to “a revel carousal . . .used generally of feasts and drinking parties that are protracted till late at night and indulge in revelry” (Thayer, p. 367). This sinful work of the flesh describes the very conduct that occurs at single’s bars (and other bars as well), the office Christmas party, and other drinking parties. Notice that it is distinguished from drunkenness. The third work of the flesh is “banquetings” (potos). Potos does not refer to a meal that is eaten together followed by a guest speaker; rather, it refers to a drinking party (the idea of excessive drinking is not inherent in the word). This word is a perfect description of social drinking.

Yet, some worldly members and preachers want to come along and give the impression that the only kind of sin which can be committed with drinking is drunkenness-excessive drinking. Peter did not think so. I prefer to stand with the Apostle. Our twentieth century society might see nothing wrong with drinking but the Lord did.

One of the problems which those who defend social drinking are going to face is the problem of explaining to their children why drinking socially is all right whereas social marijuana smoking is wrong. I would like to hear one of these parents try to tell his children why it is wrong to smoke one joint of marijuana but right to drink one social drink. That would be interesting conversation to hear.

3. Lasciviousness. Another work of the flesh which is condemned in the word of God is lasciviousness-unbridled lust, excess licentiousness, wantonness, outrageousness, shamelessness, insolence, . . . wanton (acts or) manner, as filthy words, indecent bodily movements, unchaste handling of males and females” (Thayer, p. 79). I can think of a number of matters in American society which fall into this category but one of them which seems to have gained social acceptance is the modern dance. The basic appeal of the modern dance, according to most any eminent psychologist, is the sex appeal. Yet, not a few mothers and daddies are not only condoning their children’s involvement in dancing but are encouraging it. Consequently, their boys and girls go out on a dance floor and wiggle their bodies in such a way as to incite lusts in their partners. My brethren, be not deceived, lasciviousness is still a sin.

Another one of Satan’s devices for inciting lusts are lascivious pictures. According to reports, many of the movies of today are filled with nakedness. I know for a fact, that many of the television shows are becoming sexually suggestive if not featuring explicit sexual scenes. Yet, we have become persuaded that we can passively sit in front of these television sets and watch these programs without them ever affecting our moral character. The result is that men lust after the naked bodies of the women who are willing to unclothe themselves in front of a camera. We cannot take moral garbage into our hearts without it corrupting them!

I am amazed that people who would not go see a “R” or “X” rated movie because of their moral convictions will watch that same movie in the privacy of their own homes. Now I am aware that some of these movies are edited before they are shown on television and might be cleaned up enough through this editing to be fit for consumption. I am also aware that some of these movies are shown unedited on cable television. Christians who would not go to a movie house to watch this garbage are watching it in the privacy of their homes. Have we not enough moral conviction left in us to not subject ourselves and our families to this?

While I am talking about lasciviousness, I might as well add that the “petting” which occurs while our young (and some not so young) people are dating is also condemned by the definition of the word given to us by reputable Greek scholars. What goes on during heavy petting stirs the sexual drives of the individuals involved. Some people act as if no sin has occurred so long as no fornication is committed. Jesus said that the lust which precedes fornication is sinful as well (Matt. 5:28).

Another thing which incites lust and falls under the condemnation of God because it is lascivious is nudity in dress. The Bible demands that the Christian dress himself so as not to call attention to his body (1 Tim. 2:9). Yet, some people see nothing wrong with a man, woman, and all of their children taking off all of their clothes but their undergarments and then parading themselves in a public place. The only thing required for this to be considered modest is for those undergarments to be called “beach clothes” and the place be considered a public swimming place and what would otherwise be considered sinful becomes acceptable social behavior. What is surprising is not that the heathen want to undress in this fashion but that brethren who claim to be the servants of Jesus Christ want to act this way. What particularly alarms me is preachers and their families who sneak off away from the local area in which they labor and go public swimming! They quit preaching against these forms of worldliness because they are just as guilty of it as the rest of the worldly people. Is there any such preacher among us who is willing to defend this conduct? If so, I will be glad to provide the space for his material to be presented and replied to.

Conclusion

These moral issues are just as important as any of the “issues” such as the sponsoring church, church sponsored recreation, church support of human institutions, etc. Frankly, I would not consent to supporting a preacher from the church treasury who would not condemn adultery in the way Jesus did in Matt. 19:9, who defended or practiced drinking, socially, who would not condemn lasciviousness in all of its forms (mixed swimming, petting, dancing, etc.), and other forms of worldliness. The moral purity of the Lord’s church is at stake! We cannot allow the church to become filled with a bunch of moral reprobates. Such a compromise of the gospel of Jesus Christ is sinful.

We must never forget that our moral standard is fixed forever. Jesus has legislated what is sinful and what is not. Our only choice is to preach the word of the cross or to follow the devil. Which shall it be? May the Lord help us to preach moral purity in a perverse generation.

Truth Magazine XXII: 43, pp. 691-693
November 2, 1978

By Mike Willis

Every religious system has some basis for determining what they believe to be right and what they believe to be wrong. Roman Catholicism posits final authority in three things: the Bible, the church fathers and the living voice of the church. Mormonism finds its authority in the Bible, the writings of Joseph Smith, and the word of prophecy which the church claims to have. Christians find final authority in one place-the Scriptures. In what does the modernist find final authority?

Religious Experience

The answer to this question is quite simple: the modernist posits authority in religious experience. James D. Bales wrote, “Although modernists may maintain that there is some truth in the Bible, the ultimate authority is found in the subjective experience of the individual” (Modernism: Trojan Horse in the Church, p. 35). This assessment of modernism is absolutely true. The modernist sets himself above the Bible. He determines what portions of the Bible he believes and what portion of it he does not believe. When he finds a miracle recorded in the Bible, he calls it a “myth” and tries to find some meaning in the myth that is everlasting.

When man accepts religious experience as the basis for determining truth, a revolution in what he believes is inevitable. “But if we entirely accept this essentially tentative character of empirical method, and are ready without reservation to apply it to the definitions as well as the conclusions of theology, a profound revolution is implied in our whole approach to religious problems and in the very foundations of our religious philosophy. It is essential to understand the nature of this revolution. Since on these terms no concept-not even the concept of God-has any absolute rights, all definitions being liable to revision in the light of continuing human experience, God is no longer the central fact in religion or the ultimate principle in theology. His place is taken by man’s religious experience. The religious experience of men and women becomes the decisive fact and the final court of appeal by which we test the validity of any theological concept-the concept of God along with others” (Edwin A. Burtt, Types of Religious Philosophy, p. 288).

“As a matter of fact, however, the modern liberal does not hold fast even to the authority of Jesus. Certainly he does not accept the words of Jesus as they are recorded in the Gospels. For among the recorded words of Jesus are to be found just those things which are most abhorrent to the modern liberal Church, and in His recorded words Jesus also points forward to the fuller revelation which was afterwards to be given through His apostles. Evidently, therefore, those words of Jesus which are to be regarded as authoritative by modern liberalism must first be selected from the mass of the recorded words by a critical process. The critical process is certainly very difficult, and the suspicion often arises that the critic is retaining as genuine words of the historical Jesus only those words which conform to his own preconceived ideas” (J. Gresham Machen, Christianity and Liberalism, p. 77). “The real authority, for liberalism, can only be `the Christian consciousness’ or `Christian experience.’ But how shall the findings of the Christian consciousness be established? Surely not by a majority vote of the organized Church. Such a method would obviously do away with all liberty of conscience. The only authority, then, can be individual experience; truth can only be that which `helps’ the individual man. Such an authority is obviously no authority at all; for individual experience is endlessly diverse, and when once truth is regarded only as that which works at any particular time, it ceases to be truth” (Ibid., p. 78).

Results of This Authority

1. No truth is absolute. When truth is posited in individual religious experience, there is no absolute and final truth to be found. All truth becomes relative. “When religious experience changes, as it is bound to do, theology will also need to change in order to be true to it. Schleiermacher frankly declares that in these ways religious doctrines are hypothetical and likely to be modified in the light of future experience” (Burtt, op. cit., p. 290). What is accepted as truth today may be rejected as false by a later generation whose religious experience is in conflict with the religious experience of men today.

The modernist, therefore, lives in an open-ended world. There are no such things as right and wrong, black and white. To him, everything is gray. Hence, he lives in a world in which lying is sometimes better than telling the truth, murder is sometimes better than not committing murder, stealing is sometimes better than not stealing. Religious experience is the only determining factor for telling which is right and which is wrong in any given case. The religious anarchy of modernism leaves man in the same predicament that Israel was in during the days of the judges: “every man did that which was right in his own eyes” (Judg. 21:25).

2. Christianity is not unique. If religious experience is accepted as one’s final source of authority, then there is nothing particularly better about the religious experience of the Christian than the religious experience of the Buddhist or Hindu. Whereas the Christian shows the unique nature and truthfulness of Christianity by appealing to the bona fide miracles of the New Testament, the modernist rejects these miracles and establishes religious experience as his source of authority. The consequence is that one’s religious experience is just as good as another’s.

In Bangkok 73, Peter Beyerhaus related his experience in attending the World Mission Conference which is held under the auspices of the World Council of Churches. The conference was reported to have called a moratorium on mission work in the classical sense. There was no desire to continue trying to take New Testament Christianity to heathen countries because the World Council of Churches admitted that pagan religion was as good as the Christian religion so far as “salvation” in the biblical sense is concerned. With the surrender of the absoluteness of the Christian religion in favor of religious experience, Christianity becomes just another one of a vast number of acceptable religions.

3. No doctrine is absolutely true. When the position is taken that there are no absolutes, the result is that there is no doctrine of any kind that is absolutely true. For example, we might believe that God is love from our religious experience of today but tomorrow become convinced from some other religious experience that God is hate. No Bible doctrine is ever taken as absolute truth. “From this standpoint no traditional Christian doctrine, however clearly taught in the Bible, is absolutely vital to contemporary religion; it is an intellectual interpretation of past religious experience, using the scientific assumptions and categories then available, but it is not final for us” (Burtt, op. cit., p. 306).

Harry Emerson Fosdick described the doctrinal problems of the modernist as follows: “All doctrines spring from life. In the first instance men have experiences with their own souls, with their fellows, with their God, which, involving mental elements as all sane experiences must, are nevertheless primarily valued for their contribution to the practical richness of life. Unable, however, to deny their intellectual necessities, men carry these experiences up into their minds and try deliberately to explain, unify, organize, and rationalize them. They make systematized doctrines out of their experiences. And when the formula has been constructed, they love it because the experience for which it stands is precious. Their affections and loyalties gather around the formula and the church swings down the centuries with a shining formula like a banner at its head.

“The days come, however, as they have come now, when the church moves out into a new generation, with new ways of thinking and new outlooks on the universe. Ideas never dreamed of before, such as scientific law and evolution, become the common property of well-instructed minds. The men begin to have trouble with the old formula. Once they followed it as though it were their flag. Now they are troubled and hesitant concerning it. Once they fought for it; now they fight about it. They do not understand it, they cannot believe it, because it was made in times when man used other ways of putting things. Then comes a period of theological discord and controversy with all the trouble centering in the formula” (Modern Use of the Bible, p. 185).

Fosdick’s description of modernism’s problem with doctrine demonstrates that with modernism no doctrine is final. Tomorrow religious experience might decide that there is no God. Tomorrow religious experience might reach the conclusion that there is no validity in religious experience. I think that you can understand why people charge that modernism leaves man without a compass or guide in the uncharted ocean of life. The modernist leaves man with no absolutely true doctrine.

The Modernist’ Use of the Bible

Understanding why modernists believe what they do, one gets rather aggravated at the method in which they handle the Bible. Modernists freely quote the Bible to prove something, if what they want to prove agrees with their preconceived notions. However, when someone quotes the Bible to prove something which they do not accept, they discount the proof offered by denying the inspiration of the Bible. If the Bible is to be ignored in the areas in which it disagrees with their preconceived notions, it cannot be used to establish that which they believe. The modernist might believe that God is love but he is obligated to prove it in some other way than through the Bible. The modernist might believe in the fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man but he must prove that using something other than the Bible. If he is going to prove these beliefs by religious experience, someone else’s religious experience can disprove them. Hence, the modernist has no way of proving anything.

James D. Bales wrote, “Modernists use the Bible not to prove what God has said, but as a pretrext-instead of a text-on which to hang their own ideas or those of some theologian. The Bible is a springboard from which they take a running leap in order to land in the sea of speculation” (Bales, op. cit., p. 43).

A Plea For Sanity

In the midst of the doctrinal and moral confusion in our country as a result of the inroads of modernism, Christians need to present an alternative to doctrinal and moral relativism. We need to reassert the authority of Jesus Christ as revealed in the Bible. All authority has been given unto Jesus Christ (Matt. 28:18). He is our unique and only Savior; He is the one Lord of the world (Acts 10:36).

Jesus has delegated authority to His apostles so that whatsoever they bind upon earth has been bound by the God of heaven (Mt. 16:16). The writings of the apostles are to be received as the commandment of the Lord (1 Cor. 14:37); they are the word of God (1 Thess. 2:13). Whatever the Bible teaches on any given subject is the final word on that subject. When it conflicts with modern thought,, modern thought, not the Bible, must be considered to be wrong.

Modernism is nothing else but adapting the Bible to twentieth century thought. When we persuade ourselves that the Bible must be interpreted by the standards of thought of the twentieth century, or any other century for that matter, the word of God is replaced by the words of men. The wisdom of man is treated as superior to the wisdom of God. Modernism must be repudiated and the authority of God as expressed in the Bible reasserted.

Truth Magazine XXII: 41, pp. 658-659
October 19, 1978