God Never Changes

    It is a truism that the world is rapidly changing and indeed it is. We have seen this most recently in the dramatic change in attitude toward homosexuality. Same-sex marriage, which just twenty years ago would have seemed like a shocking absurdity, is not legal in thirteen states and several foreign countries. What is the world coming to?
   

Harry Emerson Fosdick

 The natural instinct of the average person in such circumstances is simply to "go with the flow." To get along you have to go along, as they say. We have to adapt to changing times. In an earlier generation this type of thinking led to an entire theological movement called "Modernism." As one of its most vocal proponents, Harry Emerson Fosdick, put it, "Protestantism . . . was formulated in prescientific days. Not one of its historic statements of faith takes into account any of the masterful ideas which constituted the framework of modern thinking – the inductive method, the new astronomy, natural law, evolution." He then went on to say that the "chaos and turmoil" of his day sprang directly "from the impossible endeavor of large sections of the church to continue the presentation of the Gospel in forms of thought that are no longer real and cogent to well-educated minds" (Adventurous Christianity, 1926, pp. 241,242). Hence early 20^th Century "Modernism."
   

J. Gresham Machen

 One of the leading conservatives of the day J. Gresham Machen, noted the difficulty but observed that "the liberal attempt at reconciling Christianity with modern science has really relinquished everything distinctive of Christianity, so that what remains is in essentials only that same indefinite type of religious aspiration which was in the world before Christianity came upon the scene" (Christianity and Liberalism, 1923, p. 7). And so early 20^th Century "Fundamentalism."
    The conflict between Modernism and Fundamentalism was long and bitter, but in the end the liberals won control of most of the major Protestant denominations in America. But conservative, biblical Christianity still survives, and the major underlying issues are still very much alive.
    Does truth change at the whim of the U.S. Supreme Court? It obviously does not.
        "Lord, You have been our dwelling place in all generations.
         Before the mountains were brought forth,
         Or even You had formed the earth and the world,
         Even from everlasting to everlasting, You are God."

(Ps. 90:1,2; NKJV)

    Some things never change. There is order and structure in the universe. Nature proceeds according to certain well-defined patterns. Life and death continue their ceaseless cycle. And human nature remains the same. And above it all is the Supreme Being Who created the universe. He is the sovereign Lord of heaven and earth, and is not subject to the passing fads and fancies of human legislation. God did not consult the U. S. Supreme Court before He handed down the Ten Commandments. And long after nations and empires have been swept into the dustbin of history, the throne of God will continue to stand unmoved, eternal in the heavens.
    In the Last Judgment God's opinion will be the only one that counts.

Raised Evangelical: Bob’s Story - VII

We proceed with our response to the "Raised Evangelical" series on the atheist blog "Love, Joy, Feminism."
Section 9: Coping
Question 1: Does having been raised evangelical or fundamentalist make you feel "different" from the rest of society, or like you stick out or don't fit in in some way? Explain.
    Well, I should certainly hope so! Christianity is supposed to be more than just being a nice, respectable, middle-class American. It is supposed to be an inward transformation that changes you and makes you different. If you are a genuine Christian you "march to a different drumbeat" than the rest of society.
    It is supposed to be a life of discipleship. It is fascinating to see how Jesus dealt with inquirers – He would actually turn people away. He did not say "God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life. Just say this little prayer and everything will be taken care of." What He actually said was, "If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me" (Matt. 16:24; NKJV).
    Bear in mind that the central issue here is salvation. The problem is our sin and our guilt, which we share with all of humanity. To come to Christ we must acknowledge our guilt, ask for forgiveness, and place our trust in Christ as our Savior. This is accompanied by the New Birth – an inward spiritual renewal that results in a transformed life. If you have genuinely repented, and your life has been changed, then you will be different – different from what you were before, and different from "mainstream" society now. "And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind . . ." (Rom. 12:2). You cannot live with one foot in the world and one foot in Christ, although many professing Christians try to do so.

 
Question 2: What do you think is the biggest way being raised in an evangelical or fundamentalist family and church community has influenced who you are today?
    Well today, by God's grace, I am still a Christian, and I would not to have it any other way. This is not to say that it has always been easy. As a Christian you often feel a little bit like a fish swimming upstream, because your priorities are often different from others around you. Sad to say, even other professing Christians will sometimes disappoint you and let you down. But I have a sense of purpose in life, the Lord has met my needs, and I have peace within my heart. That is really all a person could ask for.

 
Question 3: How did you perceive your childhood and evangelical or fundamentalist religious upbringing at the time compared to how you see it now?
Question 4: What do you think were the most beneficial things about being raised fundamentalist or evangelical? What were the more problematic things?
    The Christian life is an ongoing process of spiritual growth. As you learn more your perceptions naturally change. As a general rule I am probably more conservative now theologically than I was then, but politically more liberal. I am probably a combination of John Calvin and William Jennings Bryan, if such a thing were possible!
    As a historical movement I think that Fundamentalism has had its pros and cons. On the positive side there was a heroic stand for historic Christian truth; on the negative side there was often a bitter divisiveness that left a black mark on the entire movement. History has certainly borne out their assessment of the situation in the mainline denominations. One could only have wished that they could have combined the courage of their convictions with a gentleness of spirit. Fortiter in rem; suaviter in modo!

    I think that aside from the opportunity of hearing the gospel, the most valuable practical lesson I learned growing up was how to resist peer pressure. Just because the herd is rushing headlong over the cliff does not mean that you want to go there too. Being able to say "no" has spared me a lot of heartache and grief in life.

Raised Evangelical: Bob’s Story - VI

We continue with our responses to the "Raised Evangelical" series on the atheist blog "Love, Joy, Feminism."

 

Section 6: Politics

 

Question 1: In his book Broken Words, Jonathan Dudley argues that a fourfold opposition to abortion, homosexuality, evolution and environmentalism constitute the markers of evangelical tribal identity. What role did opposition to these four issues [play] in your fundamental or evangelical upbringing, and would you agree with Dudley?

    Frankly most of these weren't issues when I was growing up. Abortion was illegal and homosexuality was never discussed in public. Evolution, of course, was discussed and debated. Environmentalism was not an issue for Christians at that time.

    Part of the problem with Dudley's thesis is that he is defining Evangelicalism in sociological terms: Evangelicalism has a "tribal identity" marked by opposition to certain political issues. But Evangelicalism should mainly center on the experience of salvation (justification by faith, the new birth, and a relationship with God). The church is supposed to be the mystical body of Christ and the communion of the saints, persons who are tied together by the shared experience, not a voting block in the American electorate tied to a secular political party.

    Abortion and homosexuality are, of course, serious moral issues that deserve the attention of the church, and evolution raises questions about the underlying worldview. Opposition to environmentalism, however, does not logically follow from the other three. If nature was created by design, then we should respect the design in nature just as we do in marriage. We are no more justified in raping the environment than we are in raping a woman on the street. Both acts violate God's purposes in creation and bring about serious consequences. Francis Schaeffer, in fact, wrote a very interesting book on the subject in 1970 – Pollution and the Death of Man.

 

Question 2: What role did you, your family, or your church community believe Christians should play in politics? What did your family or church hold was the end goal of Christians' involvement in politics? What were your family and church community's beliefs about the end times, and how (if any) did these beliefs affect their view of Christian's role in politics?

Question 3: Were you, your family, or your church community involved in politics? What did all their involvement include? Did your pastor ever preach a political view from the pulpit? Did you ever picket an abortion clinic, attend a "defense of marriage" rally, or participate in any related activities? Describe your experiences.

    The short answer to the first question is "none whatsoever." We were Baptists, and one of the "Baptist distinctives" is separation of church and state. Moreover, to answer the question about the end times, our church was very strongly Dispensationalist, and believed that we were living in the last time. The last great apostasy was underway, and the Soviet Union was preparing to invade Israel from the north! (Yes, that's what prophecy teachers were actually saying back then. How a supernatural figure like the Anti-Christ could be a dialectical materialist and a dogmatic atheist was never clearly explained.) Thus things were not expected to get any better. The church saw its role as snatching a few last sinners from the world before the end finally came (within the next few years).

    Moreover, most Christians at that time didn't have an especially favorable view of politicians. They were cigar-smoking, whiskey-swigging crooks who cut deals in back rooms. They were the dissolute looking bunch of characters you saw hanging out in the bar in a downtown hotel. Most Christians wouldn't care to admit that they knew any of these rogues and scoundrels personally.

    Beneath the surface, however, there was a gravitational pull toward right-wing politics. Although the pastor was careful not to discuss it from the pulpit, I think that Barry Goldwater got a lot of support from the members of the congregation when he ran for president in 1964. The fervently anti-Communist John Birch Society attracted support from evangelical Christians, and I can remember reading None Dare Call It Treason, by John Stormer, which laid out an elaborate conspiracy theory.

 

Question 4: What political issues did you, your parents, and / or your church community see as most important in deciding who to vote for and why?

    People's perceptions back then were colored by the Cold War, and the threat of a possible nuclear confrontation with the Soviet Union. And since the Soviet Union had tried to combine (illogically) a socialistic economic system with and atheist / materialist worldview, many conservative Americans did the exact opposite: they tried to combine (illogically) Christianity with laissez-faire capitalism.
What seemed to make it plausible at the time was the fact that some large companies back then practiced a kind of "welfare capitalism" that included generous benefits packages. And so American conservatives threw their support behind the free-market economic system and a strong national defense.

    There was also an ethnic dimension to all of this. Most "WASPS" (White, Anglo-Saxon Protestants) in the north were aligned with the Republican Party, while Catholics and Jews were mainly identified with the Democrats. So many Protestants, evangelical and liberal alike, thought that they were protecting the traditional American way of life by voting Republican.

    My father, and I think my grandfather before him, were strongly pro-business and ant-union, and pro-military. My father was known to have voted for Democrats only twice – once by mistake (he accidently pulled the wrong lever in the voting booth), and once because he thought that not even a Democrat could be as bad as Nelson Rockefellar, who was the Governor of New York State at the time. Shortly afterwards the Conservative Party of NY was founded, and my father became an enthusiastic supporter.

Secularism

    Is God still relevant? The general trend in Western thought for the past couple of centuries has been in the direction of growing secularism. The underlying assumption is that human reason alone is sufficient to arrive at truth, and that consequently any type of religious revelation is unnecessary. Thus we have attempted to exclude God from our thinking. We pretty much think and act as if God did not exist.

    In more recent times there has been an attempt to move away form the rationalism of modern scientific thinking, but this, unfortunately, has not resulted in a revival of religion. On the contrary, we seem to have become even more atheistic than ever, denying the existence of universal truths altogether. To this "Post-Modern" way of thinking there are no such things as moral absolutes.

    But what if God really exists? What becomes of our secular thinking then?

    The New Testament raises this question in a very pointed way in Romans chapter 1. "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men . . ." (v. 18; NKJV). God is angry with us. Why? Because of our "ungodliness" and "unrighteousness." The Greek word translated "ungodliness" basically means "impiety," a lack of reverence or devotion to God. Or, to use a more modern term, it is frankly what goes by the name today of "secularism." "Unrighteousness" is the failure to live in accordance with God's law, especially as that failure involves the mistreatment of others. Thus we stand accused of crimes against both God and our fellow human beings. This is the reason that God is angry with us.

    "Ah," but the modern secularist replies, "there is no evidence that God exists! There is no reason to believe in His existence."

    The inspired apostle, however, continues his indictment. God is angry with men because they "suppress the truth in unrighteousness." He goes on to explain what he means. ". . . because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse" (vv. 19,20). We are surrounded by the evidence of God's goodness, wisdom and power. The sheer complexity of nature points to an intelligent Designer. (An evolutionist, of course, would deny this, but we have already dealt with the question of evolution in a previous blog post – cf. "Why Evolution Is False," Oct. 5, 2011).

    But what has our response been to all of this evidence? ". . . because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools . . . " (vv. 21,22). Here we see traced out for us the whole course of modern philosophy, talking itself into absurdities, and never arriving at a firm conclusion.

    And what is the judgment of God upon all of this? "Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen" (vv. 24,25). In other words, the moral disintegration of Western society is the direct result of our refusal to acknowledge God. Secularism has been our undoing.

    Sad to say, many Americans today choose to live as though God does not exist. They never visit a house of worship, engage in private prayer, or read the Bible. They never thank Him for His blessings towards them, and they never consider what His will might be when they make personal decisions. For all practical purposes we have become a godless society. How tragically mistaken we are! We are headed for the abyss, and yet we will not turn back and change our ways. What can become of us?

Is Christian Fundamentalism Intolerant?

     We have tried so far to demonstrate that Islam is, indeed, a violent and intolerant religion, and that these tendencies in Islam stem from the fact that its program is essentially theocratic.  There is no separation of church and state; the power of the state is enlisted to support the cause of Islam.  Physical force is used to enforce a regime that consists mainly in external rules of conduct.
     But what about Christianity?  Does it not also have a long history of persecution and violence?
     As we have tried to show in our last post, there is no basis in the New Testament for the use of force to defend the faith.  The persecutions, Crusades and pogroms that marred much of later church history were aberrations.  Jesus Himself never countenanced any such thing.
     What is especially interesting, however, is how the Protestant Reformation and the later Evangelical revivals served to promote a rebirth of religious freedom.
     The dramatic turning point in Western attitudes towards religious freedom came on April 18, 1521.  Martin Luther had been asked to recant his writings.  Appearing before the Holy Roman Emperor and the assembled princes of the Empire, Luther defended his writings, and then concluded his remarks with this famous declaration:
         "Since then your all-gracious majesty and princely grace desires a simple answer, I want to give you one, simple and straightforward, namely this: unless I have been convinced by the testimony of Scripture or by rational argument, then I remain convinced by the authors I have quoted, and my conscience remains bound by God's Word.  For I believe neither the Pope nor the councils alone, since it is well-known that they often err and have contradicted themselves.  I can and want to retract nothing, since it is neither safe nor advisable to do something against one's conscience.  God help me.  Amen."
(It is debatable as to whether or not Luther actually uttered the words, so often attributed to him, "I cannot do otherwise, here I stand . . .")
     What Luther did, in effect, was to assert the right of private conscience over against public authority.  When there is a clash between God's will and human authority, God's will must always take precedence."We ought to obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29; cf. 4:19,20, NKJV).  God's Word limits human authority.
     Unfortunately, it took a while for the implications of this truth to be fully realized in Western thought.  Both Luther and Calvin presided over state churches.  The Lutherans and Reformed persecuted each other and they both persecuted the Anabaptists.  With the onset of spiritual awakenings in the 17th and 18th centuries, however, the implications of human accountability to the divine will began to appear.  Sincere believers, whose hearts had been touched by divine grace, often found themselves in the minority in most countries.  There were inevitable clashes with the civil authorities over matters of religious policy.  In the English speaking world Congregationalists, Presbyterians, Baptists and Quakers agonized over where their duty lay, and eventually the latent principle  emerged: the individual conscience must be free to obey God, and the civil authorities may not intrude.  The colonies of Rhode Island and Pennsylvania were founded on the principles of religious liberty, the British Act of Toleration was passed in 1689, and the First Amendment was added to the U.S. Constitution in 1790.
      True evangelical religion can never countenance religious persecution.  To the unawakened sinner human society is all that there is.  He is all too willing to conform to prevailing standards.  But in a religious awakening people develop a heightened awareness of God, and they begin to realize that the edicts of the state cannot be confused with the will of the Deity.  It is manifestly not true that "vox populi" is "vox Dei."  Political leaders are often venal and corrupt, their decisions often unjust and unwise.  The true believer becomes all too painfully aware of an irreconcilable conflict between what God wants and what the government wants, but he knows that his undivided loyalty belongs to God alone.  To allow any other authority to interpose itself between the individual conscience and God is tantamount to idolatry.
     A spiritually awakened Christian is also aware that a genuine religious conversion can only be the result of an operation of the Holy Spirit in the heart of the individual sinner.  Spiritual life can only be imparted by God Himself.  The state is completely powerless to effect spiritual change.  Thus a rebirth of genuine piety leads inevitably to a restriction of the government's power.  The only workable modus operandi is a separation of church and state.
     The state is charged with the responsibility of maintaining civil order, and we owe it obedience in matters of external behavior.  But in matters of faith the conscience must be free -- free to obey God as He speaks to the individual soul.  Where there is no freedom of conscience there is the worst form of tyranny.  Freedom of religion is one of our most priceless treasures.
     The "New Atheists" sometimes claim that religious Fundamentalists are a threat to political freedom.  As far as Christian believers go, nothing could be farther from the truth.