Appendix C: The Practice Of Truth
With regard to the first of the principles of which we spoke at the beginning of appendix B (The full doctrinal position of historic Christianity must be clearly maintained), it seems to me that the central problem of evangelical orthodoxy in the second half of the twentieth century is the problem of the practice of this principle. This is especially so when we take into account the spiritual and intellectual mentality which is dominant in our century. Any consideration of methods and programs must be secondary to a consideration of this central problem.
If a clear and unmistakable emphasis on truth, in the sense of antithesis, is removed, two things occur: first, Christianity in the next generation as true Christianity is weakened; and second, we shall be communicating only with that diminishing portion of the community which still thinks in terms of the older concept of truth. We are not minimizing the work of the Holy Spirit. We should remember, however, that our responsibility is so to communicate that those who hear the gospel will understand it. If we do not communicate clearly on the basis of antithesis, many will respond to their own interpretation of the gospel, in their own relativistic thought-forms, including a concept of psychological guilt-feelings rather than of true moral guilt before the holy, living God. If they do respond in this way, they have not understood the gospel; they are still lost, and we have defaulted in our task of preaching and communicating the gospel to our generation.
The unity of orthodox or evangelical Christianity should be centered around this emphasis on truth. It is always important, but doubly so when we are surrounded by so many for whom the concept of truth, in the sense of antithesis, is considered to be totally unthinkable.
In such a setting the problem of communication is serious; it can only be overcome by negative statements that clearly say what we do not mean, so that the twentieth-century man understands the positive statements we do mean. Moreover, in an age of synthesis, men will not take our protestations of truth seriously unless they see by our actions that we practice truth and antithesis in the unity we try to establish, and in our activities. Without this, in an age of relativity, we cannot expect the evangelical, orthodox church to mean much to the surrounding culture or even to the church’s own children. What we try to say in our teaching and evangelism will be understood in the twentieth-century thought-form of synthesis. Both a clear comprehension of the importance of truth and a clear practice of it, even when it is costly to do so, is imperative if our witness and our evangelism are to be significant in our own generation and in the flow of history.
It would seem to me that some evangelicals are jettisoning any serious attempt to exhibit truth and antithesis. There has been a tendency to move from a lack of seriousness ecclesiastically concerning truth to the same tendency in matters of wider cooperation. This often finishes up by denying, in practice if not in theory, the importance of doctrinal truth as such.
Many evangelicals who are rightly disturbed by the new theology’s view of the Scriptures and universalism and who try to meet it at these points of error in fact never go far enough back in order to establish a clear line of truth and error which will hold weight for the next generation. Inevitably the next generation tends to go further in the direction already established and, if this is already towards synthesis, they will move with it ever closer to the new theology. Therefore, to avoid this, we must be careful to consider what truth and antithesis mean in practice in ecclesiastical matters and in evangelism.
Thus it must be said that in spite of (and even because of) one’s commitment to evangelism and cooperation among Christians, I can visualize times when the only way to make plain the seriousness of what is involved in regard to a service or an activity where the gospel is going to be preached is not to accept an official part if men whose doctrine is known to be an enemy are going to be invited to participate officially. In an age of relativity, the practice of truth when it is costly is the only way to cause the world to take seriously our protestations concerning truth. Cooperation and unity that do not lead to purity of life and purity of doctrine are just as faulty and incomplete as an orthodoxy which does not lead to a concern for, and a reaching out towards, those who are lost.
There is an opposite danger to be avoided. Some of those who have contended for truth have cut the ground from under this position, not only by a loss of beauty and love but even, in practice, by a loss of truth in speaking about men.
All too often the only antithesis we have exhibited to the world and to our own children has been our talking about holiness or our talking about love, rather than the practice of holiness and love together as truth, in antithesis to what is false in theology, in the church and the surrounding culture.
Based on a talk given at the Berlin Congress on the Bible.