Connotations and Compromise
Connotations and Compromise
ames are funny things, and especially in the connotations
they are given. Names can be used either to enhance or
to destroy.
As we have seen in the preceding chapter, the name "fundamentalism" first came into use in the mid-1920s. During this time and before, liberalism was sweeping through the major denominations and the liberals were taking over the positions of leadership and control in the seminaries, in many Christian publications, and in the denominational structures.
Fundamental Truths
In response, the Bible-believing Christians, under the leadership of such scholars as J. Gresham Machen and Robert Dick Wilson, issued what they called The Fundamentals of the Faith. Dr. Machen and the other men never thought of making this an "ism." They considered these things to be a true expression of the his toric Christian faith and doctrine. They were the fundamental truths of the Christian faith-doctrine which was true to the Bible; truth which they were interested in and committed to. And as we have seen in the preceding chapter, this truth was presented and published in a series of books written by the outstanding Christian thinkers of the day. Dr. Machen, whom I knew as a student, simply called himself a "Bible-believing Christian." The same thing was true of the many publications which were also committed in that day to doctrine and teaching which is true to the Bible.
Soon, however, the word fundamentalist came into use. As used at first, it had nothing problematic in its use either in definition or in connotation. I personally, however, preferred Machen's term "Bible-believing Christian" because that was what the discussion was all about.
As time passed, however, the term fundamentalist took on a connotation for many people which had no necessary relationship to its original meaning. It came to connote a form of pietism which shut Christian interest up to only a very limited view of spirituality. In this new connotation, many things having to do with the arts, culture, education, and social involvement were considered to be "unspiritual" and not a proper area of concern for the Christian. Spirituality had to do with a very narrow sphere of the Christian's life, and all other things were considered to be suspect. Fundamentalism also, at times, became overly harsh and lacking in love, while properly saying that the liberal doctrine that was false to the Bible had to be met with confrontation.
The Full Spectrum of Life
Therefore, at a certain point in this country a new name was entered-evangelical. This was picked up largely from the British scene. In Britain during the twenties and thirties, evangelical largely meant what Machen and the others had stood for in this country-namely, Bible-believing Christianity as opposed to the inroads of various forms and degrees of liberal theology. By the mid-1940s the name evangelical had come into common use in the United States. It was especially used here with the connotation of being Bible-believing without shutting one's self off from the full spectrum of life, and in trying to bring Christianity into effective contact with the current needs of society, government, and culture. It had a connotation of leading people to Christ as Savior, but then trying to be salt and light in the culture.
It was in this general period that my lectures and books began to be of some influence-from the 1950s onward. My lectures and early books stressed the Lordship of Christ over all of life in the areas of culture, art, philosophy, and so on while also strongly stressing the need to be Bible-believing with loving but true confrontation against not only false theology, but also against the destructive results of the false world view about us.
While not overemphasizing their importance, for many of that period and especially in the radical sixties, these books did help open a new door. Many discovered a Christianity which is viable in this age of collapsing values when the older cultural norms are being turned on their heads by the ethos dominating our age. And many came to understand that this new ethosnamely, the concept that the final reality is energy which has existed forever in some form and takes its present form by chancehas totally destructive consequences for life. The young people of the sixties sensed that this position left all standards in a relativistic flux and life as meaningless, and they began to think and live in these terms. In this setting, happily a certain number did find that L'Abri's presentation of Christianity-as touching all of thought and life, along with a life of prayer-did demonstrate Christianity's viability, and they became Bible-believing, consecrated Christians.
But note: this rested upon two things: 1) being truly Bible-believing; and 2) facing the results of the surrounding wrong world view that was current with loving but definite confrontation. By the grace of God this emphasis had some influence in many countries and in many disciplines.
Now, however, we find this matter of names with their connotations entering again. Gradually, though there was no need for it from the original use of the word, an appreciable section of those known as evangelical began a drift toward accommodation. Note, there was no need for this from the original use of the word, nor largely from the stance of the men and women who originally had begun to use the word. Those who originally called themselves evangelicals were both Bible-believing and did not take a compromising position in relation to the world.
The "Blue-Jean" Mentality
It is important to see what the effect of this has been. This drift toward accommodation is a kind of mirror situation of what occurred previously with fundamentalism. After the denominational turmoil of the thirties, fundamentalism fell increasingly into a mistaken pietism which saw any challenge to the surrounding culture as unspiritual-that the Christian's job was only to lead people to Christ and then to know something of a personalized Christianity. Thus, the changing, destructive surrounding culture tended to stand increasingly unchallenged. In the case of an accommodating evangelicalism, there has been a tendency to talk about a wider, richer Christianity and to become more deeply involved in culture, but at the same time to accommodate to the world spirit about us at each crucial point. Note that the result is then the same. Despite claims of cultural relevance, an accommodating evangelicalism also leaves the destructive surrounding culture increasingly unchallenged. Thus the two positions end up with similar results.
This rather reminds me of young people whom we worked with at Berkeley and other universities, including certain Chris tian colleges, and those who came to us in large numbers with packs on their backs at L'Abri in the 1960s. They were rebels. They knew they were, for they wore the rebel's mark-the wornout blue jeans. But they did not seem to notice that the blue jeans had become the mark of accommodation-that indeed, everyone was in blue jeans. This does seem to me to be a close parallel to what we see in much of the connotation which grew out of the new uses of the word evangelical. What they are saying is this: "We are the `new evangelicals,' the `open evangelicals'; we have thrown off the cultural isolation and anti-intellectualism of the old fundamentalists." But what they have not noticed is that they have nothing to say which stands in clear confrontation and antithesis to the surrounding culture. It is so easy to be a radical in the wearing of blue jeans when it fits in with the general climate of wearing blue jeans.
This is really nothing new. Christianity has been plagued by accommodation time and again through the centuries, and in particular in this century. It is interesting to note what Dr. Harold J. Ockenga wrote about the liberalism at the turn of this century:
Destructive higher criticism of the Bible became the dominant approach among the theologians at the close of the nineteenth century and during the early twentieth century. When joined with naturalistic evolution, it produced liberalism. . . . It [liberalism] accommodated Christianity to modern scientific naturalism ... whenever objections arose on the details of the Christian religion.'
It is interesting to note further that even some liberals have begun to recognize the devastating effect of theological accommodation and are beginning to grow weary of it and are wondering what to do. One such liberal recently wrote:
The central theme of contemporary theology is accommodation to modernity. It is the underlying motif that unites the seemingly vast differences between existential theology, process theology, liberation theology, demythologization, and many varieties of liberal theology-all are searching for some more compatible adjustment to modernity.
The spirit of accommodation has... [led to] the steady deterioration of a hundred years and the disaster of the last two decades....'
Yet accommodation has become fashionable among many evangelicals-in spite of the devastating effect this has had theologically and culturally.
Holiness and Love
Complicating the matter is our own tendency to lack a proper balance. As we confront the issues, there must be a proper balance under the leadership of the Holy Spirit while carefully living within the circle of that which is taught in Scripture. Each issue must be met with holiness and love simultaneously. To be really Bible-believing and true to our living Christ, each issue demands a balance which says "no" to two opposite errors: we can neither compromise love in the name of holiness; nor can we compromise holiness in the name of love. Or to say it another way: the devil never gives us the luxury of fighting the battle on just one front.
In every generation God calls his people to show forth his love and holiness, to be faithful to him, and to stand against accommodation with the world's values of the day. In order to show forth God's love and holiness and to present the Good News to our generation in such a way that the message has viability, we must try in a balanced way not to fall into the "blue-jean" mistake of thinking that we are courageous and "being with it" when we are really only fitting into what is the accepted thought-form of the age around us.
We must admit we have not done well here. And I do not think that the evangelical leaders in positions of influence-in schools, in publishing, in other spheres of influence-have been helpful in these things. All too often, it seems to me that "being with it" simply has meant dealing with the current popular topics, but really not being in balanced but clear confrontation with them. This, of course, is in line with the spirit of relativism that dominates in our age. Since the prevailing world view teaches that the final reality is a silent universe which can give no value judgments, truth as final truth therefore does not exist. Thus, there can be various differences of personal opinions, but not the confrontation of truth versus error, as not only the Christians but also the classical philosophers and thinkers of the past believed to be the case. We are left with no basis for saying something is right or wrong. Thus when confronting the crucial issues of the day, the prevailing world view teaches that there is neither right nor wrong, only personal opinion. Relativism rules, and we are surrounded by a spirit of accommodation.
"Don't Rock the Boat"
The matter of human life is a good case in point. "I am personally against abortion, but...." with any number of qualifications added-this became the mediating phrase not only of Christians in government, but also of many in the pulpit and in publications as well. The end result is the same as moral relativism; the issue of abortion is reduced to a personal opinion which has no relationship to the way one lives one's life in the world. In the mid1970s when Dr. C. Everett Koop, Franky Schaeffer, and I began to work on the project Whatever Happened to the Human Race? there were in fact so few Protestants involved that the battle was being lost simply by its being called a Roman Catholic issue. Why were there so few Protestants involved? The mistaken pietists thought battles in the area of government were "unspiritual"; the other stream had acquired the habit of accommodation and it would have meant "rocking the boat" badly to take a clear stand. Happily more are committed now, but still the damage has been done. If voices had been clearly raised in confrontation when abortion and the general lowering of the view of human life began to be openly advocated, the original flood of these concepts in all probability could not have prevailed and the Roe v. Wade ruling by the Supreme Court might never have been made. And if the heat had been kept on by Christian leaders and publications, the Christians who are in Congress would not have found it so convenient to say they were personally against abortion, but then, for example, vote against limitations on government funding of abortions.
It is ironic that so many who were opposed to Christianity's being shut up to a removed and isolated spirituality by a poor pietism now have by a process of accommodation ended up just as silently on all those issues which go against the current commonly accepted thought-forms. It is so easy to be radical in wearing blue jeans when it fits into a general wearing of blue jeans.
Truth really does bring forth confrontation-loving confrontation, but confrontation-whether it is in regard to those who take a lower view of the Scriptures than both the original users of the terms "fundamentalist" and "evangelical" took, or in regard to holding a lower view of human life. This lowering of the view of human life may begin with talking about extreme cases in regard to abortion, but it flows on to infanticide and on to all of human life being open to arbitrary, pragmatic judgments of what human life is worthy to be lived-including your human life when you become a burden to society.
In the preceding chapter I quoted from a letter from a Christian leader which tied the issue of Scripture and abortion. I would stress again what I said there-that on the basis of what the word evangelical originally meant in regard to Scripture, we must be willing in love to draw a line in regard to those who take a lowered view of Scripture. On the basis of the original term evangelical, they are false evangelicals. Not to do so is accommodation to the world's spirit about us at a crucial point which will eventually carry everything else down with it.
But the same principle applies equally in the crucial issues of human life. A lowered view of life and a lowered view of Scripture go hand-in-hand. The watershed issue is obedience to the Bible just as much as it is belief in the doctrine of inerrancy. Since the Bible teaches that life in the womb is human life, one cannot accept abortion without denying the authority and truth of Scripture in practice. In drawing or not drawing a line on the issue of Scripture, and indeed in regard to human life, the evangelical establishment has also produced little or no leadership. Most of the time they seem to understand nothing in regard to the real issue involved. Either from a false practice of pietism or a fear of rocking their own boat, they have not been evident in the fray at this crucial point of the question of human life. Or if at all, they have come very late into the battle.
The Real Issue
It is curious how the world often seems to understand these issues better than most Christians and Christian leaders. For example, a recent essay in Time magazine entitled "Thinking Animal Thoughts" spells out the real issue. In discussing "animal rights," Time tries to discover whether or not there is really any difference between animal life and human life:
If human beings assume that they were created in the image of God, it is not difficult for them to see the vast and qualitative distance between themselves and the lesser orders of creation. The Bible teaches that man has dominion over the fish of the sea, the fowl of the air, the cattle and every creeping thing. Perhaps the rise of the animal rights movement is a symptom of a more secular and self-doubting spirit....
The human difference is known, to some, as the immortal soul, an absolute distinction belonging to man and woman alone, not to the animal. The soul is the human pedigree-and presumably the dispensation to slay and eat any inferior life that crosses the path. But in a secular sense how is human life different from animal life? Intelligence? Some pygmy chimps and even lesser creatures are as intelligent as, say, a severely retarded child; if it is not permissible to kill a retarded child, why kill the animals?3
Thus Time points out that when we take away the biblical teaching that God is the final reality and that God created man uniquely in his own image, then man as man has no intrinsic value. In a secular sense, human life is no different from animal life. Or in other words, when one accepts the secular world view that the final reality is only material or energy shaped by chance, then human life is lowered to the level of animal existence. There are only two classifications-nonlife and life. And if one thinks of human life as basically no different from animal life, why not treat people the same way? It would only be religious nostalgia to do otherwise. And so it first becomes easy to kill children in the womb, and then if one does not like the way they turn out, to kill children after they are born. And then it goes on to the euthanasia of anyone who becomes a burden or inconvenience. After all, according to the secular world view, human life is not intrinsically different from animal life-so why should it be treated differently?
One would have wished the Christian press and Christian leaders would have had the same comprehension as Time and seen these implications. But on the few occasions when secularism and secular humanism have been dealt with, has the Christian press exposed the real implications of this world view? One Christian magazine came out with the conclusion that the concern over secular humanism and its resulting impact on society was only a bogeyman.4 Rightly defined, secular humanism-or humanism, or secularism, or whatever name you may wish to use-is no bogeyman; it is a vicious enemy. Here again balance is important by means of careful definition. The word humanism is not to be confused with humanitarianism, nor with the word humanities.5 But humanism is the defiant denial of the God who is there, with Man defiantly set up in the place of God as the measure of all things. For if the final reality is only material or energy which has existed forever and has its present form only by chance, then there is no one but finite man to set purely relative values and a purely relativistic base for law and government. This is no bogeyman! It stands totally against all that the original fundamentalists stood for, and totally against what the original meaning of evangelical stood for, and totally against all that the Bible stands for. How could any Christian be so foolish as not to see that this "bogeyman" guarantees destruction to the individual in the life to come, and in the present life as well?
Religious Mumbo Jumbo
Do you realize what the implications of this are? Do you really understand that the biblical view of man and the secularist view are a total antithesis-and as such, they result in a totally conflicting view of human life, with totally different consequences? The secular world understands this, as can be seen clearly in the comments of Dr. Peter Singer. Writing in the prestigious medical journal Pediatrics, Dr. Singer explains:
The ethical outlook that holds human life to be sacrosanct-1 shall call it the "sanctity-of-life view"-is under attack. The first major blow to the sanctity-oflife view was the spreading acceptance of abortion throughout the Western world. Supporters of the sanctity-of-life view have pointed out that some premature babies are less developed than some of the fetuses that are killed in late abortions. They add, very plausibly, that the location of the fetus/infant-inside or outside the womb-cannot make a crucial difference to its moral status. Allowing abortions, especially these late abortions, therefore does seem to breach our defense of the allegedly universal sanctity of innocent human life.
A second blow to the sanctity-of-life view has been the revelation that it is standard practice in many major public hospitals to refrain from providing necessary life-saving treatment to certain patients... .
Is the erosion of the sanctity-of-life view really so alarming? Change is often, in itself, alarming, especially change in something that for centuries has been spoken of in such hushed tones that to question it is automatically to commit sacrilege... .
Whatever the future holds, it is likely to prove impossible to restore in full the sanctity-of-life view. The philosophical foundations of this view have been knocked asunder. We can no longer base our ethics on the idea that human beings are a special form of creation, made in the image of God, singled out from all other animals, and alone possessing an immortal soul. Our better understanding of our own nature has bridged the gulf that was once thought to lie between ourselves and other species, so why should we believe that the mere fact that a being is a member of the species Homo sapiens endows its life with some unique, almost infinite, value?
Once the religious mumbo jumbo surrounding the term "human" has been stripped away, we may continue to see normal members of our species as possessing greater capacities of rationality, self-consciousness, communication, and so on, than members of any other species, but we will not regard as sacrosanct the life of each and every member of our species, no matter how limited its capacity for intelligent or even conscious life may be. If we compare a severely defective human infant with a nonhuman animal, a dog or a pig, for example, we will often find the nonhuman to have superior capacities, both actual and potential, for rationality, self-consciousness, communication, and anything else that can plausibly be considered morally significant. Only the fact that the defective infant is a member of the species Homo sapiens leads it to be treated differently from the dog or pig. Species membership alone, however, is not morally relevant... .
If we can put aside the obsolete and erroneous notion of the sanctity of all human life, we may start to look at human life as it really is: at the quality of life that each human being has or can achieve. Then it will be possible to approach these difficult questions of life and death with the ethical sensitivity that each case demands, rather than with the blindness to indi vidual differences that is embodied in the Department of Health and Human Services' rigid instruction to disregard all handicaps when deciding whether to keep a child alive.6
Do you understand what you have just read? If you take away the biblical teaching of the sanctity of human life and of man created in the image of God (as Dr. Singer has shown so clearly), there is no final basis for placing value on human life. And this applies whether we are talking about the unborn or those who are already born. If human life can be taken before birth, there is no logical reason why it cannot be taken after birth. Thus the quality of life, arbitrarily judged by fallible and sinful people, becomes the standard for killing or not killing human lifewhether unborn, newly born, the rich, or the aged. But what then does this say about the handicapped now alive? Isn't their life wrongly and tragically devalued? There are people who will read this book who would be allowed to die under these criteria if they were born today.7
The question of human life truly is a watershed issue. Those who accept abortion try to conceal the horrible reality behind respectable language such as the "quality of life," or "the happiness and well-being of the mother," or "the need for every child to be wanted." Although such language may sound close to what the Bible teaches-that all human life is created in the image of God and as such has unique, intrinsic value-it results in the total devaluation of life. The unborn child is a human being created in the image of God, and to deny this is to deny the authority of the Bible. It is impossible to read Psalm 139 and truly believe what it says without realizing that life in the womb is human life. It is impossible to truly believe in the Incarnation and not realize that the child conceived in Mary by the power of the Holy Spirit was indeed the Son of God from the time of conception. If we truly believe the Bible, there is no question when human life begins. And to deny this is to deny the authority of the Bible.
But the question is not just abortion, as important as that is. Are we so blind not to see what is involved? It is human life as human life that is involved. Yet much of the evangelical world carries on business as usual, saying they are not for abortion except for this or that; or saying that we should not make an issue of this because it might be divisive; or saying we should not draw a line-even when millions of human lives are at stake. But if we are not willing to take a stand even for human life, is there anything for which we will stand?