The Truth War (28 page)

EVANGELICALS HAVE
EMBRACED COMPROMISE AS
A TOOL FOR CHURCH
GROWTH, A PLATFORM FOR
UNITY, AND EVEN A TEST OF
SPIRITUALITY. TAKE AN
UNCOMPROMISING STANCE
ON ALMOST ANY
DOCTRINAL OR BIBLICAL
ISSUE, AND A CHORUS OF
VOICES WILL CALL YOU
OBSTINATE, UNKIND,
HEARTLESS, CONTENTIOUS,
OR UNLOVING, NO MATTER
HOW IRONICALLY YOU
FRAME YOUR ARGUMENT.

But when it comes to biblical issues, moral principles, theological truth, divine revelation, and other spiritual absolutes, compromise is
never
appropriate.

The church, caught up in the spirit of the age, is losing sight of that reality. In recent years, evangelicals have embraced compromise as a tool for church growth, a platform for unity, and even a test of spirituality. Take an uncompromising stance on almost any doctrinal or biblical issue, and a chorus of voices will call you obstinate, unkind, heartless, contentious, or unloving, no matter how ironically you frame your argument.

Did I say “argument”? Many people have the false idea that Christians should never argue about anything. We're not supposed to engage in polemics. I hear this frequently: “Why don't you just state truth in positive terms and ignore the views you disagree with? Why not steer clear of controversy, forget the negatives, and present everything affirmatively?”

That ethos is why it is no longer permissible to deal with biblical issues in a straightforward and uncompromising fashion. Those who dare to take an unpopular stand, declare truth in a definitive way—or worst of all, express disagreement with someone else's teaching—will inevitably be marked as troublesome. Compromise has become a virtue while devotion to truth has become offensive.

Martyn Lloyd-Jones called the modern distrust of polemics “very loose and very false and very flabby thinking. . . . The attitude of many seems to be, ‘We do not want these arguments. Give us the simple message, the simple gospel. Give it to us positively, and do not bother about other views.'”
⁶
He responded to those sentiments: “It is important that we should realize that if we speak like that we are denying the Scriptures. The Scriptures are full of arguments, full of polemics.”
⁷
He went on:

Disapproval of polemics in the Christian Church is a very serious matter. But that is the attitude of the age in which we live. The prevailing idea today in many circles is not to bother about these things. As long as we are all Christians, anyhow, somehow, all is well. Do not let us argue about doctrine, let us all be Christians together and talk about the love of God. That is really the whole basis of ecumenicity. Unfortunately, that same attitude is creeping into evangelical circles also, and many say that we must not be too precise about these things .. . . If you hold that view you are criticizing the Apostle Paul, you are saying that he was wrong, and at the same time you are criticizing the Scriptures. The Scriptures argue and debate and dispute; they are full of polemics.
⁸

Then Lloyd-Jones added this helpful qualifier:

Let us be clear about what we mean. This is not argument for the sake of argument; this is not a manifestation of an argumentative spirit; this is not just indulging one's prejudices. The Scriptures do not approve of that, and furthermore the Scriptures are very concerned about the spirit in which one engages in discussion. No man should like argument for the sake of argument. We should always regret the necessity; but though we regret and bemoan it, when we feel that a vital matter is at stake we must engage in argument. We must “earnestly contend for the truth,” and we are called upon to do that by the New Testament.
⁹

Not every issue is cast in black and white. There are many questions to which Scripture does not explicitly speak. For example, there is no list of holidays and holy days for Christians to observe or avoid celebrating. The issue is explicitly left in the realm of indifferent matters by the apostle Paul: “One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind” (Romans 14:5). Paul says something similar about foods and dietary restrictions (vv. 2–3).

IN TRUTH, FAR MORE
ISSUES ARE BLACK AND
WHITE THAN MOST PEOPLE
REALIZE. MOST OF THE
TRUTHS OF GOD'S
WORD ARE EXPLICITLY
CONTRASTED WITH
OPPOSING IDEAS. JAY
ADAMS CALLS THIS THE
PRINCIPLE OF
antithes
IS,
AND HE POINTS OUT THAT
IT IS FUNDAMENTAL TO
GENUINE DISCERNMENT.

But many of the issues being compromised within the evangelical movement today are not questionable. Scripture speaks very clearly against homosexuality, for example. The Christian position on adultery is not at all vague. The question of whether a believer ought to marry an unbeliever is spelled out with perfect clarity. Scripture quite plainly forbids any Christian to take another Christian to court. Selfishness and pride are explicitly identified as sins. These are not gray areas. There is no room for compromise here.

Nevertheless, I constantly hear every one of those issues treated as a gray area—on Christian radio, on Christian television, and in Christian literature. People want all such matters to be negotiable. And too many Christian leaders willingly oblige. They hesitate to speak with authority on matters where Scripture is plain. The lines of distinction between truth and error, wisdom and foolishness, church and world are being systematically obliterated by such means.

In truth, far more issues are black and white than most people realize. Most of the truths of God's Word are explicitly contrasted with opposing ideas. Jay Adams calls this the principle of
antithesis
, and he points out that it is fundamental to genuine discernment:

In the Bible, where antithesis is so important, discernment—the ability to distinguish God's thoughts and God's ways from all others—is essential. Indeed, God says that “the wise in heart will be called discerning” (Proverbs 16:21).

From the Garden of Eden with its two trees (one allowed, one for-bidden) to the eternal destiny of the human being in heaven or in hell, the Bible sets forth two, and only two, ways: God's way, and all others. Accordingly, people are said to be saved or lost. They belong to God's people or the world. There was Gerizim, the mount of blessing, and Ebal, the mount of cursing. There is the narrow way and the wide way, leading either to eternal life or to destruction. There are those who are against and those who are with us, those within and those without. There is life and death, truth and falsehood, good and bad, light and darkness, the kingdom of God and the kingdom of Satan, love and hatred, spiritual wisdom and the wisdom of the world. Christ is said to be the way, the truth, and the life, and no one may come to the Father but by Him. His is the only name under the sky by which one may be saved.
¹⁰

Adams points out that such antithetical teaching is found “on nearly every page of the Bible.”
¹¹
“People who study the Bible in depth develop antithetical mindsets: They think in terms of contrasts or opposites.”
¹²
He believes that the Old Testament laws distinguishing between clean and unclean animals have a distinct purpose.Regulations governing choices in clothing, health care, and other matters of daily life were not arbitrary, but were meant to cause God's people to think constantly about the difference between God's ways and the world's way—“to develop in God's people an antithetical mentality.”
¹³

I agree. All truth sets itself against error. Where Scripture speaks, it speaks with authority. It speaks definitively. It speaks decisively. It calls for absolute conviction. It demands that we submit to God and resist the devil (James 4:7). It urges us to discern between the spirit of truth and the spirit of error (1 John 4:6). It commands us to turn away from evil and do good (1 Peter 3:11). It bids us reject the broad way that seems right to the human mind (Proverbs 14:12; 16:25) and follow the narrow way prescribed by God (Matthew 7:13–14). It tells us that our ways are not God's ways nor our thoughts His thoughts (Isaiah 55:8). It orders us to protect the truth and reject lies (Romans 1:25). It declares that no lie is of the truth (1 John 2:21). It guarantees that the righteous shall be blessed and the wicked perish (Psalm 1:1, 6). And it reminds us that “friendship with the world is enmity with God. Whoever therefore wants to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God” (James 4:4).

Discernment demands that where Scripture speaks with clarity, a hard line must be drawn. Christ is against human philosophy, against empty deception, against human tradition, and against the elementary principles of this world (Colossians 2:8). Those things cannot be integrated with true Christian belief; they must be repudiated and steadfastly resisted. Scripture demands that we make a definitive choice: “How long will you falter between two opinions? If the LORD is God, follow Him; but if Baal, follow him” (1 Kings 18:21). “Choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve. . . . But as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD” (Joshua 24:15).

The modern canonization of compromise represents a detour down a dead-end alley. Both Scripture and church history reveal the danger of compromising biblical truth. Those whom God uses are invariably men and women who swim against the tide. They hold strong convictions with great courage and refuse to compromise in the face of incredible opposition. David stubbornly refused to tremble before Goliath; he saw him as an affront to God. While all Israel cowered in fear, David stood alone before the enemy.

Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego all courageously refused the easy path of compromise. It surely would have cost them their lives if God had not sovereignly intervened. Yet they never wavered.

Where are the men and women today with the courage to stand alone? The church in our age has abandoned the confrontive stance. Instead of overturning worldly wisdom with revealed truth, many Christians today are obsessed with finding areas of agreement. The goal has become
integration
rather than
confrontation.
As the church absorbs the values of secular culture, it is losing its ability to differentiate between good and evil. What will happen to the church if everyone proceeds down the slippery path of public opinion?

It is interesting to speculate what the church would be like today if Martin Luther had been prone to compromise. The pressure was heavy on him to tone down his teaching, soften his message, and stop poking his finger in the eye of the papacy. Even many of his friends and supporters urged Luther to come to terms with Rome for the sake of harmony in the church. Luther himself prayed earnestly that the effect of his teaching would not just be divisive—but that the truth would triumph. When he nailed his Ninety-five Theses to the church door, the last thing he wanted to do was split the church.

Yet sometimes division is fitting, even healthy. Especially in times like Luther's—and like ours—when the visible church seems full of counterfeit Christians, it is right for the true people of God to declare themselves. There is no room for compromise.

Discernment demands that we hold biblical convictions with the most fervent tenacity. Titus 1:9 says a basic requirement for every elder is that he be the kind of man who “[holds] fast the faithful word as he has been taught, that he may be able, by sound doctrine, both to exhort and convict those who contradict.” It is thus mandated by God that we take issue with error. We must refute those who contradict, or we do not fulfill our divine calling.

In other words, truly biblical ministry must hold forth truths that are absolute. We must take an unmovable stance on all issues where the Bible speaks plainly. What if people don't like such dogmatism? It is necessary anyway.

Sound doctrine divides, confronts, separates, judges, convicts, reproves, rebukes, exhorts, and refutes error. None of these things is very highly esteemed in postmodern thought. But the health of the church depends on our holding firmly to the truth, for where strong convictions are not tolerated, discernment cannot survive.

A REFUSAL TO SHUN THE WORLD

We have already hinted at another factor contributing to the decline of discernment in the contemporary church. It is a preoccupation with image and influence. It stems from the misconception that to win the world to Christ we must first win the world's favor. If we can get the world to like us, they will embrace our Savior. That has long been the philosophy of seeker-sensitive churches. It is also one of the driving assumptions of the Emerging Church movement.

IF THE TRUTH CANNOT
BE FEARLESSLY PROCLAIMED
IN THE CHURCH,
WHAT PLACE IS THERE
FOR TRUTH AT ALL?
HOW CAN WE BUILD A
GENERATION OF
DISCERNING CHRISTIANS
IF WE ARE TERROR-STRUCK
AT THE THOUGHT THAT
NON-CHRISTIANS MIGHT
NOT LIKE HEARING THE
UNVARNISHED TRUTH?

Such a philosophy suggests that Christians should try to make unconverted sinners feel comfortable with the Christian message. The whole point is to make the church a completely nonthreatening place where unbelievers feel they naturally belong—to tantalize nonChristians rather than confront their unbelief; to make friends with the world rather than standing apart. That all sounds very nice, warm, and friendly to people with postmodern sensibilities, but it is not the strategy for evangelism we are given in Scripture. In fact, it is altogether incompatible with sound doctrine. It is a form of compromise with the world. James called it spiritual adultery (James 4:4).

And look at the effects of this strategy. In the seeker movement, preaching has been replaced with entertainment. In the Emerging Church movement, truth itself has given way to skepticism. In both movements, any preacher who tries to take a stand for truth and make the biblical message clear is likely to be asked to take his seat instead. He is a problem, an embarrassment, an offense to non-Christians.

If the truth cannot be fearlessly proclaimed in the church, what place is there for truth at all? How can we build a generation of discerning Christians if we are terror-struck at the thought that non-Christians might not like hearing the unvarnished truth?