W W W W  World Wide Web Witness Inc.  Home Page   Contents Page for Volume  What is New

In common ? Something ? How ? Just this. Statism (cf. Index, The Shadow of a Mighty Rock) tends to take the word of God and cast it with iron inflexibility or arrant disregard, onto the nearest rock. This it does, instead of treating it as a rock, and standing on it. The word of God however does not break, but they are broken. That is history.

Neo-evangelicism for its part, takes the word of God and puts it in a shrine of remembrance, and makes expeditions to it, and honours it, as they honour the war dead. Dead ? Yes, but in this respect for them, is it honoured. It is no longer to be obeyed in all things, but honoured in all things, except where there is any strictly or obviously  necessary action. It can be honoured in the breach rather than in the observance. It can be honoured as sacrosanct to the point it need not be taken seriously, in practice.
You can say that sociological things have changed, so that what the all-knowing God said with all wisdom for all time, is not actually applicable even if it be a commandment for life, or a directive  without qualification for the moral condition, the spiritual calibre, ecclesiastical criteria or the nature of obedience to the word of God; and you qualify the commandment of the master-builder (I Cor. 3, Ephesians 2:20-22), or the words of Christ, as if God had forgotten how conditioning this vast apparatus of humanity is, and has to be given lessons on conformism, and how to win souls.

In effect, since His word is in so much and so often disobeyed in this camp, that is precisely what is being done. He is however no good pupil when wisdom is thought to reside in the thoughts of men (Isaiah 55:8-10). His wisdom can penetrate through to us, but not our spectacular grandeur of thought, to Him. The mouse roars in vain.

There is quite a series of weapons which can be used to have the mouse roar. They do not of course work, and the result is ludicrous, but there it is.

You can say that psychological things have changed, or need to be taken in the light of the latest research, or that practical deployments of words and body-language in communications technology has now taught us what is more productive and less likely to be marginalised. You can teach that the counter-culture character of having no female elders (cf. A Spiritual Potpourri, Chs. 10-11) for example is so counter-productive in aggregating pleasant people into pleasant churches that it is simply not worth it.
'We are here to preach the gospel,' (part 1 of Christ's command in Matthew 28:19-20), 'not to teach the commandments, well, not at least to teach that they must be DONE!' (albeit, this IS part 2 of Christ's command as there recorded).

Such is the implicit way of it, which becomes explicit in conduct. Divide and conquer ? Alas THIS is divide and BE conquered, for what it is being dividing, wrongly and intrusively, is nothing less than the word of God!

Yes, quoth the prophet of mildew (Matthew 24:24, II Timothy 3), the current culture is not susceptible to this approach or that, not aligned to what is to be found in the word of God (still retains its title for them), and it is better altered. So they opine. It may even be more blatant than this: you will lose pew-sitters, popularity or 'relevance', which last, presumably nice points of contact with this world, implies sanctity. It is true sanctity will be lost, and thus such an approach should not put its mould into the bread. Mildewy bread still looks like bread, it is just that it is infected. The mould spreads swiftly into things moral, ecclesiastical and spiritual.

Indeed they may be more subtle and instead of that, say rather its essential force or thought or drift in the word of God, or even what it was moving towards is now to be interpreted somewhat differently, and it may be added, that if God had only known how bright (as in Kosovo ?) we would become, He would have said it differently, or if He had foreseen ... and so it goes. So should many, if NOT neo-evangelical GO from the midst of such muddle and presumption (Romans 16:17, Titus 3:10 and see Separation in and for Christ, Ch. 7 in The Kingdom of Heaven). Divorce of divine wisdom is in process: in theory. In practice, this merely follows the predicted line that was applicable in the Old Testament time (Isaiah 29:13), and was to come again (II Peter 2:1-3, II Timothy 3:1-5), and dabbles here and there in the list of things to be.

God and His mouth are to be divorced, so that some sort of a theistic enormity is created by this exotic plastic surgery. However if there is one thing the Bible makes clear other than the deity of Christ and His ransom for sinners, His bodily resurrection, virgin birth, His plan of salvation and world plans, it is this: that THE MOUTH OF THE LORD HAS SPOKEN IT! (cf. Isaiah 40:5). It thunders through the word of God. The signature is distinct, contradistinct (Isaiah 48). Woe to those who do not heed. Christ in the flesh was apt and agile to conform to THIS WORD (Matthew 4:4), and to specify that love, properly so-called, obeys the word of God.

"IF," says Paul, "any man thinks himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things I say are the commandments of the Lord" -  (I Corinthians 14:37); and as to the genesis of these words (II Peter 1:19-21 give exposition place), it is as divinely directive as is the incorruptibility of the same, divinely secured (I Peter 1:22-25). You do not have to follow the cultural idiosyncrasies of any age, and can use your own intelligence as to the propriety of following an example in its historical habiliments; but when God orders, you do not disobey, if you would build your house on a rock (Matthew 7:21-26). God does not speak for the sake of mockery or inanity: it is for our instruction in righteousness. Mary had it right: Whatever He says to you, do it! (John 2:5). Indeed what did the Lord say ? "WHO is my mother? and who are my brothers?  .... WHOSOEVER shall do the will of my Father, who is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother." (Matthew 12:48-50; cf. John 7:17). And where is that will definitively written for mankind ? Matthew 4:4 shows it: Man is to live by "EVERY WORD WHICH PROCEEDS OUT OF THE MOUTH OF GOD!" Hence Revelation's last verses speak in no lax way of the licence of adding to those THINGS or subtracting from those WORDS (Rev. 22:18-19). Moses did the same in the Old Covenant (Deuteronomy chs.4,12, cf. 4:7-8).

To educate God is highly presumptuous. To assume He is behind the times is ludicrously childish, monumentally portentous. The lacerations of such pride of flesh on the generation of our time is vast, like that of the atomic bomb, and far more destructive; for it defiles the fingers and ruins the minds of those who use such things! The grass and flower passes, says Peter, but the word of God endures forever (I Peter 1:23-25), incorruptible. Blessed are they who DO His commandments, says the Psalmist; HERE is a good understanding (Psalm 111:10).
 
 

So the neo-evangelical presumption is like the Statist assumption in this: the ONE liberates from the word of God by casting it away, as if to smash it; and the other liberates from the word of God by honouring it in word, but not in deed, when the issues are drawn, and the requirements of the day suggest that this is "best". Each walks in its own way, the one utterly, the other selectively, but each with a licence after the desires of its own heart.

God is even prepared to curse presumptuous blessings, when His name is dishonoured (Malachi 2:1-4), while on the other hand,  appropriate power is provided for the works of obedience (Acts 5:12), exalting the Lord and executing His will by faith.  Without that faith, one does not even please God, indeed cannot: (Hebrews 11:6): and this shows why there is that disease found in certain individuals and churches, spiritual neurasthenia! Of course you cannot do all things through Christ who strengthens you, as Paul declared for his part (Philippians 4:13, Psalm 68:18 - for remedy see Psalm 32, and Psalm 68:18), when your horses are hobbled with unholy cuts to the commandments, not merely as weaknesses, abrasions, but as severances, things done amiss, even by POLICY!

‘In an imperfect world, who can set himself/herself actually to keep the commandments!’ they say. FAITH does not join this chorus; for while we are all sinners, we need not settle into known sin, or luxuriate in its enfolding embrace, weak in faith and impudent in attitude so someone called ‘My Lord!’ (cf. Luke 6:46). One Uniting Church body put up something like this: A Christian is a sinner, but one with a friend in heaven. That is only part of it: the Christian has the power of God also on earth, and as to a friend, let him act like it! Proverbs 17:17 tells us that  ‘friend loves at all times’, and the kiss of betrayal does little to make the arrangements of words and deeds in divorce, anything more pleasant! Remember the dealings in darkness at Gethsemane…

What makes the neo-evangelical lesion so much worse is this: it DOES IT whilst mouthing honour to the Lord and His word: "  ...this people draw near Me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour Me, but they have removed their heart far from Me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men..." (Isaiah 29:13, cf. Matthew 15:8-9).

It degrades while it honours. Did not Isaiah have it from the start (Ch.1), and did not our Lord expose it as He neared the Cross which is the real exhibition of the meaning of  carrying out the word of God regardless of culture and convention of men: it is a meaning that is practical, and through Him, and from Him, was redemption for those who are of Him; for the need of mankind is not clever speciousness but faith and the salvation by grace, and love, and hence the living in obedience.

And is obedience NON-LIFE ? is it a thing to be despised as unworthy of that grasping grandeur which some might seem to practise even when in some spurious way, they would name the name of Christ; or is reverence really de-humanising ? Rather, is not life so noble and profound, that even in the midst of the provisions of authority, there is a liberty almost overpowering in its intensity (II Cor. 3:17) ? a liberty in love, a liberality in truth. There is complete liberty to be made more like Christ as seen in the II Cor. 3:18, the very next verse. There is indeed joy unspeakable, in the source of Life, in Jesus Christ the Lord (I Peter 1:8). That He should redeem what He first created, even ALL who come to Him as Redeemer and Lord by faith, this is nobility and majesty, this is glory and triumph, this makes ‘neo- ‘ at once archaic, and change destitution.

What makes the neo-evangelical lesion so much worse is this: it DOES IT whilst mouthing honour to the Lord and His word: "  ...this people draw near Me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour Me, but they have removed their heart far from Me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men..." (Isaiah 29:13, cf. Matthew 15:8-9).

It degrades while it honours. Did not Isaiah have it from the start, and did not our Lord expose it as He neared the Cross which is the real exhibition of the meaning of  carrying out the word of God regardless of culture and convention of men: it is a meaning that is practical, and through Him, and from Him, was redemption for those who are of Him; for the need of mankind is not clever speciousness but faith and the salvation by grace, and love, and hence the living in obedience.

And is obedience NON-LIFE, or is reverence de-humanising ? Is not life so noble and profound, that even in the midst of the provisions of authority, there is a liberty almost overpowering in its intensity ?
a liberty in love, a liberality in truth. There is joy unspeakable, in the source of Life, in Jesus Christ the Lord (I Peter 1:8). That He should redeem what He first created, even ALL who come to Him as Redeemer and Lord by faith, this is nobility and majesty, this is glory and triumph, this makes ‘neo- ‘ at once archaic, and change destitution.
 

Notes:

1) See -

on approaches to obedience and laxity:

The Biblical Workman 5, and  8, esp. End-note 2, together  with Appendix 1,  at 7: Mobility of Faith;

Barbs, Arrows and Balms 30, 24, 13, Appendix IV; Repent or Perish 5, BB 3, 9, Appendix 2,  3;
on Statism - see Babylon  in Index.

2) ROME is one of the axes of this neo-evangelical movement (nem) ,and that ?
 

• Slithering up to it, dithering up to it, wallowing in jointness with it, having fellowship with it, working with it, calling Rome's anti-gospel harassment of the faith, which denounces the belief in Christ as giving justification through His merits alone - the SAME Gospel, or the Gospel:

 
• all this is the height of it, though not the end of it (cf. Council of Trent, Ch.XV1, Canons IX-XII, see The Shadow of a Mighty Rock. pp. 1045ff.).

 
• Thus has this 'nem', almost like a nemesis for so much, thus has it done.

The NCC, with Rome in full fellowship, brings shame to its members, implicitly or explicitly denies the validity of the Reformation, temporises and relativises. Many join it. One does not have to agree with any  given body, in order to accept it as a co-worker in the faith, a co-church in Christ. Yet when one agrees to have such fellowship with it as in one body, the substance of the gospel is agreed in deed as also often enough, in word. It is THAT which is betrayal of the word of God, nothing new in itself, but relatively new in what might normally have been called, the evangelical church. It is now in danger of becoming the even jelly approach, rather than an evangelical one, shimmering in presence of darkness, as if light were inopportune.

For the reality of Rome, see The Shadow of a Mighty Rock, Ch.10, esp. pp. 1032-1088G. Biblically assessed, it is not subject to doubt or contention, having shown its face quite categorically, now as before, in its adhesion to its doctrinal works of the past quite clearly. You may care to inspect pp. 1032ff., 1042, and 1088Bff., in particular.
 
 

Caesar, the State, is prone to pronounce with power, and with either vicious violence or subtle pressure, to seek that conformity to his will. Thus, lately the construction of dams of public opinion on propaganda bases, becomes a manoeuvre which has the power of the release of these stored waters, when convenient to shame people into the shambles of conformity, when facts are distant and thought confused.

For God, much more, and not less determination is required. But NO subtlety of manipulation, NO force of arm and arms is required. What IS required is the confidence and the knowledge which belongs to an ambassador of the King of Kings and Lord of Lords. In neo-evangelicism, this is in many subtle ways, found to be as prone to evacuation as is the concept of doing what you are told. The development  fits: if the prince of peace need not be obeyed, neither need His word be given with the force of faith, but rather with the diplomatic posturings that are found becoming in this world.

What then IS the Biblical requirement in pronouncing the faith ?

It is apparent that a gentle, patient, longsuffering, teaching-stressing ministry is called for as to spirit, tenor and tone, in general. Likewise, as with a school class, or as with the progress of a patient from General Practitioner to surgeon, there is need as occasion arises and things develop or  mature, for a sharp admonition or reminder, exhortation, even rebuke with authority (as with the scalpel to the tumour!). All these things the word of God teaches (see I Timothy 2:23-26, II Timothy 4:2). There are phases in the ocean of God's love, there are reaches in the modes of deployment of His truth: but the preacher needs to be peaceable in disposition, however vigorous in confrontation with evil.

Paul in practice, shows, himself all these things in his work.

Thus Acts 13:8-12 shows the most vigorous and categorical rebuke - it would be hard to surpass it - to a religious counterfeit, at work in dissuading from the Gospel. The apostle's rebuke to this man was like a bull-dozer clearing the way for the interested party not to be diverted by mere counterfeit and fraud. It occurred in the midst of professing believers, and was directed to a professing believer. You see the possibilities again in I Cor. 4:20-21, and II Cor. 12:20-21 with 13:1-3.
 

• "Shall I come to you," says Paul in the first of these, "with a rod, or with love and a spirit of meekness?"

The "love" mentioned here by Paul is agaph, not caris; for the latter NEVER FAILS, whilst the perfect blessedness in the former would be seemingly suspended during discipline, bringing through the blue of wounds, the brightness of beauty thereafter, and thus agaph's consummation.

On another occasion, in Acts 16:17-19, Paul  showed complete disregard of social consequences when he was cunningly harassed in his work by the devil, even though the offence came in a seemingly flattering way.

II Timothy 4:2, for its part, not only authorises rebuke, but illustrates it the principle in practice, in II Timothy 4:13-17; whilst II Timothy 2:16-18 evidences Paul going yet further in dealing with erring churchmen. Peter and John likewise confront utterly the ruling religious junta (Acts 4:29ff, 4:19ff. - cf. Paul's exhortation in Philippians 1:28-30).

Jesus the Christ's own extreme exposure of scribes and Pharisees is perhaps the most acute, sharp and declamatory of all time.

One has even heard some of these new breed of 'evangelical' say, If Christ were here now He would be different. Rather say of the Christ who is the same today, yesterday, forever (Hebrews 13:8), that the One many would PERMIT to be here now, would be different! However when the One who IS there does return, He shall be just as He was and is to be, and His word of truth will err no more then than before, indeed the earth and heavens are to depart, as He said; but HIS WORDS ? NOT AT ALL (Matthew 24:35).
Not what is imagined, but what is written: this is what stands!

While we are dealing with this aspect, let us note a variable of neo-evangelicism, which, perhaps taking courage in its own undoubted popularity, goes a little further - though normally only by implication, one which however is of enormous significance. At times it will say this: "Show love by being where the people are who believe in the fundamentals, like virgin birth, resurrection, substitutionary atonement, deity and so on."

At first sight, it may sound as if this is a case where no 'rod' is necessary, to deliver the lambs from the wolves in sheep's clothing. But it is not so! THE OMISSION IS JUST ONE IN THE NORMAL LIST OFFERED HERE: namely that of THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE BIBLE AS THE WORD OF GOD.
It is this which gives sound definition.

Thus, to take a case, some may say, Do not worry about a church body with female elders. Have fellowship freely with such ! (my own former PCA Presbytery Clerk was TELLING me that body was doing JUST THIS, at the very Presbytery level!). But since the Bible explicitly condemns such authority and teaching necessities for eldership, being vested in the ladies of the congregation (A Spiritual Potpourri, Chs.10-11), this means that THE INFALLIBILITY OF SCRIPTURE IS SOMETHING THAT DOES NOT MATTER ENOUGH FOR IT TO BECOME A FELLOWSHIP ISSUE!

Here therefore, is that spurious teaching: While it is good to have an concept of an infallible word of God, if people abstract from whatever idea they have of the Bible, certain doctrines, this is sufficient.
The BIBLE itself, which is the place where ALL THE OTHER ISSUES are drawn, the basis itself in doctrine, it is not necessary for this to be  believed. Indeed, it can indeed be precisely countermanded by dear brethren whose fidelity and place in fellowship CANNOT in love be questioned! THAT is the doctrine implied. Thus false christs and spurious resurrections and mutated words can be brought in from the same imaginary source; but again, it is the word of God which is written, and by which sin is smitten, and virtue blessed.

This, then,  is the exquisite compromise: say a few nice sounding words, but don't worry about fidelity to the Bible.This can be broken and fellowship intact!  You have to draw out the fallacy, and then apply the word. It is not stated, merely implied. Thus does the slithery slope to ecclesiastical extinction follow its polluted path to doom! Rather there is a narrow way:

• "Be clean, you who bear the vessels of the Lord", "If they do not speak according to this word, it is because there is no light in them" (Isaiah 52:11, 8:20).

 
• Which word ? "the law and the prophets" - cf. Matthew 5:17-20.

 
• "If the foundations are destroyed, what can the righteous do!" (Psalm 11:3).

The emphasis however can never wisely surpass that of Christ: WHAT GOD HAS SAID, not merely what we have said about what He has said! Thus vigilance is at all times necessary, and rebuke, admonition, warning; for however the plane crashes, it is never wise to be off course and to dally with novelties. While some may become confused, and judgment is mercifully left to the Lord, whose purity and depth is infinite, yet there is no scope for formal church fellowship where basic doctrine is rejected by church leaders, elders and assemblies. "Teachers" are without excuse in this matter. (See Separation in and for Christ, Chapter 7 in The Kingdom of Heaven...)

Let us repeat: Jesus the Christ's own extreme exposure of scribes and Pharisees is perhaps the most acute, sharp and declamatory of all time. Now is the time to study examples! Look at Matthew 23, Luke 11:39-48, Mark 7:7; and this was to professing people in the Old Covenant setting, within what was the contemporary equivalent of the "church in the wilderness" (Acts 7:53): the covenant people, from a formal viewpoint, the people of God, though alas how far many of their hearts were to turn from Him (cf. Isaiah 29:13).

• "However in vain do they worship Me, teaching for doctrines, the commandments of men!" (Mark 7:7).

On the other side, the tender solicitude, not for wolves in sheep's clothing, deliciously feeding on the lambs, but for sheep needing service is just as extraordinary in its gentleness and succour as are the surgical incisions in their sharpness (Philippians 2:19-24, 1:23-24, I Thessalonians 2:7-12). And for tenderness, what acme is found in Matthew 23:37, which actually followed on from the denunciations just made by Christ! Rough waters do not occasion the same strokes of the oars, as do turmoiled ones. The object is the same, and often indeed do we see these steps: salvation offered, grace shown, action taken to stabilise the boat, realistic assessment of what is happening and the warning of judgment where folly rules.

While we ponder the acute rebuke, what more acrid than that of Jude, or II Peter 2!

Jude, in  1:1-3 (cf. News 43) likewise shows by word what example then attests, as he cites it: the necessity to fight wolves, separate fast from them (Cf. Titus 3:10) - for they have sharp teeth and lambs are tender. You do not "beware" of "wolves in sheep's clothing", to use Christ's own words, by having them in your midst (Matthew 7:15-16)! You do not fight wolves with poodles. Nor do you alert with dumb mouths (cf. Isaiah 56:10-12).

The genteel surrender of the faith - as by collaborating with Rome and other eccentric departures from the Biblical faith (cf. Separation, Ch. 7 in The Kingdom of Heaven), for which neo-orthodoxy is famous, buttressed by the specious rejection of the whole surgical element of pastoral duty, the divorce of rebuke from the purity and discipline of the way of salvation, the suppression of warning and neglect of the duties of 'watchman' in all Biblical fidelity and grace, but with all understanding of the significance of the work for the flock (Ezekiel 18): these things stand out like neon-signs on the highways. They evidence  an appalling riot of rottenness, decaying members falling on others, the structure burdened and unclean, tottering and awaiting its de-authorising as a body for the truth (cf. Revelation 2:16,23, and 2:5!). Many and various, as we see from these verses in Revelation, are the divine sanctions against such laxity and pollution.

From this, then, as from Statism, which has its own suppressions and destructions, fantasies and laxities, unholy rigours in the wrong directions, its own reasons, as is the norm for Caesar-idolatry, the Christian must speedily turn.

It will cost. Does not taking up your Cross then cost ? But then, duty does. Has not the would-be discipline of Jesus the Christ already counted the cost ? (Luke 14:26-33).  It will lose friends. But HIS friendship surpasses all those (John 15:14). He is better and more reliable, truer, indeed the truth, more peaceable, purer, more loving, more knowing: and what! What would you expect of God in human format, from Jesus the Christ!

What then is the essence of Statism ? That there is something absolutely necessary, namely the State, and its survival/glory/power. This, in replacing God operationally (whatever may be said in theory, which is often quite different), constitutes the IDOL.

What is the essence of neo-evangelicism ? That there is something operationally inevitable, wholly necessary: and that ? The church's survival/glory/power/statistics as a spectacle in this world. This, in replacing the word of God, in practice, whatever may be said in theory, constitutes the IDOL.

To what, then, does each lead ?

The one to the human unkindness of alienation from godliness and rank power that is a disgrace to God, a formal felony against man and a highway to destruction, often enforced.

The other ? for the deluded  the soul, it is a  shattering vacuity which implodes, like a vacuum tugging at the exterior of some unfortunate box; it is an emptiness that, long lived with, tends to crush all strength, despoiling, destroying. Again, it is like a mouth full of words and a life that does not trust, and cannot, because its mainspring is doing for God what He (it is implicitly assumed) CANNOT do, so making sure it will happen. Artful devices must do this, since faith having failed, man-made muscled might must act.

So it goes, and where it goes is scarcely worth thinking about. Its alliances therefore come to be with alternate power structures, such as that of Rome, and its way inclusivistic of any forbidden way, to gains its unenviable ends. The net effect is synthesis of good and evil, obedience and rebellion, fair words and foul deeds (cf. Romans 16:17ff.), kindness and calamity, a merger that puts a goat's head on a sheep's body which, however bulky, is of service neither to God nor to man. This is its trend and its defilement.

The body of Christ is thus neglected, the shining testimony of truth in love, and a faithless betrayal paganises holy words, making of their mouthing, a mockery, and of their authority, a denial (Isaiah 29:13). Babylon is appeased.
 

NOTE

*1
It is true that verbally, evangelical yields evangelicalism yields neo-evangelicalism, which is a clumsy mouthful. Cynic yields cynical yields cynicalism ? No it is shortened to cynicism. That is the geometry of it, at least. So here, I prefer this, but add the note lest it offend anyone, or even just conceivably, confuse!