While reading Henry M. Morris’ The Long War Against God, I was struck by this quote of Frederick Gregory:
The theological reconcilers appeared in at least three guises. Some believed that importing evolution into theology, while it would change some things, would not so alter orthodox thought that it would become unrecognizable. Others felt less concern about conserving the traditional expressions of Christianity than about reformulating Christian doctrine in a manner in tune with the times. Still others made evolution the very cornerstone of their theological perspective. All three adjusted Biblical chronology as needed and preserved some form of an argument from design; but where the first faction gave the appearance of being forced into such reconciliation, the latter two reveled in the newfound opportunity to revitalize doctrines that were beginning to tax the loyalty of modern Christians. [Gregory, "The Impact of Darwinian Evolution on Protestant Theology in the Nineteenth Century," in God and Nature: Historical Essays on the Encounter between Christianity and Science, David C. Lindberg and Ronald L. Numbers eds. (Berkley:University of California Press, 1986), p. 379]1
I hear in our day a haunting echo from this quote. In what was once needing to be fought in the early days of Darwin’s writing–and is still needing to be spoken against today, we instead find too many Christians, and Christian leaders, who were willing to acquiesce to the new world view of their day. Today, although the challenge of evolutionary theory persists, we are faced with an equally challenging paradigm shift into a new, popular world view: Post-modernism.
Post-modern thinking is an undeniable reality. Such was the new Darwinism of the 1800s. In both cases God’s people in His churches are called to respond and faithfully carry-out the Great Commission we have received from our Lord. The issue for us is this: how are we to fulfill our commission in the face of such challenges. Unfortunately, many of the Christians in Darwin’s day chose apathy, acquiescence, or adoration to this new, God-less world view.
Today, we have those who would reformulate biblical doctrine for the sake of communicating the faith to a lost generation. In this camp we find that group of ‘emergent’ and even liberal believers. Ones like Brian McLaren and Doug Pagitt…who also sound like the ‘Bishop’ Carlton Pearson, who although he does not believe in the devil or the need for the crucifixion or resurrection anymore, still thinks he can call himself a Christian. Such also is Dr. John Killinger. They glory in the fact that they can so easily redefine and reformulate what it means to be a Christian without any regard for a consistent biblical hermeneutic. These start from post-modernism as the “very cornerstone of their theological perspective,” and castigate those who would hold to the time-honored biblical world view. Others want to ‘baptize’ this new world view in Christian nuances and verbage while actually committing the very same compromise the first group undertakes.
The more dangerous groups involve those who will ”give the appearance of being forced into such reconciliation” and those who turn apathetically away from engaging this issue and the challenges presented to the Gospel. Some of those ‘reluctant’ reconcilers fit within the Mark Driscoll/Acts 29 camp. I must say that I applaud Driscoll for his stance in the recent Satan Debate televised on ABC’s “Nightline.” His assertions were right on the money. The reason I feel that he fits into the dangerous group of the ‘reluctants’ is in his approach to a more crass and worldly-centered style of ministry (For further insight on my position here, see this post here). I pray that he continues his distancing from the errors found within the emergent and emerging ‘movements’ in Christianity. The others are those who refuse to deal with the obvious challenges posed by this very real trend in thinking in our world. Those who chose to ignore the evolutionary theory of a by-gone day have left us with the likes of Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, and Sam Harris. If we will not stand up for the word of God, the timeless, culture-crossing, changeless revelation of God to man, we will lose our identity…we will become savor-less salt.
The bottom line is this…
“For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven and do not return there but water the earth, making it bring forth and sprout, giving seed to the sower and bread to the eater,so shall my word be that goes out from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it.” [Isaiah 55:10-11]
“Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.” [Matthew 24:35]
We must engage the world in which we live with this truth. Not change it to fit this world!! Not ignore it or repudiate it in order to be accepted by the masses. If missional means we cease to be convictional then we cease to be able to hold the exclusive claims of Scripture, the greatest of which are found…
“For God so loved the world,that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.” [John 3:16]
“Jesus said to him, ‘I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” [John 14:6]
“And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.” [Acts 4:12]
______________________
1Morris, Henry M., The Long War Against God (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1989), p. 96.
SOLA GRATIA!
[Join me at my blog, Sola Gratia! (http://sagordon.blogspot.com) for discussion of this post]
