Call it a Comeback: Evangelicals, Liberals, and the Problem of Hell

In his 1971 IFES addresses on "What is an Evangelical?" Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones referred to the tendency of denominations to so lose their way that they end up becoming institutions whose beliefs, values, and practices run counter to the convictions and vision of their founders.  Lloyd-Jones summed it up in the epigrammatical words of Dean Inge, "institutions tend to produce their opposite."

At first blush the thought that evangelicalism could prove itself capable of reproducing, under different circumstances, the virulant strains of liberal theology seems, frankly, implausible.  How could those committed to the authority of Scripture and the supernatural Christ of the Bible descend into a world where long held dogmas were routinely thrown overboard?

Part of the answer is in understanding liberalism as a mood, and a mindset, as well as a particular set of denials.  Another part of the answer lies in the tension evangelicals constantly feel when they relate the "scandal of particularlity," all those non-negotiable hard edged truths of the Christian faith, to the desires, aspirations, and intellectual and moral boundaries of contemporary culture.

Liberals tried to advance the Christian faith by cutting themselves loose from the offensive doctrines of historic orthodoxy.  They put forward an evangelistic strategy that attempted to assuage the emerging intellectual and moral rebellion of Europeans and Anglo-Americans on the run from God, a strategy that was doomed from the start.

They felt the same fears that haunt evangelicals every day: the fear of rejection, irrelevance, loss of influence, being pilloried as intellectual pygmies and dismissed as intolerant cranks.  You cannot embrace the doctrines of original sin, judgement, the holiness of God, the authority of Scripture, the necessity of faith in Jesus Christ for salvation, and the eternal misery of the finally impenitent, without getting into trouble with the intelligentsia who act as guardians of morality in the modern world.  They don't like and don't want the God of the Bible unless he accommodates himself to their ways and accepts their terms and conditions concerning what is true, good and beautiful.

If Kant baulked at the idea of substitionary atonement because it was an unthinkable idea for rational thoughtful people when he said that:

It is totally inconceivable, however, how a rational human being who knows himself to deserve punishment could seriously believe that he only has to believe the news of a satisfaction having been rendered for him, and (as the jurists say) accept it utiliter [for one's advantage], in order to regard his guilt as done away with...No thoughtful person can bring himself to this faith. (From Religion and Rational Theology, quoted in Michael Horton, The Christian Faith, p. 64, n. 81)

Whoever then will believe in eternal hell without submitting their reasoning and moral calculus to the authority of God as he has spoken in Scripture?  Who will hold fast to these truths without the gracious regenerating, illuminating and teaching work of the Holy Spirit?  The answer to both questions is no-one.

We will either revise the Scriptural doctrine of hell to make it more palatable and plausible, or else we will selectively dismiss it as a culture-bound primitive belief that we have grown out of.  Both are live options for contemporary evangelicals who wish to revive the theological options set out by the older liberals.  Either way you can call it a comeback.

For an in depth take on this as it relates to the doctrine of hell you should read the following posts by Al Mohler:

We have seen all this before: Rob Bell and the (Re) Emergence of Liberal Theology

Air Conditioning Hell: How Liberalism Happens

It is also well worth watching Martin Bashir's interview with Rob Bell



------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For more on evanglicals following the path of Protestant liberals see:

"Liberalism: A warning from history" (Banner of Truth online article) 

"The Emerging Church and the Cultural Captivity of the Gospel" (Affinity online article adapted from the chapter in Reforming or Conforming? Post-Conservative Evangelicals and the Emerging Church)

Liberalism: A warning from history (3)

Pray for the seminaries

We ought to pray for the preservation of the gospel in the seminaries. "Holding fast to sound words" is an apostolic command, as the Paul makes clear to Timothy (2 Timothy 1:13-14). Seminaries are for churches, and not for the sake of the academic world.

We ought to pray specifically that men would not be ashamed of Jesus and his words (Mark 8:38).

We ought to pray for clarity to think through the consequences of compromise, and courage to fight the right battles.

The older Liberalism is all but dead. It could never produce offspring. But the same tendency to make the Word of God subservient to the ruling ideas of the age is still with us. If we get this wrong in the coming generation, with the battles that we are facing today, the effect on the churches will be devastating.

We need to remember that errors that come from the professors, to the pulpits, and into the pews can travel very quickly, as Galatians 1 makes clear.

Martin Luther saw the issues clearly in his own day, his oft quoted words are still as relevant as ever at the start of the twenty-first century:

If I profess with the loudest voice and clearest exposition every portion of the Word of God except precisely that little point which the world and the devil are at that moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Him. Where the battle rages there the loyalty of the soldier is proved; and to be steady on all the battle front besides, is mere flight and disgrace if he flinches at that point.

In the nineteenth century many Liberals started out as evangelicals, men who affirmed their belief in the Reformation doctrines of the Westminster Confession. Many sought to reach a modern culture that they knew was departing from previous Christian influences. They tried to hold together new views that were destructive of historic Christian doctrine, a fervent spirituality, and an evangelistic concern. But when they lost their grip on the truth their spirituality and evangelistic concerns merely masked the presence of another gospel, which was really no gospel at all.

Liberalism: Don't follow death and all his friends

As a follow up to this post, here are some observations by Iain Murray on the impact of Liberal theology on the Free Church, and the poignant story of Ferdinand Christian Baur's unbelief:

The school of men who undid the commitment of the Free Church to the Bible did not stem the attack of naturalistic thinking on Christianity. Instead they accelerated it, and introduced the unbelief of the world into the Church.

They did so...while ever promising the opposite result. Yet this very assurance was being given when the results of higher criticism upon the German churches were already known and visible.

Horatius Bonar had drawn attention to the fact when he was Moderator of the Free Church in 1883. In speaking of the fruit in Europe, he instanced the life of one of the most influential of the German critics, Ferdinand Christian Baur (1792-1860):

In youth he was full of evangelical zeal. He came in contact with Strauss, and gradually the spiritual life went from him. Unbelief took the place of faith. He found he could not even pray; and when his wife was dying he had to send for an earnest pastor in the neighbourhood to pray with her, and supply his lack of service.

He found himself dumb in the presence of his dying wife. Unbelief could do nothing for him. It had closed his lips; and it had hidden the face of God.

Iain H. Murray, "The Tragedy of the Free Church" in A Scottish Christian Heritage, p. 384-5

Liberalism: A Warning From History

"How Liberal Theology Infected Scotland" is a deeply instructive short article written by R. A. Finlayson, the late professor of Systematic Theology in the Free Church College in Edinburgh.

Finlayson attributed the nineteenth century infiltration of Liberalism into a confessional Church to wrong priorities by the leaders. He wrote:

...not content with opening three colleges, in Glasgow, Edinburgh and Aberdeen...her theological students would not deem their course complete, or their standing in the Church assured, without a postgraduate course of one or more years in one of the more famous Colleges in Germany.

From that folly, the product of spiritual pride, the Free Church was to reap a bitter harvest. Germany then was the nursery of Liberal theology, which was spreading like prairie fire through the Protestant Churches of Europe. (Reformed Theological Writings, p. 195)

Reading this assessment reminded me of the words of Archibald Alexander to the young Charles Hodge. Hodge has been given leave by the Seminary to spend two years studying in Europe. As well as developing his linguistic skills, Hodge would become acquainted with biblical criticism. Alexander cautioned him:

"Remember that you breathe a poisoned atmosphere. If you lose the lively and deep impression of Divine truth if you fall into scepticism or even into coldness - you will lose more than you gain from all the German professors and libraries.. "

At the start of the twentieth century a similar situation was faced by the young Gresham Machen as he studied in Marburg, Germany, under the renowned Liberal scholar Wilhelm Herrman. Machen said that Herrman believed hardly anything essential to Christianity. Yet here was a man who at the same time exuded an incredibly impressive piety. Although he rarely spoke of the profound spiritual struggle that he went through in Germany, one of Machen's students recalled him saying that:

...the great Dr. Herrman presented his position with such power I would sometimes leave his presence wondering how I could ever retain my confidence in the historical accuracy of the Gospel narratives. The I would go to my room, take out the Gospel of Mark and read it from beginning to end in one sitting--and my doubts would fade. I realized that the document could not possibly be the invention of the mind of a mere man. (Calhoun, Princeton Seminary: The Majestic Testimony, p. 230)

It was a remarkable act of mercy that kept the young Charles Hodge, and the young Gresham Machen, from capitulating to the errors of their teachers. Embracing orthodoxy, and remaining orthodox, cannot ultimately be attributed to our own powers. How different, would the history of Princeton been if the poison of Liberalism had infected the blood stream of Charles Hodge. Perhaps we can see what it would have looked like by observing the influence of a notable Hebrew scholar on the other side of the Atlantic.

It ought to be kept in mind that, more often than not, theological teachers who embrace errors remain convinced that they are still orthodox. In Scotland, A. B. Davidson, who was appointed in 1863 to the Chair of Hebrew Old Testament Literature in the New College, Edinburgh, had drunk deeply at the wells of German Liberal theology. He subtly began to introduce the new theology. Finlayson notes that Davidson gave this counsel to his students:

"Be careful to give this to your congregations in small doses."

A. B. Bruce, professor at the Glasgow College, is a further tragic example of the deleterious effects of Liberal theology:

Of some others in the forefront of the movement, it can only be said that there was a breakdown in character as well as in faith, over which the veil of charity must be drawn. As sad a case as any was, perhaps, that of A. B. Bruce, because of the early promise of his work on the teaching of Christ: and yet at the end of the day one of his closest friends commented sorrowfully: 'Sandy Bruce died without a single Christian conviction.' (p. 198)

From the vantage point of the 21st century as we survey the wreckage of Liberalism, the emptying of the churches, we rightly wonder why this was not seen to be the logical outcome of the new theology. Finlayson touched on that very point:

The fact so difficult to understand is that this barren rationalism captured so many of the Reformed Colleges within a few decades, and Church leaders, professing to be evangelical, could not see that it could produce only bankruptcy in the realm of faith, and complete sterility in the life of the Church. (p. 195)

As deluded as this marriage of evangelical convictions to Biblical criticism now appears, at the time it was considered necessary for the survival of Christian faith in the modern world. This was the "New Apologetic." But it was a compromise with the spirit of the age. Tragically when it was preached it was to sound the death knell of authentic Christian faith. The damage done was unspeakable. Considered in the light of the Day of Judgement it is deeply traumatic to contemplate.

Marcus Dods, who was to become Principal of New College, Edinburgh, in 1907 wrote in a letter to a friend:

"The churches won't know themselves fifty years hence. It is hoped some little rag of faith may be left when all's done."

The story in Scotland of what I have called "Liberalism: A Warning from History" is poignantly told by R. A Finlayson. Iain Murray gives a much fuller account, from which I have also drawn, in his chapter "The Tragedy of the Free Church of Scotland" (in A Scottish Christian Heritage, Banner of Truth). It is a chapter that should be read by every theological student, and every seminary professor. It is a sobering warning to our own generation.

We ought to pray for the preservation of the gospel in the seminaries. This "holding fast to sound words" is the application of an apostolic mandate, as the pastoral epistles make clear. Seminaries are for churches, and not for the sake of the academy.

We ought to pray specifically that men would not be ashamed of Jesus and his words (Mark 8:38)

We ought to pray for clarity to think through the consequences of compromise, and courage to fight battles. As Luther put it:

"If I profess with the loudest voice and clearest exposition every portion of the Word of God except precisely that little point which the world and the devil are at that moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Him. Where the battle rages there the loyalty of the soldier is proved; and to be steady on all the battle front besides, is mere flight and disgrace if he flinches at that point."

In the nineteenth century many Liberals started out as evangelicals, and as confessional Reformed men. Many sought to reach a modern culture that they knew was departing from previous Christian influences. They tried to hold together views destructive of historic orthodoxy, a fervent spirituality, and an evangelistic and apologetic concern. But when they lost their grip on the truth their spirituality and evangelistic concerns merely masked the presence of another gospel, which was no gospel at all.

Warfield on Rationalism

The cultural pressures faced when articulating, proclaiming, defending and preserving Christian doctrine change. The most insidious threat comes not from overt unbelief seeking to batter down the walls of the Church, but from the internal weakness and fear caused by the external pressures of unbelief. If we lose our nerve we can end up reconfiguring Christian doctrine so that it makes peace with the dominant thought forms of contemporary unbelief.

Knowing something of the impact of unbelief on Christian doctrine, especially as it has occurred over the last two hundred years, is far from being an academic exercise. The nature of the unbelief causing pressure changes (modernism and postmodernism), but the process of unbelief realigning doctrines around a different epistemology and locus of authority remains.

"Rationalism" never is the direct product of unbelief. It is the indirect product of unbelief, among men who would fain hold their Christian profession in the face of an onset of unbelief, which they feel too weak to withstand.

Rationalism is, therefore, always a movement within the Christian Church: and its adherents are characterized by an attempt to save what they hold to be the essence of Christianity, by clearing it from what they deem to be accretions, or by surrendering what they feel to be no longer defensible features of its current representations.

The name historically represents specifically that form of Christian thought which, under the pressure of eighteenth century deism, felt no longer able to maintain a Christianity that needed to appeal to other evidences of its truth than the human reason; and which, therefore, yielded to the enemy every element of Christian teaching which could not validate itself to the logical understanding on axiomatic grounds. The effect was to reduce Christianity to a "natural religion."

B. B. Warfield, "The Latest Phase of Historical Rationalism," in The Works of Benjamin B. Warfield vol. IX Studies in Theology, p. 591

On Adaptation

D. G. Hart has this interesting comment in his biography of J. Gresham Machen:

The hallmark of liberalism was a conscious adaptation of religious ideas to modern culture and the affirmation that God was immanent in human history and was establishing a righteous kingdom through social progress.

D. G. Hart, Defending the Faith, p. 103

When you hear the call today to change the message of the gospel because the culture has changed it makes you wonder how this can be different to what the liberal theologians proposed. I guess it isn't all that different at all.