Defeat by Default

By DR. S. H. SUTHERLAND

 

At least twice in Scripture we are admonished not to be “weary in well doing” (Gal. 6:9; II Thess. 3:13).

 

However, it appears that there is a rather alarming tendency on the part of many well-meaning, Bible-believing Christians to accept the status quo in theological and ecclesiastical circles today and to enjoy peace and fellowship with anyone and everyone as long as they are not flagrant critics of the Word of God and that for which it stands.

 

Satan’s Schemes

But Satan is extremely clever. He endeavors to avoid making an issue a clear case of black or white. Rather, he deals in the muggy grays of theological thinking, which is characteristic of so many individuals these days. His technique is no longer primarily to get a person to deny all of the authority of God’s Word and to speak openly against every part of Scripture, although this was his main tactic in the days of Tom Paine, Bob Ingersoll, Voltaire and other well-known atheists and skeptics of former generations. Today, Satan is working in much more subtle fashion.

 

Some ecclesiastical leaders talk a great deal about the love of the Lord Jesus Christ, even of the necessity of regeneration or the new birth, although they mean by those terms something quite different from the historic meaning of the words.

 

But these individuals may be soft on the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch; that is, they do not believe that Moses wrote the Pentateuch under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit but that instead it was written by a number of unknown authors. And when such leaders are exposed as presenting a brand of modernism, the defenders of the Faith are in turn denounced and condemned as heresy hunters and as being un-Christlike.

 

Other leaders talk a great deal about the divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ, but they may be soft on the authorship of Isaiah and believe in the late-dating of Daniel, making the book historical rather than prophetical in its statements.

 

Defenders of the Faith Get Smeared

When these individuals are exposed as presenting a brand of modernism, once again the defenders of the Word of God are rebuked and strongly criticized.

 

Still others in ecclesiastical churches speak eloquently about the death of the Lord Jesus Christ and His resurrection. They emphasize the idea that He is living today, even though if they explained their meaning, they would say He is merely living on in the hearts of His followers. But these very individuals may be quick to deny the virgin birth of Christ as well as the other miracles of both the Old and New Testaments.

 

When such individuals are criticized by defenders of the Faith, many well-meaning Christians in turn are very critical of the defenders rather than of those who are soft on the miracles of the Word of God.

 

Still others high in ecclesiastical circles praise the modern translations because, they say, in many passages the meaning is far more clearly expressed to the modern mind than it is in the archaic phrases found in the King James Bible. The modern versions are praised in spite of the fact that from all indications, as has been pointed out by many able scholars, the translators have made a conscious effort to downgrade the person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ.

 

But when one dares to speak out against one of these late translations, he himself is criticized and condemned by the very ones who should be his friends and allies in the great conflict between historic Christianity and various modern shades of unbelief.

 

Still others high in ecclesiastical circles say, as has been expressed by one such theologian, “To the best of my knowledge and understanding, we are forced to admit that Jesus was designating Peter as the rock on which He was beginning the building of His church. The subsequent work of Peter in Acts will substantiate this statement.” Again, “He, Peter, is the rock with which Jesus began the building of His church. He deserves careful study.”

 

The author of these statements is widely accepted in fundamental churches and circles; and if anyone dare criticize him, that one is labeled as a heresy hunter and utterly un-Christlike. But such statements fit right into the idea of the ecumenical movement which is so popular in so many places today.

 

Indeed, that movement itself has become quite acceptable in the minds of many otherwise Bible-believing Christians who say, “Why fight such an idea? It does not mean that we are giving up anything vital to our faith; it simply means that we are cooperating with others though they may differ with us on some of the so-called minor points of scriptural interpretation.”

 

Inexcusable Default, Irresponsible Defeat

And so it goes. The whole foundation of our most holy Christian faith is being chopped away, first in one place, then in another. If this continues, there can be but one result as far as the visible church of the Lord Jesus Christ is concerned.

Many Christians are all too prone to refuse to stand for their convictions on these vital matters. And by failing to do so, they are allowing the detractors of the faith to win without any opposition. In athletic contests, this is known as defaulting.

 

Unless pastors of churches and lay leaders alike are willing to stand up and denounce these individuals who are hacking away at the foundations of our Faith, within the near future there is only one inevitable end to the whole business—tragic defeat by inexcusable default.

 

No, indeed, it is not the outspoken modernist who is doing the most damage to the church of Jesus Christ today; it is the erstwhile Bible-believing ecclesiastical leader who has his own pet grievance with a certain portion of the Word of God and who loudly proclaims that grievance as though he were a great scholar having discovered some new truth.

 

But all an honest inquirer has to do is to gather together these various objections put out by these doctrinal doubters, and he will discover that in the aggregate they have destroyed the whole foundation of our Christian faith.

 

This is not a day for mollycoddling these meddlers, regardless of who they are or how mild their criticism of the Word of God may be. It stands or falls together.

 

If a person is soft on any one portion of God’s holy Word, sooner or later he is going to become soft on other portions until finally it is all cast into the discard.

 

This is a day when individuals, regardless of who they are or what position they hold, should be questioned regarding every statement of doubt which they express. No one should be considered so sacrosanct that he may not be criticized.

 

Let it be said again that unfortunately this is not a day of clear-cut black and white in theological thinking. It is a day of the muggy grays; and unless we are alert to the real situation, we will find ourselves moving around in the fog of theological indecision and uncertainty which can lead to complete spiritual impotence and uselessness in the Christian life.