Our attention was recently called to a special report in Newsweek on "Resurgent Protestantism." Since it spoke of the great strength and wealth of the Protestant profession today, we are interested in reviewing it because we had just selected an article for this issue, entitled, "The Seven Churches," which, while written some years ago, deals with present boastful pretensions of Protestantism. It begins on page 177, and we recommend that it be read in connection with this editorial.
The special report on Protestantism has to do with religious growth and vigor in the United States, but it will be seen that to a certain extent the principles involved apply more generally.
It is claimed that there are now 56 million Protestants in this country, and that their percentage to the population has increased by 8 per cent in 30 years. One denomination boasts of 9 million members against 5.5 million 40 years ago. Nor is it only in numerical stature that Protestantism boasts; contributions, church building, number of ministerial students, religious sentiments, all is in a resplendent upsurge; at least, so says the report.
Our readers are all aware of the trend for years toward so-called modernism in Protestantism; we say, "so-called modernism," for there was nothing very modern about it; it was plain old infidelity dressed in a little different garb. But now, contends this report, there is a "reborn emphasis on the gospel," a "message that appears orthodox and uncompromising" is spread with the most modern weapons.
And what is this new emphasis on the gospel and a message that appears orthodox and uncompromising? It is referred to as "neo-orthodoxy." But the name will leave some of our readers with little light on the subject. Let us examine it: Webster's dictionary says that "neo" means "new, recent; especially, a new and different period, or form of a faith...."
The fact that it is "new" should make any real Christian beware of it, for when the Apostle John writing by inspiration tells of the last days, he takes us back to that which was from the beginning. God's mind concerning the truth of Christianity has been fully revealed, and anything that poses as "new" in this realm is false.
This so-called neo-orthodoxy has for the sake of religious harmony sought to bridge the gap between what has often been referred to as fundamentalism on the one hand, and bold modernism on the other. Perhaps we may call neo-orthodoxy a shift to the right from crass modernism toward real Bible Christianity, but alas, it falls far short of a turning to God and the simple truth of His Word. It has embraced the form of godliness and uses the language of true orthodoxy, but lacks its vitality. It is broad latitudinarianism, that will embrace just about anything.
The National Council of Churches is a key figure in this resurgent Protestantism. It "embraces 30 religious groups representing 35 million members," and in its embrace are those adopting the new orthodoxy, and also some of the very worst of Bible-denying modernists. The head of this organization, Dr. Eugene C. Blake, "got good, conservative training" in certain colleges, so today he does not step on "fundamentalist's toes unwittingly." Those at the head in this wave of "religiosity" must be able to walk tightropes and offend no one. They must be able to compromise all differences and use great diplomacy so that all shades and colors of so-called faith can rest comfortably together in one great tent.
Perhaps the switch from a modernism that scoffed at the Bible and its miracles was caused by the hunger of soul in the populace which infidelity did not supply, and cannot. But is the language of orthodoxy, which says it believes the Bible and talks of sin and salvation, but does not bring the sinner face to face with God, leading to his "repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ," going to do the sinner any good for eternity? No! No! It is but a Satanic delusion to lull aroused men and women back to sleep in their sins. Individual salvation through faith in the atoning work of Christ is not stressed in this "neo" movement. While it has the "form of godliness," it lacks "the power thereof" (2 Tim. 3:55Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. (2 Timothy 3:5)).
This perhaps can be well illustrated by mentioning some correspondence between a friend of ours and Dr. Norman Vincent Peale, one of the foremost preachers today; who the report says is "Probably the best-known Protestant minister in the United States." He reaches an estimated 30 million people each year through his books (one of which has sold more than 1 million copies) pamphlets, radio talks, and television appearances. His works of optimistic humanism are reaching people in all walks of life, especially business men and women. He has "given a psychiatric touch to pastoral counsel." We shall give an abridgment of our friend's letter:
"Dear Dr. Peale: A friend of mine has just loaned me a group of your booklets—'Thought Conditioners'—'What's Your Trouble'—and `Spirit Lifters,' among others. I can subscribe to them... with this one reservation,... and I feel I must tell you about it, as you are looked up to by so many and your writings are widely read by business men with whom I am acquainted, being published in the local newspaper,... in addition to other outlets.
"This is what troubles me. Nowhere do I find, in your writings, the basic truth of the Word of God emphasized—the theme that runs all through Scripture from the first book to the last; that is, man's fallen nature and his need of a Savior completely outside of himself...:For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God,' an d `Without shedding of blood is no remission.' Not unless we accept the Lord's atoning work on the cross are we entitled to call God 'Father.'...
"Further, I cannot find any mention of the fact that each of us has a never-dying soul which shall live forever either with God or in separation from Him if God's way of salvation is rejected....
"You do allude, in one or two places in the literature I have read, to Christ's cleansing from sin, but do you not think it important enough to the soul's eternal welfare to speak this truth plainly? Perhaps you feel that each individual will find this truth for himself by reading the Gospels as you recommend.... But many... will read only your writings, and I believe it is possible thus to lull people into a false sense of well-being which, fine for this life, is not the all-important factor, as this life is only a brief day compared to the eternity which surely follows.
"Respectfully submitted
(Signed) E.B."
This letter very well analyzes the fundamental lack in the "neo-orthodoxy" of the day, which may occasionally refer to salvation through Jesus Christ, and speak of sin, too, but it is all couched in language to please the natural man and give him an uplifted feeling, rather than new birth.
The brief reply from this renowned minister may well speak for itself. True to form, there is little in it to offend anyone, but the reader can judge for himself what it lacks.
"Dear M- B. I am sorry that you are disturbed by my neglect of emphasis on the shedding of the blood for remission of sins. I do emphasize the love of God. It was because of that love that blood was shed, but it is the love and not the blood that is the important element in our salvation.
"We may differ in terminology, but we both have the same loyalty to Jesus Christ. "Most cordially,
(Signed) Norman V. Peale." (Italics ours)
It should not take much spirituality to find the crux of the whole matter-"It is the love and not the blood." True, God always loved the poor sinner, and in greatest love sent His beloved Son into the world to be his Savior, but the sinner's salvation does not depend on the love of God, but the blood of Christ. Otherwise God could have had no righteous foundation on which to forgive and receive the guilty, hell-deserving sinner. The reply is a smooth, polished circumventure of the truth of God.
Of old the devil lied to Eve and said, in substance, that God was not good, for He was withholding something from her that would be a boon—the knowledge of good and evil. It was a libel on God. God was good and was acting for her good by placing that one restriction on her and her husband. Now the devil's lie has a new twist; it is the love and goodness of God that is extolled to the loss of His character of light and holiness which cannot endure sin in
His presence. The present story suggests subtly that God would not be good if He put the rebellious sinner in hell. But, be it remembered, a good God can punish the unrepentant sinner without any impairment of His goodness, and a holy God must punish the sinner who prefers his sins to God's Christ.
Thus we see the form of godliness and the language of orthodoxy are maintained, while the substance is eliminated—the power is lacking.
Confident, boastful Protestantism says that they now have 33 million children in Sunday Schools, but what percentage of that great throng ever hear the truth of God regarding sin, death, and judgment after death on the one hand, and a full, perfect, and free salvation by believing on the Lord Jesus Christ as one's own personal Savior on the other? How solemn it is to think that they are being, for the most part, blindly led on to a Christless eternity, with the language of orthodox Christianity on their lips. Solemn also for their teachers!
And now, Christian reader, turn back to the article on "The Seven Churches," and note that we have much of it in italics. Apply the truth presented there to this mammoth resurgent Protestantism 'What is Laodicea which the Lord decries? Is it not that which is "rich and increased with goods" and needs nothing, according to their own estimate? That which is nauseous t o Him? That which is proud, boastful, and self-confident, where all degrees of spiritual light and darkness can peacefully dwell together, and plan to press on to loftier and loftier heights?
Be it remembered, too, that the National Council of Churches owns and controls the new Revised Standard Version of the Bible, which, while it is not like some of the rank productions which eliminated the blood and the need of it, still lends itself to the new orthodoxy of the day, and adds to Laodicea's boastful pretensions. They have need of nothing. But, alas, millions in their camp need everything to fit them for the day when they must meet Christ. All will meet Him; some as their Savior, and many as their judge.
We are not unmindful that the last four churches of Revelation 2 and 3 run on concurrently at the end-Thyatira,
Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea. These are explained briefly in the article, "The Seven Churches." Nor do we confuse Sardis and Laodicea; the former comes out of the Reformation as State churches, and the latter, the spiritual decay of that which began as the evangelicals. This latter being the core of the present modernist and neo-orthodox religious upsurge, with all the boastfulness of needing nothing, is truly Laodicean.
The denomination which boasts of 9 million members in this country came out of the great evangelical movement of the 18th century, and today has gone about as far as possible in departing from "the faith of God's elect."
Surely if we look abroad and see the widespread empty profession which is filled with utmost self-complacency and pride, can we fail to discern the signs of these times?-the signs of Laodicea which are the sure precursor of the day when Christ shall spew the lifeless thing out of His mouth as nauseous?
So today, whether we look at the professing church, the Nation of Israel, the Western nations, the Arab world, Russia and her satellites, or even the state of our own hearts which is more or less influenced by conditions, everything portends the imminence of our Lord's return. We are definitely at the END. Let us seek to keep our lights burning, in testimony to our Lord, and our loins girded by the truth in holy separation from the world, while we joyfully anticipate that shout, "Come up hither."