The author of the SI articles sums up his thesis this way:

While there are doubtless many fine Christian schools which do not operate in a legalistic fashion, I believe the majority of Christian schools operate with these three fallacious legalistic premises prominent in their thinking.

1. Man-made rules that prevent violations of God’s rules have inherent spiritual value (which I will address here in Part 1).
2. Rules promote godliness, in that behavior change leads to heart change.
3. Enforcement of righteousness is valid and valuable as a first step to sanctification.

This thesis can be summed up like this: The majority of Christian schools use rules illegitimately as a means for achieving the spiritual goal of sanctification.

Is this true? Is sanctification the rationale behind the ‘code of conduct’ in any school? Should it be?

While it is possible that someone can find an exception, it seems to me that strict codes of conduct are intended for a much different purpose than sanctification.

Consider the military academies, West Point, the Air Force Academy, Navy, etc. Do they have codes of conduct? I am under the impression they do. Consider military basic training. Codes of conduct? Yes. Why do these institutions employ such codes?

For the purposes of sanctification, to be sure! No, that can’t be it. If it is their purpose at all, they are largely failing!

In fact, the military schools, the military itself, and educational academies on a military model instill codes of conduct (including many ‘stupid rules’) for the purpose of building character and molding military men who function well in battle.

Schools come with all kinds of different educational philosophies. Those that emphasize character development often have a fairly strict code to follow, including codes of conduct on campus and off campus. Education in such schools is seen as a privilege, not a right, and the students are expected to comply with the structure put in place in order to form their characters.

I would argue that individuals need to submit to rules that have no rational purpose in order to best form their character. (That doesn’t mean that I think every rule should be irrational!) It is not very helpful to character formation if all the rules are perfectly reasonable and understandable by the one who has to comply. What benefit is there in a code of rules that all make sense and don’t make the sinner chafe? Character is formed in the crucible of conflict. How much better is it to have it formed in home and school by presenting difficult demands to developing young people than to let “the cold wet dish-rag of reality slap them upside the head” when they are out in the cold, cruel world.

Helen Keller is quoted as saying:

Character cannot be developed in ease and quiet. Only through experience of trial and suffering can the soul be strengthened, vision cleared, ambition inspired, and success achieved.

In 2001, the state of North Carolina passed an act requiring the development of character in its schools, saying that “the development of character in our children is the cornerstone of education.”

A Catholic priest offers this advice on training character in children:

Nor is it difficult to arouse children’s enthusiasm for such little acts of self-denial. Some children may whine at first, especially if they are just beginning to form good habits, but, as the principle of doing not what they like but what is right begins to sink in, they will soon take interest in doing these little"acts of heroism" as beneficial to their own character development. Self-control should therefore be represented to them as an act of growth, of strength, of freedom; it must be made evident that the apparent repression is only a step towards a higher life. They should be shown how a gradual process of practice on the smallest things builds up willpower, and how every act of self-conquest in one sphere of life makes the battle easier in all the other spheres. In the work of self-discipline and the war for the control of our emotional nature the offensive is the best defense of the higher nature.

I certainly wouldn’t endorse the priest or his church, but he does make sense in this article.

When I was a student at BJU, character development was the main focus of the rule system. I can’t count how many times I heard the phrase “it builds character.” I recall one occasion (in grad school) where I was rushing from work in the Print Shop to a class somewhere. This was back in the day when we had to wear ties in the morning to class (that rule may have been relaxed somewhat now). I was grousing about it as I tied my uncooperative neck ornament before rushing out. One of my supervisors heard me and uttered those well used words, “it builds character”. I didn’t really want to hear those words at that time, but my supervisor was right.

Christian schools have in general been set up for much more than mere academics or Christian spiritual development. They have also been set up as character molding institutions. It may be that some confuse the development of character with sanctification. That confusion doesn’t diminish the real purpose of codes of conduct.

In my opinion, the Christian schools of today are softening up way too much. I don’t know how they can put the genie back in the bottle, but I would like to see them actually increase the discipline a bit, instead of steadily eroding it.

The other day, he interviewed Al Mohler on the subject of the changing views of young evangelical types. I think the whole transcript is worth reading, but a few highlights follow:

HH: As you talk with two distinct cohorts, the leadership elites in the Evangelical, with whom you are in daily contact, and your students, what are the reactions in those two groups to the events of November?

AM: Well, I’ll tell you, the older Evangelical leadership is in danger right now of looking really old, and old not just in chronological terms, but more or less, kind of acting as if the game hasn’t changed, as if we’re not looking at a brand new cultural challenge, and a new political reality. And so I would say that the younger Evangelicals that I look at every single day, and they are so deeply committed, so convictional, they’re basically wondering if a lot of the older Evangelical leaders are really looking to the future, or are really just kind of living in the 80s while the 80s are long gone. So I think there’s a crucial credibility issue there.

Hmmm… sound familiar?

It seems that it isn’t just Fundamentalists who are having problems with their young people trusting them.

And how about this:

HH: Let me ask you about a pretty controversial proposition. I’m not sure if I believe it or not. Dispensationalism, in other words, End Times theory, for those who are not in this world. Do you think that’s sapped some of the energy and purposefulness out of the commitment of Christians to politics in the here and now?

AM: Well, I think it’s part of it. I don’t think that’s a ridiculous argument at all. I think if you are focuses on the fact that you are absolutely certain that the Lord’s going to be coming imminently, very soon, and that this age is going to come to a conclusion very soon, then you’re not going to give much to investment in building a culture for the future. And I really think that is a matter of Evangelical concern.

Interesting question, eh? Interesting response, too.

And this:

HH: Last question, Dr. Albert Mohler, and I know you have enormous influence on the younger age cohort, because I know who buys your books, and I’ve seen your students with you, et cetera. So take yourself out of this conversation. Who do young Evangelicals look to that you and I would be comfortable having them look to? Where are they getting their leadership cues from?

AM: Well, oddly enough, it’s pretty diffuse. In areas of their life, they’re going to read everything John Piper writes. They’re going to be out there really looking for the kind of cultural analysis that they might be getting from someone who you and I wouldn’t even know, simply because this is a peer-directed culture. They’re going to be saying are you reading this? Are you reading that? I’m not sure I can come up with a long list of names, because I’ll tell you, it’s not that there are so few, it’s that there are so many. This is a generation that reads a lot, absorbs a lot, thinks a lot, and I think it’s going to take some time before we really have a grasp on who all is influencing them in these ways.

This is right at the end of the interview. I think it is a most interesting question and a more interesting answer. It is most interesting that the young are widely influenced by

1. Peers
2. Diverse people of many persuasions
3. Mohler himself doesn’t quite have a handle on who all these influences are

And as a result he can’t really comment on "Who young Evangelicals look to that you and I would be comfortable having them look to." I read a quote elsewhere this evening that went like this:

"The most marked difference from this country today, nearly sixty years down the slope [from 1939], is the absence of authority."¹

In many subtle ways, this observation is true of all parts of society, including the church. Including the evangelical and the fundamentalist church.

The widespread influence of myriads of voices is thought to be, I think, somehow sophisticated, serious, and appropriate. I am afraid we have too many masters (Jas 3.1), and in so doing, we have none.

May our young people become mastered by the One teacher of the One Book.

1. Woody West, "Decline in Authority … Demise of Democracy" Insight (November 18, 1996): 48, quoted in David L. Larsen, The Company of the Preachers, vol. 2, p. 848.

First of all, the third point of the writer, Jim Coggins:

Third, there is an increasingly large number of people who are unconnected to any organized religion. This group probably constitutes the largest group of those leaving mainline Protestant churches (and includes some leaving Roman Catholic and evangelical churches as well). These are people who often consider themselves spiritual without being religious, and who are determined to define their own beliefs rather than accept the doctrine of any religious authority.

This is what we have been dealing with in 23 years of ministry. It is very frustrating to make many efforts to reach lost people in our almost totally (and deliberately) secular society, only to see the gospel simply dismissed. Coggins captures our frustrations with one sentence:

This attitude seems to be especially prominent on the west coast of North America and was encapsulated in a 2008 book by Vancouver Sun religion writer Douglas Todd. Cascadia: The Elusive Utopia describes these people as "the least institutionally religious people on the continent" but "eclectically, informally, often deeply spiritual." [emphasis mine]

In observing what he calls a "shift in power" in the Anglican church, Coggins notes that Anglicanism is increasingly being led by churchmen from the Third World. He says this trend is being paralleled in the Roman Catholic church which is

now relying on immigration to maintain its numbers and is recruiting immigrants to serve as priests.

But he goes on to observe this:

One of the very interesting aspects of the developments within Protestantism is the impact it has had on the old Roman Catholic/Protestant divide. One might have expected evangelicals, as the most conservative Protestants, to have maintained the old Protestant mistrust of Catholicism.

This does not seem to be the case.

He cites three factors in this closer relationship:

1. Co-belligerence on social issues like abortion, etc. [Do we here echoes of fundamentalist criticism of the Moral Majority here?]
2. New common ground on some theological issues (post Vatican II Catholics supposedly have a stronger emphasis on the Bible)
3. Charismatics in Catholicism
4. Increasing support by Catholics of the Conservative Party of Canada

I have to say that I think Jim Coggins is bang-on with his observations. His articles point out the challenges we face here. I urge our American friends to take a look at this series, perhaps subscribe to the RSS feed to get the ones yet to come. I have long maintained that where Canada is, the USA is sure to eventually follow (in an American way, of course). The increasing secularism of Canada is only more pronounced than the secularism of the USA. We need to think about these trends and also think of ways to counteract them in our preaching and evangelism. And trust the Lord, of course!

Google.ca news says there are 599 related articles when I clicked on this link, but once you arrive at the link, it says 89 related articles. I am not quite sure how that works, but the story is undeniably a big story here in Canada and is surely of interest around the world, especially in places where there are many Mormons.

One of the men arrested yesterday was on TV today claiming religious persecution. Now… is this religious persecution, or is this a matter of good governance?

In other words, what should Christians think of this arrest? Should we applaud our provincial attorney general for finally having the courage to prosecute, or should we be ‘friends of the court’ and lend support to the Mormons in this cause on the basis of our own interest in freedom of religion?

It seems to me that this is not an entirely easy question.

Christians particularly have a consciousness of the oppression that comes when one’s beliefs are unpopular or considered antagonistic to the community interest. Although most of us have not experienced physical violence, most have experienced the scorn of outsiders, the belittling speech, the hard faces, and even slammed doors. We have a collective memory of hardships faced by courageous Christians of days gone by who were willing to suffer for things we hold dear. Baptists in particular remember such hardships heaped on their forebears even in North America.

So religious freedom is something we hold dear. We ought to. It was not won cheaply.

But should the principles of religious freedom apply to men who hold multiple wives to be a tenet of their religion? Should we, in a country like Canada, decide to forbid this practice? Can we claim to have religious freedom if we do?

Consider as another example another religion, not much in the news lately, but one that made headlines a few years ago. The Rastafarians insisted on using marijuana as a sacramental substance in their rites.

According to many Rastas, the illegality of cannabis in many nations is evidence that persecution of Rastafari is a reality. They are not surprised that it is illegal, seeing it as a powerful substance that opens people’s minds to the truth — something the Babylon system, they reason, clearly does not want. They contrast their herb to alcohol and other drugs, which they feel destroy the mind.¹

Would we defend Rastafari’s and their use of marijuana as a matter of religious freedom? I think not.

What then is religious freedom? We would insist on it for ourselves and our own beliefs, wouldn’t we?

When we recall the hardships endured by Baptists in early America, we realize those hardships were perpetrated largely by Christian people who came to America in search of religious freedom. Some of them, to be sure, were more interested in freedom for their religion than in freedom of religion. Since the Baptists were outside their religion, they weren’t eligible to enjoy freedom.

Let’s consider polygamy and marijuana use together. These involve actions taken by an individual that are external and impinge on the freedom or rights of others. The use of marijuana is rightly deemed illegal in our country because it isn’t merely an individual’s choice and the effects on himself and his own body alone, but rather it is a substance that alters the mind, impairs judgement and can thus cause devastating consequences on others.

Polygamy could be said to be the choice of consenting adults, but its consequences reach far beyond the emotional/spiritual impact on a set of consenting adults (not to mention the allegations that often the consent is one way or that some parties involved are not adults when the consent is alleged to have occurred). The fact is that polygamy affects the children of polygamy who are unable to choose the ‘lifestyle’ for themselves. There are attendant problems as some of these young people grow up and the boys in particular are said to be shut out of the selection process.

Our state has an interest in protecting the innocent against the actions of others, especially actions that hold a significant potential of harm to others.

There are some who would restrict Christian freedom using this kind of reasoning. They would suggest that the teaching of Christian dogma to children in Christian homes is a similarly deleterious activity, just like polygamy. Terms like ‘psychic abuse’ might be used.

However, it seems difficult to quantify such abuse. Who could raise their own children at all if somehow the belief systems of parents could not be transmitted to one’s own children? Would our state advocate abandoning all moral training? Would our state have any such overwhelming community interest?

On the other hand, if physical abuse (objectively quantifiable harm) were to be occurring in any home, Christian or not, our community would have a duty to protect the victims and restrict the perpetrators by whatever means deemed judicially necessary.

It seems to me that religious freedom, then, is the freedom to believe, to associate, to speak, but it is not a freedom to do everything someone might deem to be required by his religion. Just as my liberty to swing my arm through space ends when your nose occupies the space I am planning to swing my arm, so too religious freedom ends when ‘religious acts’ can objectively be seen to cause harm to other individuals. On these grounds, then, we must side with the state in this case and support the prosecution, conviction, and judicial punishment of our news-making polygamists.

1. see Wikipedia link above for more

Science can’t explain the big bang – there is still scope for a creator

This article apparently from an evolutionist, admits:

Although science can state a great deal about what followed after the big bang, it cannot in fact explain how "something" (the energy of the universe compressed into a volume the size of a golf ball) arose from nothing beforehand.

Mark Steyn on The Corner writes:

If the non-political sphere is permanently left-of-center — the movies, the pop songs, the plays, the sitcoms, the newspapers plus the churches, schools and much else — it’s simply unreasonable to expect people to walk into a polling booth every other November and vote conservative. The culture is where the issues get framed and the boundaries set.

This comment attracts my attention from my recent reading on culture. It seems that Mark’s comment here (perhaps a worthy observation for politics) is what motivates so much the push for change by the culturally hip amongst religionists. The polis is going in a certain direction, best to get out in front and lead (or at least not lag too far behind.)

I am thinking that if the mission of the church is redemption, then we need to be framing the issues for the culture, rather than be framed by the culture. When men are redeemed, their culture should be transformed. In this sense, the mission of redemption is oriented towards the culture. But the order must be men (individuals) first, then the culture – not the other way around.

~~~

And give this one a read:

‘Leaving Isn’t the Answer’

Why the pastor of the largest Episcopalian congregation is staying put in a ‘very sick’ church.

The article is an interview with an allegedly ‘evangelical’ Anglican pastor who is staying in the main, corrupt Anglican communion. Lots of sanctimonious ‘respect’ for those who leave, but completely fails to see the consequences of staying in.

The concluding paragraph:

I had the opportunity to visit with John Stott in late November. We talked and prayed about many things, including the ongoing challenges in the Anglican Communion and Episcopal Church. As I asked him which path he thought it best for me to take, he said, clearly, "If I were you, I would stay … you have the truth on your side … and I think you are called to stay and faithfully preach the gospel. Remember what Max Warren said, ‘the church is evidence of God’s patience.’ And we just don’t know what fruit or reform will be born as a result of a long period of faithful preaching and witness to the evangelical faith we share."

All too typical of Stott. What has his ‘staying in’ since the infamous confrontation with Lloyd-Jones wrought? Nothing of substance. How many years will it take for those who ‘stay in’?

The Italian city of Naples has for centuries made big profits through the sale of nativity scene figurines. It is home to some of the finest displays of the nativity scene in the world.

And each year, craftsmen in Naples come up with figurines of some of today’s best known public figures, which are often added to traditional displays.

This year, most likely to be standing alongside Mary and Joseph, or perhaps the three wise men, will be another heralded couple – the Obamas.

It’s a sad sad crazy world out there…

The article comes from the Associated Baptist Press. This is the more left wing news service connected to Southern Baptist types, at least as I understand it.

The article points to a generational change where the younger set is at odds with the values of the older set.

In an opinion piece entitled, “Evangelicals and the Obama era“, author David Gushee begins with these paragraphs:

I began this election year with The Future of Faith in American Politics, a book arguing that there is an emerging political center in the white evangelical community.

This center breaks with the evangelical right in that it is more politically independent, prioritizes a wider range of moral issues than the traditional family values concerns, eschews the right’s mood of angry nostalgia and seeks consensus solutions to advance the common good.

I suggested the right was losing its hold on younger white evangelicals, who were moving in this more centrist direction (and sometimes further left) and that it never really had a hold on a majority of nonwhite evangelicals.

These words seem eerily familiar, don’t they? I wonder if the unrest we are seeing among young FINOs isn’t symptomatic of the age rather than simply a trend within fundamentalism. In other words, we are living with the product of the television/computer game/internet generation. It holds to an entirely different culture than the post-war radical / baby boomer generation. Could it be said that the baby boomer fundamentalists are in their own way a 60s radicalist sort of people? In some ways I think that is so.

Today’s generation is definitely cut from a different cloth.

From Lighthouse Trails

Why We Say Beth Moore is a Contemplative Advocate

• Advocate: one that defends or maintains a cause (Webster’s Dictionary) In our recent article, “Rick Warren Points Network Followers to the Contemplative ‘Sabbath’”, we state that Beth Moore is a “contemplative advocate.” Some people have a hard time with this statement. Why do we say she is advocating contemplative spirituality?

Should Christians Expose Error?

• “Exposing Error: Is It Worthwhile?” By Dr. Harry Ironside (1876-1951) Objection is often raised even by some sound in the faith-regarding the exposure of error as being entirely negative and of no real edification. Of late, the hue and cry has been against any and all negative teaching. But the …
• a key quote:

Exposing error is most unpopular work. But from every true standpoint it is worthwhile work. To our Savior, it means that He receives from us, His blood-bought ones, the loyalty that is His due. To ourselves, if we consider “the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures of Egypt,” it ensures future reward, a thousand-fold. And to souls “caught in the snare of the fowler”-how many of them God only knows-it may mean light and life, abundant and everlasting.

“Servant Leadership” … A Christian Idea … Not Exactly

• LTRP Note: Today, there is much talk about teaching people to become good leaders. In reality, what is happening is people are being taught to be good followers. The term (and the concept) Servant Leadership, used by many of the most prolific Christian authors and teachers today, did not originate …

The Mid-America Conference on Preaching

A review/summation by Scott Aniol:

Part 1 – Introduction
Part 2 – Dave Doran’s First General Session
Part 3 – Horn and Conley’s General Sessions
Part 4 – Dawson on Culture
Part 5 – Snoeberger on Culture
Part 6 – Doran’s Second General Session
Part 7 – McCune on Mars Hill
Part 8 – Snoeberger on Carson

From Brian Collins:

AP Definition of Fundamentalism
Neuhaus on the new New Evangelicals
ICC Commentaries for Free Download

Just a few things that interest me, in case you don’t follow the same blogs I do.

I am not sure where Jon and Champ will end up on this question, but for myself I see  no mandate at all for social action as a ministry of the church (except perhaps direct help for church members in crisis). As a Christian individual, I believe I should be kind and helpful to all as I come in contact with needs, but this really isn’t the mission of the church.

While I was working away on Romans today, I ran across a little essay in one of my commentaries on the social gospel. It is by William R. Newell, one-time assistant superintendent of Moody Bible Institute (under R. A. Torrey) and a fine Bible teacher and evangelist in his own right.

Newell left Moody in 1910 to take a Presbyterian pastorate in Florida. He published his commentary on Romans in 1938. He died in 1956.

This essay is from the Romans commentary.

William R. Newell, Romans verse by verse, pp. 46-51

TO THE PREACHERS OF “THE SOCIAL GOSPEL”

This is the doctrine that Jesus Christ came to reform society (whatever “society” may be!); that He came to abate the evils of selfishness, give a larger “vision” to mankind; and, through His example and precepts, bring about such a change in human affairs, social, political, economic and domestic, as would realize all man’s deep longings for a peaceful, happy existence upon earth, ushering in what these teachers are pleased to call, “the Kingdom of God.”

1. Now, in the first place, Jesus Christ came to save sinners, not “society.” He said, “The Son of Man hath authority on earth to forgive sins.” Now, sins are individual transgressions against a personal God; there is no such thing in Scripture as these social-gospellers dream of, — a condition of “society” to be “changed” or “ameliorated.” All that really exists is the guilt of a vast number of really guilty sinners. “Society” does not exist before God at all; and it is a vain delusion of the devil that sins are dealt with en ~nasse.

2. Sinners, having been pardoned, find themselves in a blessed fellowship, a really heavenly thing, constituted by the Holy Spirit, who indwells each of them. But to confuse this fellowship with what these social-gospellers call “society,” is to forget that “except a man be born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.”

3. It flatters men’s vanity, of course, and shelters them from conviction, to be dealt with as “society,” and not as guilty souls needing personal pardon through the shed blood of Christ. Therefore this gospel (which is not a gospel, but a lie, a delu­sion of Satan), draws together vast concourses of unconverted men and women, “church-members” and “non-church-mem­bers.” Its preachers are plausible and popular, for if “society” is going to be saved in a mass, individual repentance need not be mentioned. The Jesus of these men, — the Stanley Joneses, the Sherwood Eddys, the Frank Buchmans, the Bishop McCon­nells, the Kagawas, and a whole host of drifters and on-the-fencers, is not the Lamb of God taking away the sin of the world by an atoning sacrifice, not the One despised, forsaken, smitten of God, of the fifty-third of Isaiah! He is not at all the substitutionary Sacrifice drinking the cup of wrath for man’s guilt! But He is “the Christ of the Indian Road” — or the American road, the Canadian road, the English road, as you please; walking by the wayside, teaching the multitudes, as in the Four Gospels. BEFORE HE WAS REJECTED AND DIED. He is not the RISEN CHRIST, with all power in heaven and earth given unto Him, pouring forth the Holy Spirit and doing mighty works, as in the early church days.

I affirm that the present day popular preachers DO NOT KNOW what human guilt, before God, is! DO NOT KNOW that Christ really bore wrath under God’s hand for the sin of the world! DO NOT KNOW that He was forsaken of God, as the whole race, otherwise, must have been! I affirm that they are preaching as if an unrejected, uncrucified Christ were still being offered to the world! They preach the “character” of Jesus, saying “nice things” of Him, and telling people to “follow His example”: while the truly awful fact that Christ “bare our sins in His own body on the tree,” that He was “wounded for our transgressions,” that He was “forsaken of His God”; that “God spared not His own Son, but delivered Him up,” — and that “for our trespasses,” is never told to the poor, wretched people! Nor are they warned of that literal lake of fire and brimstone into which “every one not found written in the book of life” will be cast, and that forever.

One look into the lost eternity to which these last-days “preachers” are leading those who follow them, renders even the briefest consideration of these men who dare to call them­selves “preachers of the gospel,” beyond all enduring. As Jeremiah cries:

“Concerning the prophets. My heart within me is broken, all my bones shake; I am like a drunken man, and like a man whom wine hath overcome, because of Jehovah, and because of His holy words.

“Thus saith Jehovah of hosts, Hearken not unto the words of the prophets that prophesy unto you: they teach you vanity; they speak a vision of their own heart, and not out of the mouth of Jehovah. They say continually unto them that despise Me, Jehovah hath said, Ye shall have peace; and unto every one that walketh in the stubbornness of his own heart they say, No evil shall come upon you… Behold, the tempest of Jehovah, even His wrath, is gone forth, yea, a whirling tempest; it shall burst upon the head of the wicked’ … I sent not these prophets, yet they ran: I spake not unto them, yet they prophesied. But if they had stood in My council, then had they caused My people to hear My words, and had turned them from their evil way, and from the evil of their doings” (Jer. 23.9,16,17,19, 21,22).

And Ezekiel:

“And the word of Jehovah came unto me, saying, Son of Man, prophesy against the prophets of Israel that prophesy, and say thou unto them that prophesy out of their own heart, Hear ye the word of Jehovah: Thus saith the Lord Jehovah, Woe unto the foolish prophets, that fol­low their own spirit, and have seen nothing! … They have seen falsehood and lying divination, that say, Jehovah saith; but Jehovah hath not sent them: and they have made men to hope that the word could be confirmed. Have ye not seen a false vision, and have ye not spoken a lying divination, in that ye say, Jehovah saith; albeit I have not spoken?

“Because, even because they have seduced my people, saying, Peace; and there is no peace; and when one buildeth up a wall, behold, they daub it with untempered mortar: say unto them that daub it with untempered mortar, that it shall fall” (Ezek. 13.1,2,3,6,7,10,11,12-14,15).

And,

“When I say unto the wicked, O wicked man, thou shalt surely die, and thou dost not speak to warn the wicked from his way; that wicked man shall die in his iniquity, but his blood will I require at thy hand. Nevertheless, if thou warn the wicked of his way to turn from it, and he turn not from his way; he shall die in his iniquity, but thou hast delivered thy soul” (Ezek. 33.8,9).

You may say, Those were Old Testament prophets — Jeremiah and Ezekiel; and Those were messages to the Jews. Wait till you meet, as you will shortly, the God Who inspired these prophets. Let us see what you will say to Him, — you who pro­fess to preach the gospel of Christ. and yet preach it not!

And Paul saith: “Though we, or an angel from heaven should preach unto you any gospel other than that which we preached unto you, let him be anathema.” “For I delivered unto you first of all that… Christ died for our sins, according to the Scrip­tures, … that He was buried; and that He hath been raised on the third day according to the Scriptures.” This very declaration of the gospel after Christ died, is that atoning death of His. When you leave that out, and prate about the “beautiful life” of Jesus, you are deceived by the devil and are a deceiver of other souls.

4. We know that this “social gospel,” the false news that humanity is to be reached in the mass, and not by individual conviction, individual faith, individual new birth by the Holy Spirit, is a lie, because Scripture directly contradicts any such notion:

Hear Paul: “In the last days, grievous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of self, lovers of money, boastful, haughty, railers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, implacable, slanderers, without self-control, fierce, no lovers of good, traitors, headstrong, puffed up, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God; holding a form of godliness, but having denied the power thereof: from these also turn away!” (2 Tim. 3.1-5).

Peter also: “In the last days mockers shall come with mockery, walking after their own lusts, and saying, Where is the promise of His coming?” (2 Pet. 3.3-4).

Paul again: “Evil men and imposters shall wax worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived” (2 Tim. 3.13). And our Lord plainly says:

“In the day that Lot went out from Sodom, it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all: after the same manner shall it be in the day that the Son of Man is revealed” (Luke 17.29-30).

How dare you call yourself a believer of Scripture, while you deny such plain words as these, and preach a fool’s dream, that the world, with the devil still here, its prince and god; and man still unregenerate — that the world will by some “social gospel” gradually change in character? It is a lie! and those that preach it, preach a lie. The words of God shall be fulfilled, and not the mouthings of a McConnell or the fumings of a Fosdick.

And, O social gospeller, if you are looking for a changed state of “society,” who is going to help you bring it in? The Holy Ghost will not, for He has inspired men to write that the very opposite will occur! that men shall hate one another, and that the world will grow worse, to the very return of Christ. And we know that enlightened Christians will not go about to bring in what they know from God’s Word is not coming in!

And ignorant Christians cannot help you — for they know not how. And we know that this selfish world will not go about to bring in your social dream: for you and we know they are set on their own interests, and will remain so. And Satan cannot do it, if he would!

So, O social gospeller, who would go about to bring in a “new social order,” you are left to do it yourself, without that regeneration by the Holy Spirit which alone truly saves men; without any message of pardon for guilty souls through the shed blood of a Redeemer (for you do not preach that!) with­out the help and prayers of true believers: for, these pray, “Thy Kingdom Come”; but they know that Christ must return to earth to bring in that Kingdom; and they know that all other promises are false and lying hopes!

~~~

I just love Newell!

Some of our mild-mannered modern sophisticates, who know better, will probably blanch at his manner, but he was a man who knew well how to call a spade a spade. May God give us more Newell’s and less Nancy Nuance’s.