Rock of Truth; sands of error - Joining in on the "neo-liberal" discussion...

I wanted to 'chime-in' on the discussion of "neo-liberalism" as it pertains to the context of Christianity today. I would first, however, like to begin with a quote that rightly identifies the peril of the modern gospel (as opposed to the true biblical one) and speaks to the disappointing compromise of changing the gospel to suit contemporary society.

H. Richard Niebuhr once described the modern gospel as consisting of a "God without wrath bringing people without sin into a kingdom without judgment through a Christ without a cross." (Quoted at ©1997-2004 The Baptist Page - www.thebaptistpage.com)

This modern gospel is an obvious departure from the biblical message and reflects a changing of that historically understood message to a different gospel tailored to appeal to contemporary society. The proponents of "neo-liberalism" (description forthcoming), many of whom preach this modern gospel, are likewise involved in departing from biblical truth to a theology that is more 'palatable' to the modern 'unchurched seeker'. In this is grave error that we will now explore further.

Adrian Warnock, rightly coining the term "neo-liberalism" for a growing branch of postmodern thinking within Christendom, has posed the following definition of neo-liberalism: the intentional adaptation of Christianity to post-modernity. Adrian has identified in a number of his blog entries that this new movement, also referred to as "postconservative evangelicalism" and "the emerging church" (among other names), carries with it some dangerous theological implications - the most grave of which are a reduced view of scriptural inerrancy and the idea that biblical Christian truths are changeable and not eternally relevant. This new approach to Christianity serves to dismantle the traditional and historical Christian faith and erect a malleable replacement shaped by postmodern thought and 'cultural awareness'. While the proponents of this neo-liberalism may be sincerely concerned with the current climate of evangelical Christianity, their prescribed methods to improve the state of things fall short of reverence, fail the test of biblical obedience, and diminish our submission to the providence of God.

When the implication of a new approach to Christianity is that the current system of 'the faith' (as biblically defined) is deficient, those of us holding to the historically biblical view of Christianity would be remiss not to sound the alarms for discernment and defense. Given that this neo-liberal approach to Christianity assumes a position marked by the dismissal of objective truth; an embracing of progressive epistemology; and the endorsement of redefining Christianity to fit a culturally relevant mold - I felt that we must expose this new-fangled approach to the light of scripture (with the hope that God's Word is still relevant enough for neo-liberals).

In the New Testament, Jude writes the following to 1st Century Christians: "Beloved, while I was making every effort to write you about our common salvation, I felt the necessity to write to you appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints" (Jude 3). This verse has many powerful messages and lends itself quite meaningfully to our discussion. Firstly, rather then write about the salvation that all Christians had in common, Jude was compelled by good reasons to write to them ('the saints') with urgency to ensure that they zealously defend, against adversaries, the once-for-all-delivered faith. Secondly, 'the faith' referred to here is not simply the theological virtue of believing in and trusting God but rather the totality of Christian doctrine and the fullness of evangelical truths to be believed. John Gill in his Exposition on the Bible writes of 'the faith' in Jude 3 as such:

"...the whole scheme of evangelical truths to be believed; such as the doctrine of the Trinity, the deity and sonship of Christ, the divinity and personality of the Spirit; what regards the state and condition of man by nature, as the doctrines of the imputation of Adam's sin to his posterity, the corruption of nature, and the impotence of men to that which is good; what concerns the acts of grace in the Father, Son, and Spirit, towards, and upon the sons of men; as the doctrines of everlasting love, eternal election, the covenant of grace, particular redemption, justification by the imputed righteousness of Christ, pardon and reconciliation by his blood, regeneration and sanctification by the grace of the Spirit, final perseverance, the resurrection of the dead, and the future glory of the saints with Christ"

Thirdly, Jude establishes that this faith has been 'once for all' delivered. The Greek word used here, 'hapax', is also used in 1 Peter 3:18 to describe the finality and sufficiency of Christ's sacrifice: "For Christ also died for sins once for all". So unless we want to go the way of the papists, who erroneously claim that Christ's sacrifice is perpetuated and represented, we are forced by sound exegesis to apply a similar finality as that of 1 Peter 3:18 (Christ died once for all) to 'the faith' referred to in Jude 3 (delivered once for all). Just as there is no need for any further sacrifice for sin there is likewise no need for any further development of Gospel Truth, or a changing thereof. John Gill in his study notes on Jude 3 comments on the 'once-for-allness' of the faith this way:

"it was delivered by God the Father to Christ as Mediator, and by him to his apostles, who may more especially be meant by "the saints", or holy men; who were chosen to be holy, and to whom Christ was made sanctification, and who were sanctified by the Spirit of God; and this faith, being a most holy faith, is fit for holy men, and only proper to be delivered to them, and preached by them; and by them it was delivered to the churches, both by word and writing; and this delivery of it supposes that it is not an invention of men, that it is of God, and a gift of his, and given in trust in order to be kept, held forth, and held fast; and it was but "once" delivered, in opposition to the sundry times and divers manners in which the mind of God was formerly made known; and designs the uniformity, perfection, and continuance of the doctrine of faith; there is no alteration to be made in it, or addition to it; no new revelations are to be expected, it has been delivered all at once: and therefore should be "earnestly contended for"

The reason I am writing all of the above is to show that unalterable Christian truths (read: 'the faith') were delivered once for all at a period in time and that it is this same faith that should be kept, held fast, and earnestly contended for. Only decades following the death and resurrection of our Lord and Savior, ungodly men were secretly creeping in to pervert the Christian faith. If the faith had not been final and complete, what was to be earnestly contended for? In our day and age creeping men still lurk amongst the church seeking to pervert the faith. Albeit with some level of sincerity these men nevertheless operate under their own philosophical presumptions seeking to alter God's revealed truths. If Christian truths are malleable, changing and subject to being adapted to contemporary society in order to better appeal to a postmodern demographic, why does the Word of God tell us that the faith was once-for-all handed down and should be defended? While neo-liberals more then likely would avoid the explicit biblical references establishing the finality of the Gospel message (or perform exegetical hand-stands to re-define it) and when pressed might even call the Bible a relic relevant only to an age gone by, evangelical Christians must hold hard and fast to biblical truth as God's eternal objective truth and to 'the faith' as that which is final and to be zealously defended.

This topic has by no means been exhausted, here or elsewhere, and I will continue with the support of other likeminded Christians to defend traditional biblical Christianity against the vain philosophy and precepts of "neo-liberal" thinkers. These men seem to forget that it is God's truth to reveal not man's truth to change. The Bible (of which the Gospel message is central) is not a malleable blob of theological clay to be shaped and fitted to human preference. It is a fully sufficient, complete, and closed book, "inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness", and it need not be added to, changed, or supplemented.

I have used this quote recently in other posts but would like to use it again. J.C. Ryle, in the 19th century, was defending evangelical truth against the tractarian heresy that was seeking a unity between protestants and catholics. Much like the disturbing Evangelicals and Catholics Together ecumenism that we see in our day and the growing problem of Christian "neo-liberalism", the Gospel was being compromised for a man-devised rendition that better suited the cultural climate. J.C. Ryle said this as part of a dissertation on the essentials of a biblical faith:

"The first leading feature of Evangelical Religion is the absolute supremacy it
assigns to Holy Scripture, as the only rule of faith and practice...Show us
anything plainly written in that Book, and, however trying to flesh and blood,
we will receive it, believe it, and submit to it. Show us anything, as religion,
which is contrary to that Book, and, however specious, plausible, beautiful, and
apparently desirable, we will not have it at any price...Here is rock: all else
is sand".

More to come as the discussion on this continues...
(Click to read introduction to Rock of Truth; sands of error)