A BRISK TOUR OF THEREFORMATION On June 28, 1914, the Crown Prince of Austria-Hungary in Sarajevo was assassinated. This event, thoughseemingly rather insignificant at the international level, actually led to thedeclaration of World War I, a month later. The world was thus rudely broughtinto a new era. Since then, because of the global impact of the war, events inthe world tended to have greater international significance and ramificationsthan before. This was in no small ways fuelled by the Communications Explosion,beginning with the invention of the telephone in 1876 and later the inventionsof the aeroplane in 1903 and the television in 1925. The world went through anupheaval during those days, but more catalysts for change were to come with theSecond World War in 1939 to 1945, as well as the invention of the electroniccomputer in 1945 and the Internet around 1983. In those turbulent and exciting days of global developments, the visible Churchalso underwent many significant changes. Tracking these changes, however, isnot as straightforward as the days before the 1900s when the changes may betracked somewhat chronologically along selected lines of development. Nevertheless, these changes have such a great impact on the Reformed Faith andTradition that the respected church historian Dr. John Gerstner once surmisedthat less than one percent of professing Christians (evangelicals) in the worldremain truly Calvinistic. We are convinced that this is not because of inherentweakness in Calvinism and Reformed doctrine, but because a large part of theapparent growth of the Church, especially around the turn of the century andbeyond, has been in sectors of the professing church, which promote falsegospels of emotionalism and easy-believism. We are convinced also that, ingeneral, the world has not been Christianised, but the Church has, to a largeextent, been worldlified. Nevertheless, we have no doubt that the Church ofChrist marches on and the gates of hell cannot prevail against it (Mt 16:18). In this final of our four-part series, we would like to take a brief look atwhat has happened in the Church scene over the last 100 years or so. Butbecause the development in the Church during this period has a more universalrather than local ramification, it is necessary for us to abandon ourchronological tourist approach, and take a quick “slide-show” of some of themovements that have arisen. In this way, we hope to gain some knowledge and perhapsinsights on what has happened and is happening to Christianity as we head intothe 21st century.
This is further aggravated by the increasingly syncretistic character of theassemblies. Such unbiblical alliance as seen in the WCC is in no uncertainterms condemned throughout the Scriptures. Sadly, a great number of‘Protestant’ denominations, including Methodist, Presbyterian, Reformed (Continental),Baptist and Anglican (Episcopal), have been engulfed in it, whereas even theRoman Catholic Church has voiced some dissent concerning their syncretism. Roman Catholicism After the Protestant Reformation, the Roman Catholic Churchunderwent nearly two decades of Counter Reformation throughthe Council of Trent from 1545 to 1563. Since then the Roman Catholic Churchpursued a steady course without many significant development for nearly 400years. Roman Catholic dogmas were hardened, and Protestants were generallycalled heretics. The gulf between Protestantism and Catholicism was furtherwidened when in Vatican I (1869–1870), it was declared that the pope, whenspeaking ex-cathedra, was infallible without needing the backing ofa council. In 1950 this prerogative was exercised by Pope Pius XII when,without the backing of any council, he defined and enforced the doctrine of thebodily assumption of Virgin Mary into heaven. This decree not only signalledthat church councils were now unnecessary but also widened the gap betweenRoman Catholicism and the other churches greatly. A surprising turn of event came, however, when the successor of Pius XII, PopeJohn XXII, called for another council, the Vatican II (1962–1965). In thisCouncil, which was presided by the successor of John XXII, Pope John XIII,Roman Catholicism would outwardly face a major transformation. Some of themajor features of this Council include (1) a declaration that both the clergyand laity constitute the church, unlike in the past when only the clergy wereconsidered to be the people of God; (2) every Roman Catholic was now encouragedto read the Bible; (3) parish worship was to be in the vernacular languages;(4) for the first time in 400 years, Protestants, Anglicans and GreekOrthodox’s were called “separated brethren,” and the return of these renegadebrethren to Rome was no longer deemed to be the solution to the schism thatexists in the church. Rather the Council sought to promote unification withoutdictating how it should be done. That this Council had tremendous impact in Christendom is obvious. For thefirst time since the Reformation, the Roman Catholic Church is appearingconciliatory to woo Protestants back to the fold. Also, the attitude of theaverage Protestant towards Roman Catholics changed drastically as a result, somuch so that the majority part of the “Protestantism” now consider Rome to be atrue church of Christ and are seeking ecumenism with them. The 1994 statement, issued jointly by Roman Catholic theologians and so-calledevangelical theologians, entitled Evangelicals and Catholics Together:The Christian Mission in the Third Millennium (ECT I), is one of theproducts of this questionable dalliance. When the document was criticised bythe more conservative and astute Reformed ministers as compromising thebiblical doctrine of justification by grace through faith alone, a seconddocument entitledThe Gift of Salvation (also known as ECT II) wasissued in November 1997. This document goes so far as to say: We agree that justification is notearned by any good works or merits of our own; it is entirely God’s gift…. Injustification, God, on the basis of Christ’s righteousness alone, declares usto be no longer his rebellious enemies but his forgiven friends, and by virtueof his declaration it is so.… By faith, which is also the gift of God, werepent of our sins and freely adhere to the gospel… what we here affirm is inagreement with what the Reformation traditions have meant by justification byfaith alone (sola fide). This statement is not surprising for those who are familiar with Roman CatholicTheology, especially when we know that in Roman theology, the terms“justification” and “grace” (or “gift”) have somewhat different meanings fromwhat the Reformers understood them to mean. But such language of diplomacy hascaused many to forget that the Council of Trent anathemised the Protestantdoctrine of Sola Fide and insisted that grace is administeredwith the liturgical actions of the priest when administering the sacraments (exopere operato). The fact is that the Roman Catholic Church has not really changed at all. Not ajot of the unbiblical doctrines has been changed, and neither can they changebecause of the doctrine of papal infallibility. The Roman Catholic Churchcontinues to hold to another gospel. All that was changed was her approach atecumenism, from a more direct approach to one that is much more subtle anddifficult to counteract. Pentecostalism The twentieth century Pentecostal Movement began in October 1900, when CharlesFox Parham, commonly regarded as the founder of the Pentecostal Movement,started Bethel Bible School in Topeka, Kansas. He taught and practised divinehealing, second blessing of sanctification and a third blessing of baptism ofthe Holy Spirit with tongues-speaking as the evidence. This was to lead to the“Azuza Street Revival” in April, 1906, under William J. Seymour, a student ofParham. This ‘revival’ was characterised by strange phenomena, includingshouting, weeping, dancing, trances and ecstatic tongue-speaking. It alsofeatured contributions of seances and trances from the mediums of occultsocieties in the worship service. Since then Pentecostal churches began to spring up all over America, and laterEurope, South America, and the rest of the world. In 1914, the Assemblies ofGod denomination was formed. After World War II, Pentecostalism gained general acceptance through theemergence of healing evangelists, such as Oral Roberts and Jack Coe, with thehelp the television. This, together with the work of the Full Gospel BusinessMen’s Fellowship International (FGBMFI), was to lead to a new era wherePentecostalism is introduced to the main-line denominations, includingAnglican, Presbyterian, Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran, and even Roman Catholicin 1967. The term “Charismatism” is generally used to denote this new phase ofPentecostalism. Within a decade, however, a new phase in the development of Charismaticism,known as “The Third Wave,” or the Signs and Wonders Movement, hit the churcheswith heretical leaders, such as John Wimber, Rodney Howard Browne, Benny Hinn,Kenneth Copeland, John Arnott, advocating delirious laughter and animal calland behaviour as being manifestations of the Holy Spirit work. The influence of Pentecostalism is far reaching and is felt in many areas,including worship, evangelism and ecumenism. However, it is my firm convictionthat Pentecostalism or Charismatism has been destructive, rather thanconstructive, to biblical Christianity. The characteristic shallow,sense-oriented Christianity that is so prevalent in many churches today can bedirectly attributed to Pentecostalism. The refusal to take the Bible as thecomplete revelation of God has resulted in a deplorable theological confusionand corruption, including nefarious dabbling with occultic and New Age ideas.Indeed, Pentecostalism is a major cause of apostasy in the Christian Church inthe twentieth century. Liberalism Liberalism or Modernism originated in Germany in the nineteenth century as theresult of the convergence of several theological and philosophical theories,such as Higher Criticism, Darwinism and the philosophies of Kant and Hegel.Liberalism denies most of the fundamental tenets of Christianity, such as the deityof Christ, the divine Trinity, the fall of man, the wrath of God, theinspiration and inerrancy of the Scripture and, in fact, anything else that maybe deemed supernatural or miraculous. Though Christian in name, it is accordingto John Gresham Machen, “not only is a different religion from Christianity butbelongs in a totally different class of religions” (Christianity &Liberalism[Eerdmans, reprinted 1992], 7). By the beginning of the twentieth century, there was such a diversity oftheological thoughts with liberal inclinations that it is difficult tosummarise them briefly. Its impact, however, can be seen in the fact that bythe First World War, it controlled numerous major seminaries, colleges andpulpits (see Earle E. Cairns,Christianity Through the Centuries, 2nd ed.[Zondervan, 1981], 443). Nevertheless, because of the horrors of the war andthe effects of the Great Depression of 1929, Liberalism, which offered no hope,lost its appeal and was largely replaced by Neo-Orthodoxy which was introducedby Karl Barth through the publication of his commentary on Romans in 1919 and1922. By 1945, the influence of Barthian theology began to wane, and gave way to themore subjective and existential teachings of Rudolf Bultmann and Paul Tillich.The confusing development that followed is best summarised by Cairns, whoexplains that the influence of Bultmann and Tillich gave way to … radical humanistic, relativistic,and secular theologies, such as the death-of-God theology, the secular theologyof [Harvey] Cox and [Henry Wheeler] Robinson, Marxist-tinged theologies of hopeby [Jurgen L.] Moltmann and radical liberation, and black and feministtheologies (ibid.; words in brackets mine). Cairns’ summary brings us up to the 1970’s. Although the Gallup Survey of 1976indicates that most who called themselves Christians (in the United States)have abandoned Liberalism and its derivatives, its baneful influence cannevertheless be still felt in the vast majority of seminaries and churchesaround the world, including those that are professedly Presbyterian andReformed. John Gerstner, studying the effects of Liberalism, remarks that byeducated guesses, as much as “90 percent of all professing Christendom does notprofess Christianity. Or rather,… does not understand the Christianity itprofesses” (Handout Theology, 35). I am convinced by experience that thefigure may be even higher. Fundamentalism Just before the First World War, in reaction to the rising influence ofLiberalism and related ideas such as German Higher Criticism and Darwinism, amovement began to emerge from orthodox Protestantism in the United States. By1920, this movement was known as “fundamentalism” (see George M. Marsden,UnderstandingFundamentalism and Evangelicalism, [Eerdmans, 1991], 1), though theconnotative meaning of the term has gone through several changes. In 1909, two Christian laymen were moved to set aside a large sum of money topublish and distribute a series of twelve volumes known as TheFundamentals. These volumes set forth the Christian Faith by listing andcritiquing a wide range of subjects, which are contrary to Christianity, suchas Romanism, socialism, modern philosophy, atheism, and the like, but above allliberal theology. Contributors to the series include B.B. Warfield, James Orr,R.A. Torrey, C.I. Scofield and other evangelical scholars. In 1910, following three heresy trials related to ministers who taught liberalideas, the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church of United Statesaffirmed five “essential and necessary” doctrines which were regarded as beingattacked in the church. These had to be subscribed by all ministers under itsjurisdiction: (1) the inerrancy of Scripture; (2) the virgin birth of Christ;(3) His vicarious atonement; (4) His bodily resurrection; and (5) thehistoricity of miracles as recorded in the Scripture. Although the statement was reaffirmed in 1916 and 1923, there was a gradualswing towards Liberalism. John Gresham Machen, who published the celebratedChristianity& Liberalism in 1923, fought hard against the tide of Liberalism,which was then creeping into his denomination, but he was eventually defrockedin 1936 when the modernists gained the upper hand. Machen, with the help ofothers, was able to establish the Independent Board for Presbyterian ForeignMission (1933), Westminster Theological Seminary (1929) and The PresbyterianChurch of America (1936, later renamed Orthodox Presbyterian Church), before hedied in 1937. These stood as the fundamental witnesses against the apostasy inthe church, together with the numerous other seminaries and denominations(including the Bible Presbyterian Church) that sprung from them. On a parallel track, the Premillennial Baptists and independents founded theWorld Christian Fundamental Association in 1919, in the tradition of the BibleProphecy Conference, which had begun in 1878. Later the Baptists establishedThe National Federation of the Fundamentalists of the Northern Baptists (1921),the Fundamentalist Fellowship (1921), and the Baptist Bible Union (1923). Thesenot only focused on the seminaries, the mission boards, and the ordination ofclergy, but also opposed the teaching of Darwinism in the public schools. In those early days, Fundamentalism referred to those who held to the fundamentalsof the faith as adopted by the Presbyterian Church. Fundamentalists were alsomilitantly opposed to theological liberalism. By the early 1940, however,fundamentalists began to divide into two camps. The first adopted theprinciples of ecclesiastical separation and would have no fellowship with anygroup, which was not fundamental or was sympathetic to those who were notfundamental. This found expression in the American Council of ChristianChurches (1941) and later, the International Council of Christian Churches(ICCC), which was inaugurated in Amsterdam by Carl MacIntire in opposition tothe World Council of Churches, in 1948. The second group, on the other hand,did not wish to practise ecclesiastical separation, and began to callthemselves “evangelicals,” and later “neo-evangelicals” in distinction withFundamentalism. Unfortunately, those who remained to be called Fundamentalists were largelyDispensational in their inclinations, or are at least Premillennial in theireschatology, so that in theological circles, the term “fundamentalist” began tobe used also synonymously with those of such persuasion. Moreover, as AnthonyThiselton notes, “In later years the term ‘fundamentalism’ came to denote anunduly defensive and obscurantist attitude which was anti-scholarly,anti-intellectual and anti-cultural” (“An Age of Anxiety,” in Eerdmans’Handbook to the History of Christianity [Eerdmans, 1977], 596). With such negative connotations of the term, it is no wonder that most Reformedand Presbyterian churches, though remaining soundly orthodox and faithful tothe Word of God and their historical Confessions, have disassociated themselvesfrom the label today. Sadly also, while Fundamentalism in the original sense has a good cause, itsimpact in the American church scene, as well as elsewhere in the world wherethere are fundamental witnesses, is often characterised by numerous painfulschisms over personality clashes and relatively minor issues, as well aslingering animosity between communions that resulted from the splits. This,together with the shallow evangelicalism and antinomianism resulting fromDispensational influences, has made fundamentalism a distasteful term for many. Neo-Evangelicalism While Evangelicalism and Fundamentalism were synonymous before the 1940’s, asharp distinction began to emerge over the practice of biblical separation aswell as other essential doctrines. Evangelicals, who do not consider themselvesas fundamentalists, argued that separation from others of differing opinions isisolationism. They also argue that biblical criticism can be used profitably. In 1947, Fuller Theological Seminary was established with these ideals. A yearlater, Harold J. Ockenga, the first president of the Seminary, coined the term“Neo-Evangelical” to describe those of the same persuasion as Fuller Seminary.Neo-Evangelicals believe in dialoguing with Liberal and New-Orthodox ecumenicalgroups. They generally submit to limited inerrancy, theistic evolution, and alocal flood theory, among other things. As a body, Neo-Evangelicalism isrepresented by the National Association of Evangelicals. Neo-Evangelicals, as well as those who preferred to be called simply“evangelicals,” were also very evangelistically and ecumenically minded. Themovement expresses itself in the numerous ecumenical, non-denominationalorganisations, which have sprung up. For example, in 1928, the Inter-VarsityChristian Fellowship was formed in England; and Campus Crusade was organised byBill Bright in 1951. The Billy Graham Crusades (1949 onwards) were alsoorganised in these lines. Graham’s evangelistic campaigns have attracted many.For example, in the 1957 Crusade in New York, nearly two million attended;while the 1973 Crusade in Seoul, Korea, brought three million. The Billy Grahamorganisation has further contributed to ecumenical efforts in calling for theWorld Congress on Evangelism (Berlin, 1966) and the International Congress onWorld Evangelisation (Lausanne, 1974). The impact of Neo-Evangelicalism on the churches in American and the world isno doubt very significant. However, the theological compromises and the refusalto obey biblical mandates on ecclesiastical separation has often led to tragicconsequences and doctrinal drifts from the basic tenets of Christianity,including the denial of eternal hell, the denial of the judgement, and thedenial that the basic mandate for the church is that of biblical worship andevangelism, preferring rather to see social activism as more important. Conclusion From this brief survey of the movements in the visible Church, it can be seenhow far various sectors of the Church has deviated from the biblicalChristianity that was rediscovered during the Reformation of 1517. The effortsof Rome and the Ecumenical Movement not only attempt to nullify the effects ofthe Reformation, but could potentially bring about a totally different kind ofdisaster to the churches that are involved in it, namely, religious syncretism.Pentecostalism has lowered the credibility threshold of many modern Christians,in what seem to be Satan’s preparation for a great last day delusion.Neo-Evangelicalism appeared promising, but is in fact a ship slowly sinkingwithout its occupants realising it. Fundamentalism, which offers the most hopefor churches, which claim no creed but the Bible, is tainted with Arminianismand Dispensationalism, leading to easy-believism, and is often wrecked withbiblically unjustifiable schisms. I am no prophet, but from what little I know of the history of the Church sincethe Reformation, I am persuaded that the only viable expression of ProtestantChristianity, which is not based on unbiblical traditions and does notcompromise biblical theology, is one that is warmly confessional. Although inour last article, we saw that there were numerous splits in the Presbyterianchurches in Scotland and America, weshould also realise that these splits were generally between congregations thatwere united under the presbyterial form of government rather than betweenmembers in the same congregation, as often happened in many fundamentalnon-confessional churches. Moreover, many of these splits occurred eitherbecause of departures from the Confession, or untenable additions to theoriginal Confession.
May the Lord preserve His Church as long as Christ, the Head of the Church,tarries. May He use us fruitfully in our generation and in the generations tocome. Amen.
|
    |