Irven Lee’s “Prophecy”
From the late and lamented Irven Lee, Preaching In A Changing World (154-155, c. 1975), we extract the following historic assessment.
“The liberals among us in this country will get closer and closer to the typical Protestant pattern. This movement is a back to denominationalism movement. . . . The preachers will . . . serve as officers in ministerial associations that will invite men of the Billy Graham type for city wide meetings. Instruments of music will be added in many of these churches before the end of this century. . . . History is only repeating itself, and I am only reading history. . . .
“There are fine people with much respect for the Bible that are meeting with the liberals. In so many cases they stay where they are with an uneasy conscience, but social pressure from family relatives and friends keeps them there. ‘The children are happy there,’ they say. . . .
“Are not some in the more liberal congregations already speaking in tongues, healing, and prophesying? Is worldliness not already very noticeable in prominent members, while the preachers preach in generalities, as politicians do, so that both the strict and the worldly can be happy? Do not many preachers, elders, and deacons of some so-called churches of Christ say that the instrument of music is a matter of opinion? When the gate was opened for the first institution or social gospel action, the door was opened for complete apostasy.
“Some churches have only started, while some have almost caught up with their neighbors in the ‘other’ denominations. It is a matter of getting out now or going down with the ship. Remember that the children and grandchildren will grow up in it, and drift with it, until they know nothing of the back-to-the-Bible plea. ‘Walking by faith’ will be strange words to them. Look for yourselves. Read the signs of the times. Are immodesty, divorce, social drinking, and other forms of worldliness condemned in plain language in these larger congregations?
“. . . Preachers of this new influence among faithful churches can preach a lot of truth, and talk of love, while they privily sow the seeds of liberalism. The sheep’s clothes appear to fit them, at first glance. . . . Such men have very great admiration for those whom they call scholars in the denominational world. They worship at their feet. They tend to have great respect for the ‘Christians in all the good churches (denominations).’ Beware. . . . They . . . delight in magazines published by those who are filled with pride and worldly wisdom, and who are openly liberal. Brethren, can you recognize a wolf in sheep’s skin? . . . The Lord does not want His church harmed by men from among ‘your own selves,’ or by enemies from without. Those on the inside are more dangerous.”
Similar Signs Abound
Around Us Today
Sadly, brother Lee’s “uninspired prophecy” has proved to be correct. Anyone who has been to Nashville or Abilene knows that what he predicted has come to pass.
Equally tragic, however, is that the same signs are seen among those who sat at the feet of brother Lee in years gone by. The same compromising spirit which spawned liberalism’s drift into denominationalism is afoot today. It is manifest in the following ways.
First, there is declaration without application. General germs of truth are preached, but direct and specific, “here’s-what-I’m-talking-about” points are not made.
Some will teach the truth about divorce and remarriage, but they would not dare to say, “It is not lawful for thee to have her” (Matt. 14:4). Some refuse to name and identify what they are talking about, preferring to speak in broad generalities, unless, of course, they are speaking against those who are opposing them! Then, they speak plainly as they deny and denounce those whom they decry as dishonorable, divisive, judgmental journalistic jingoists.
Second, error is excused while those who oppose it are accused. The false teaching of those “who seem to be somewhat” is explained away while the appeal to objective study is seen as a personal affront, or as a devious means to “divide and devour.” Instead of inquiring, “Is the teaching true to God’s book?” some see any challenge of the position of their friends as a “personal attack.”
Paul challenged and confronted Peter at Antioch; he “withstood him to the face” because he “stood condemned” (Gal. 2:11-14). Today, brethren who would say they “agree with Paul’s position” would be found defending Peter to the hilt and charging Paul with trying to “make a name for himself.” Others would cry, “church autonomy” and refuse Paul the right to address such an issue beyond the borders of a particular local church. Others would boycott and seek to undermine Paul’s influence. Through clenched teeth, they would identify and vilify Paul, calling his name while they denounce him as a “name-caller!”
Third, the tone and tenor, the nature and character of New Testament preaching is belittled. No, they do not mean it to be so, but it is true nonetheless. Denominational styled preaching, performed by clever, witty after-dinner speakers, is the rage of the age. Pious, clerical, high sounding worldly wisdom has replaced the line-drawing substance of plain Bible preaching. To challenge a false religion, to strip it of its power and expose its human traditions, is considered “mean and hateful.” Yet, that is the very fabric of the preaching of “the holy apostles and prophets.” Hear Peter in Acts 2. See Stephen in Acts 7 as he took the hide off the hardened heart of unbelief. Watch Paul as he strips away the bark of paganism and hear his audience squall and charge him with economic murder and financial ruin (Acts 17:16-32; 19:23-26).
Preaching of the same quality was done by the pilgrims and pioneers of faith in our country. It was direct, challenging, confrontational, “up close and personal.” One has but to read the pungent pen of Benjamin Franklin, or to read the withering defenses of the faith by McGarvey, or to study the analytical unraveling of denominational error by W. Curtis Porter, to see the difference between such men and the Bible and those today who think they have discovered a “kinder, gentler” manner.
Such men say little against the traditions of Protestant churches (Methodists, Baptists, for example). They consider it to be undignified to specifically and pointedly identify the error of such churches — and never would they refer to them as “human institutions, founded by men.” They speak of “our traditions” and accuse us of “denominationalizing” the church, but they would not dare to publicly address the human traditions of Easter and Christmas and directly challenge denominational churches by name as the Lord and the apostles did (Matt. 15:8, 9; 16:6, 12).
Conclusion
The attributes above have serious consequences. What are they? The answers are found in brother Lee’s words above. The fact that such ideals and attitudes abound and that brethren “love to have it so” is proof enough to those who have ears to hear. The popular spirit of soothing softness and the disdain for “sound doctrine” assures us that sadder, harder times lie ahead. The money, the power, the pride, begotten by the grace and charm of the wisdom of this world, will go the way of digression. It will become worse and worse. Their word will eat as doth a cancerous gangrene, slowly but surely (2 Tim. 2:16-18; 3:13). Expect it. It has ever been so.
Many are now being swept along by the current of digression. By the time they awake, it will be too late, for their pride will not allow them to turn back to the old paths. Too, their children and grandchildren will have become so engulfed and enveloped by the coming apostasy that they will find it too difficult to abandon them and admit their guilt for leading their dear ones into sin.
Make no mistake about it. The signs are all about us. Destinies are being chosen. Fates are being decided. Presently, for a time, heaven will weep in sore travail. Then, again, it will rejoice with its remnant when the painful purging process is concluded.
Truth
Magazine Vol. XLV: 11 p18
June 7,
2001