When one talks about current issues, he dates himself in the flow of Christian history since issues always change in the ongoing march of our Lord's church.

To date this book, to lock it into the last years of the twentieth century may be unwise, may undermine its usefulness in another generation. But the issues of today must be faced because they are what make us cry out so for discernment.

If our Lord tarries, there will be other issues in another day. But today, from my viewpoint, these are the issues - the movements and currents in evangelical Christendom which cannot be ignored. I also clearly identify myself as an evangelical Christian believer.

Ecumenism

Briefly stated, there is a worldwide urge in many segments of the Christian church somehow to forge the diverse elements of the church into one umbrella organization.

The Anglicans, for example, apparently cannot help but discuss a return to Rome. There are whole denominations such as the United Church of Canada, the Uniting Church in Australia, and the United Methodist Church in the United States which by their names lend force to the conviction that all Christendom should be one. The World Council of Churches, formed in 1948 in Amsterdam, is the Protestant expression of this idea, and invariably cites the prayer of Jesus Christ as their proof text, "That they may be one, even as we are one" (John 17:22).

Those who hold the lower, more tenuous views of biblical authority are often those who are drawn to ecumenism. But there are those who implicitly believe the Bible, who fully accept its authority, who also tend to work toward the visible unity of the church.

There is another viewpoint that has an eschatological basis. The prophetic Scriptures warn that a pseudo-superman will rise, that he will be a religious figure. Some believe that this figure will come from the harlot church. And there are passages in Revelation which support this view. Any movement toward the church of Rome is then taken to be apostasy.

Those who resist the ecumenical movement tend also to believe that unity already exists among all true believers in Jesus Christ.

One exponent of anti-ecumenism put it this way, "I don't have a ripple of ecumenism in me," He believes that the unity of the worldwide body of Jesus Christ already exists. His viewpoint also includes the idea that there are intended to be differences of administrations and differences of operations within Christendom, and that there is no need at all to "get everything together." He believes the denominations in their diversities represent God's plan and purpose.

These two views and variations of them are in the church, What kind of spirit is at work? What is the mind of the Holy Spirit? The discerning Christian will know.

Success Ethic

America is the land of success. The Christian church has not escaped this influence, and as a result the largest churches, the biggest budgets, the most aggressive programs, the most effective evangelistic programs are often considered to be evidences of God's blessing.

But are bigness and power the real criteria for measuring God's blessing? Is the multi-national corporation really an expression of divine principles at work in the secular field? Are glass cathedrals and nationwide television specials the real symbols of successful Christianity? Is positive thinking always God's plan?

Inspirational leaders like Norman Vincent Peale and Robert Schuller have stimulated and encouraged millions. But the question must be asked, does not God sometimes have failure, brokenness, sickness, and even death in His plan?

The Americans, above all nations, have been a nation of doers. It can be done. Nothing is impossible. Is this attitude an outgrowth of the scriptural concept, "I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me," (Phil. 4:13) and "with God nothing shall be impossible" (Luke 1:37)? Has America led the world because of the heady optimism which has sprung from the religious idealism upon which the nation was founded? Or is this philosophy, once in the church, a twisted reality which ultimately disillusions all its devotees?

Church Growth

There is an outgrowth of the success ethic which has come to dominate missionary thinking worldwide. The leaders are men like Donald McGavran, Ralph Winter, and Peter Wagner - all associated now or in the past with the School of World Mission in Pasadena, California. Other centers for the study of church growth are springing in Deerfield, Illinois; Wheaton, Illinois; Regina, Saskatchewan; and elsewhere.

The Church Growth movement has an abounding literature, and basically has applied statistical methods, marketing techniques, and intense pragmatism to church growth. Methods have been discovered. Responsible peoples have been pinpointed, and churches have grow

Interestingly enough, many evangelistic endeavors which once were examined as to whether they produced lasting personal conversions are now beginning to be examined by another standard: do these efforts result church growth?

Is the Church Growth movement one of the most significant developments in the recent history of the church? Or is it simply an unholy philosophy which associates secular methodology with what is essentially the work of the Holy Spirit, the growth of the church? Has radical anthropology penetrated the movement, as Quebedeaux insists?1

Is there a departure from the truly biblical focus on Christ when methodological approaches are made to our Lord's Scriptures and to the church He is building?

Is a focus upon the growth of the church a dangerous tendency which deflects the church from proclamation evangelism to the studious application of those social sciences which are certain to increase the crowd? Is individual conversion being lost among the charts and statistical data?

Does the drive to grow threaten standards of holiness? Does it blur Christian distinctives such as the new birth?

Is everything that grows godly? What do studies about Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses or anti-trinitarian groups have to do with the acts of the Holy Spirit in today's world? Is the Church Growth movement an unholy pragmatism or a fresh breeze of the Holy Spirit? Or is the truth somewhere in between?

The church of the New Testament was certainly a flourishing, growing church.

The worldwide diffusion of the Word of God is clearly expressed in the Bible. Many Scriptures can be summoned to substantiate the claim that our Lord's church is to grow. Does the acceptance of growth as a criteria of God's blessing really vary from the convinced charismatic's appeal to supernatural phenomena as proof that his doctrine is correct? Is accepting tongues as an "evidence" of being filled with the Holy Spirit really any different from accepting growth as an evidence of God's blessing?

Yes, these are the questions, all valid, and the answers must be found. The discerning Christian will find them.

The Charismatic Movement

Today this burgeoning movement is worldwide in its scope and has penetrated every Christian denomination including the Roman Catholic church.

The teachings are diverse as well as consistent. Speaking in tongues has become the hallmark of the movement, the subjective evidence that the Holy Spirit is at work in the individual and the church.

Passages in Acts and Corinthians are cited as authority for the reception of such experiences along with the dramatic providences, miracles, and healings that accompany them.

Undeniably there has been a deepening of the faith of thousands. Millions have been won to Christ, and Pentecostalism in its denominational forms has planted churches around the globe.

The convinced charismatics usually attempt with the zeal of a crusader to draw others into the ranks of the initiated.

But the charismatic movement shows an aversion to doctrine and an affinity to experience and providences.

As a result, and not surprisingly, the ecumenical movement has shown a deep interest in the "Pentecostal experience." This experience gets Baptists, Anglicans, and Roman Catholics on the same ground in a hurry. It does in minutes what years of doctrinal dialogue have failed to do. It unifies!

But there are questions. The more resolute evangelicals say that such manifestations are no longer to be in the church and that all present-day manifestations are either fleshly exhibitions or satanic delusions.

Still others add that pagan religions also have speaking in tongues. They fill the evangelical underground with true accounts of tongues demons being driven out in the name of Jesus Christ and of sexy, sensual, and phony Jesus - spirits which have affixed themselves to Christians who have frequented the charismatic milieu.

One evangelist affirms that in twenty years of evangelism involving exorcism and deliverance from time to time, one-third of the demons driven out has been pseudo-charismatic manifestations. Those who have reduced this finding to statistics affirm that of those charismatics who seek counselling on this issue, as high as 90 percent have spurious manifestations.2

Is the charismatic movement ultimately an unhappy mix of wheat and tares that is to be tolerated but hardly endorsed? With it, apparently, are found true evidences of the charisms of the Holy Spirit. But are all kinds of deceptions there as well?

Certainly it is impossible to be a thoughtful and sincere Christian in this day without having some kind of attitude toward the charismatic manifestations. Also, that this attitude should be a discerning attitude is immediately obvious.

Falling

Related to the chariamatic movement is a phenomenon that is called "falling under the power." Apparently many people have fallen into trance-like states when in an intense charismatic atmosphere. Some evangelists have added "catchers" to the more ordinary need for ushers. And in some religious meetings, blankets are supplied so that supine women in varying degrees of immodesty can be covered. The Holy Spirit, it is said, has slain these believers.

In seeking to substantiate such phenomena from the Bible, many make frequent mention of the Apostle Paul, who was flattened on the Damascus road. Sometimes also the incident involving the guards who wished to seize Jesus prematurely in the garden of Gethsemane and were thrown backward is used as corroboration.

Others, of course, suggest that all is not as it appears. Occult subjection causes people to fall as well, they say. Incidents are related where evangelical believers have gone to such meetings while resisting all that is not of the Holy Spirit of Almighty God. In one cited case, thirty-nine people in a line of forty fell. Only the Christian brother who resisted all that was not from the Spirit of Almighty God stayed on his feet.3

In another case two evangelical pastors attended a service where "falling under the power" was a regular feature. They agreed to bind every spirit that was not the Spirit of God and to forbid all such exhibition unless motivated by the Holy Spirit of God.

That night there was no falling.

There are stories on both sides, of course. I have heard some of them myself. Many Christians testify to remarkable spiritual changes, to identification with Jesus Christ on His cross and more - all associated with what generally might be called "falling under the power."

Moreover, the history of revivals includes the record of similar phenomena. Charles G. Finney and Jonathan Edwards were famous for their tight logic, reasoned responses, and intense revivals. They also saw a lot of falling, though apparently the phenomena were invariably related to deep conviction of sin.

In the current scene, all kinds of views are propounded and all kinds of events take place, all in the name of Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit of Almighty God. Is the falling phenomena occultism? Is it psychological deception? Is it one of the acts of the Holy Spirit today? Does it include some or all these elements? Or is it something else again?

Certainly only Christian discernment will ever sort out the answers here.

Christian Rock

These terms may seem to be mutually contradictory, and indeed they are since the word rock referred originally in black subculture to the act of fornication.

At the same time words take on new meanings, and Christian rock is now used to describe that type of music which takes typical rock-and-roll rhythms and adds Christian lyrics to them. The rationale is interesting too, since avant-garde evangelism has traditionally stolen the music of the world, adapted it to Christian words, and reached the masses.

General Booth, illustrious founder of the Salvation Army, could not see why the devil should have all the good songs. He proceeded to take beer hall songs, put evangelistic words to them, and stir the masses of his day. Are the rock-and-roll evangelists following in a long and honored tradition? Or has something sinister and new been added?

There are those who are convinced that music is a language in itself, Thus, rock-and-roll is a non-verbal expression of the immorality, perversion, and drug-orientation of the beat generation.

The immorality, debauchery, and homosexuality of the secular rock stars are cited, their frequent suicides tabulated.

Scriptures that speak about songs and hymns and spiritual songs are summoned to do battle with this gross evil.

It is remembered that Jeduthun (1 Chron, 25:3) prophesied in the Bible with an instrument alone, and that being so, the implication is clear that instrumentation and music alone have a message, without words, So again the question must be posed, "Is it really possible to use a medium of rebellion and sensuality to project a message of repentance and holiness?"

One of the biblical words used for praise means to "play loudly upon an instrument."4 Music, or more specifically praise, can then be considered one form of non-verbal communication. The music alone has a message. Again a question must be asked, "Can non-verbal messages of rebellion and immorality be coupled with lyrics promoting repentance and holiness?" And if they are joined, what will be the effect?

Christian young people have tended to regard rock as their idiom, but the appearance of gay rock may be shaking that conviction.

The rock-and-roll evangelists may point to their crowds - nearly always large, and their converts many. "What we are doing must be of God. Look what is happening. We are just doing what evangelists have always done. Why should the devil have all the good songs?"

Still others cite examples where rock music has been played overseas and the native believers, recently delivered from spiritistic worship have asked, "Why are you calling the spirits?"

And of course there are the many shades of variation in between these extremes. Who will have answers for this confusion? Only the discerning Christian. Penetrating insight must be applied.

Christian Pornography

Again we have a clash of terms and ideas. Presently in North American publishing, two fields are booming. As might be expected, they are pornography and evangelical literature.

But can the two things be wed?

Something new has now been added. Christian publishers, in the interest of explicitness and saleability, have gone far beyond the terms of decency in publishing. All kinds of details about prostitution and perversion are being served up for the insatiable appetites of the reading public.

Not content with standards which would emulate the Bible, and the Bible certainly is frank and sometimes very earthy indeed, some evangelicals have pressed on to blasphemy, perversion, and explicit sex - all in the name of Jesus Christ, the building of the church, and the work of the Holy Spirit.

Probably the most shocking illustration of this trend is the publication of Child of Satan, Child of God. The co-author was one of the murderer Charles Manson's girls. She has almost certainly been dramatically converted to Jesus Christ. But in her book the inclusion of sensuous detail and the glorification of evil that precedes Christian conversion are unacceptable and naive. Or worse, plainly wicked. Should evil be published so that good may result? Presumably the Apostle Paul answered that question long ago (Rom. 6:1-2). And did he not say, "For it is shameful even to mention what the disobedient do in secret" (Eph. 5:12, NIV)?

Moreover, secular publishers are now developing evangelical lines. Can the world sustain the church? One of the main television networks in the United States now owns one of the famous evangelical publishing houses. Can sex and soap millions be used to beef up sales and bring back the King?

There may be those that say that editorial freedom is the answer and that if unbelievers' money can be used for the propagation of the Christian faith, fine and good. Others respond that believers are intended to be simple concerning evil (Rom. 16:19).

In the day when Christian books are judged by their four-color covers and their potential for impulse buying, what sells has become more important than what is right, biblical, or holy.

Christian books are everywhere today. C. S. Lewis and A. W. Tozer are available on the same stands as Playboy. Today's pagan will buy anything! So, apparently, will today's Christian.

Is this good? Or bad? Or is it a terrible confusion which mirrors the uncertainty of our day? Should certain Christian publishers be blacklisted for compromise and stupidity? Or should they be lauded to the skies for their brilliance and aggressive evangelism?

Simplistic, hurried answers are not enough. Surely there is no substitute for the profound wisdom and penetrating insight called Christian discernment.

Worldliness

Changes are more than apparent in this sensitive area of evangelicalism. Ever since the German pietists placed their indelible mark upon what is known today as the "born again" brand of Christianity, there has been a struggle in evangelicalism to keep its ranks "unspotted from the world" (James 1:27).

Christianity has, since its inception, implied a change in life style, a repentance, and an abandonment of the old way so that the new life might be embraced.

The separation Scriptures are well known, if not so often rehearsed these days: "Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him" (1 John 2:15).

Again the Scripture says, "Friendship of the world is enmity with God" (James 4:4).

Other texts can be summoned to buttress this idea.

But other strong evangelical minds discount .the legalistic structures of the past. The Bible does not prohibit alcoholic beverages, just drunkenness, they say. Moreover, we should not live in an evangelical ghetto. We need to get out where the people are. Eat with them. We must not be fundamentalist Pharisees.

Television has done the most to break down the walls of separation. Burlesque shows that would have brought blazing shame a generation ago now march into the living rooms to produce evangelical titillation and "holy" giggles.

The religious movie now has a multi-million budget. Tickets at the door. Violence and innuendo in the text, and a gospel invitation (maybe) at the end. The evangelicals who a generation ago would have nothing to do with the "hollywood cesspool" now jam the theatres to the doors.

And strangely enough, the movies of a generation ago were not always laced with immorality, homosexuality and perversion as they are today.

Christian movies are staged in local theatres. And when they are over and the smut is back on the screen, the little Christians never seem to notice. They just keep on trooping in.

A generation ago the late A. W. Tozer observed that inevitably the religious movie was gaining wide acceptance.

 One thing may bother some earnest souls: Why so many good people approve the religious movie. The list of those who are enthusiastic about it includes many who cannot be written off as borderline Christians. If it is an evil, why have not these denounced it? The answer is lack of spiritual discernment.5

Are we asleep in Zion? The observation of the Lord's day has broken down. A generation ago when a baseball star refused to play on Sunday, he was a hero among Christians. Now football behemoths trudge to chapel first, and afterward out to trample the opposition.

Were the old times too strict? Today the preaching of Jesus Christ is penetrating society as never before. Evangelicals have burst out of their ghetto. They make their mark everywhere.

But does not the Book still say, "Without holiness no one will see the Lord" (Heb. 12:14, NIV)? Does it not say, "Let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God" (2 Cor. 7:1)? Are evangelical gluttons to preach while Christian drunks are thrown out of church? Have God's laws changed? Or have evangelicals changed? Are we fooling ourselves while marching to this world's tune? The answers are not as clear as they seem to be. Could not a cloistered fundamentalist send as many people to hell as an evangelical libertine?

Peter Buckles, citing a survey taken by the Association of Evangelical Students, an affiliate of the National Association of Evangelicals, says this:

To determine which social habits they find to be acceptable, students at four Christian colleges were asked how they felt about six 'worldly practices' . . .About 60 percent felt that listening to rock music and social dancing would not compromise their Christian witness. Dating non-Christians, performing rock music, and drinking alcoholic beverages rated close behind, but were not as acceptable (40 percent). Students at all four schools rated smoking as least acceptable; 25 percent at one school felt it would not compromise their witness.6

Remember, these students profess to be evangelicals.

We must not ever forget that those who multiply negatives and encumber the Christian life with ever-louder "noes" are not strong Christians; they are by St. Paul's definition "weak" (1 Cor. 8:7). The weaker the believer, the more rules or borderline issues he is certain to have.

In such a milieu, where is the biblical voice that cries for true righteousness and holiness? Where is the prophet who can see as God sees, who can call pharisaical fundalmentalists and worldly evangelicals to the same altar of brokenness in prayer?

Where he is, or if he shall ever be, we do not know. But if he comes, he will most certainly be a discerning Christian.

The Inerrancy Debate

There is something new in the kingdom - there are now out-and-out evangelicals who win souls, conduct aggressive evangelistic crusades, lead growing churches, and yet believe there are errors in the Bible. Historically, this has never been.

A generation ago, Harold Lindsell's Battle for the Bible was the unflinching book that crystalized the issues in America and brought the inerrancy debate to the fore. Lindsell believed that the admission of the possibility of error into the text of the Bible opens the door to all kinds of apostasy which is sure to follow.

In answer to Lindsell, Jack Rogers published Biblical Authority, a compendium of several authors, which, when carefully analyzed, is an appeal by errancy believers for a little maneuvering room in their dealing with the Bible. They appeal, not too convincingly, to history and seek to say that the church fathers were not such vigorous proponents of inerrancy as some think them to be.

The debate was hot and divisive. It was also so pervasive that no thoughtful evangelical could avoid the inerrancy controversy.

Is evangelicalism about to be divided, or is it already asunder? Was the debate about inerrancy a tempest in a tea-pot or the domino theory already activated in theology? Surely it is beyond the scope of this book or perhaps any other to give a definitive answer. Does apostasy inevitably follow errancy? Or will the controversy be forgotten as the immense task of world evangelization is tackled with energy and expertise never before available to the church of Jesus Christ?

The answers are not easy. Pragmatic foolishness may be as deadly as theological blindness. How can one know? How can one be sure?

As this book unfolds, as we probe this whole area of discernment, criteria from which answers may be derived will be forthcoming.

At this point, it is important only that the questions be raised.

Seducing Spirits

What do we mean here? It appears that Christians are being beset by all kinds of influences, and were the realities known, we would be agreed that these influences are seducing spirits.

The family and personal faith seem to be the two main areas under attack. Sex-triangles develop among Christian workers. Divorce is no longer just a problem in "the world." Divorce has marched, flauntingly, into the evangelical church.

Marriage partners are being pulled apart by all kinds of devious lusts. Fixations upon the opposite sex have become commonplace, and in the case of many believers, the seducing spirits proceed to set up all kinds of providences which lead the persons involved to believe that God is leading them away from their spouses. Women feel God is leading them to leave their husbands. Christian men feel God is providing the real love they have always lacked in their own marriages. But the fruits of these lusts are bitter indeed. God's children are seduced. Adultery and immorality usually follow. And divorce hard after.

Biblical teaching about the agape love which is commended for every marriage is sadly lacking.7 The realization that love is willed and is to be followed by emotion is a concept that could save every marriage without exception. Agape love is love that springs selflessly from the will and does not regard feelings at all. This agape love, when exercised, triggers the feelings which follow.

The world's concept of feeling love has dominated the church. When feeling has gone, love is presumed to be gone as well. Then the seducing spirits are there with opportunities and providences galore. Often, too, they supply the wavering Christian with multitudinous scriptural texts, all of which seem to imply that immoral conduct is really God's magnificent plan.

Satan attacks the family because it thwarts his purpose in the world, because it is symbolic of Christ and the church, and because marriage is a power structure of oneness that he deeply fears. Once the home has been broken, all the family's defences are gone.

And what of the sects? Jim Jones's macabre exploits with his suicide cult in the jungle of Guyana was but one example of what is happening worldwide. More recently, David Koresh led his followers to death in Waco, Texas. To the clean-shaven Mormons, the persistent Jehovah's Witnesses, and the pseudo-intellectual Christian Scientists has been added in these latter days the politically oriented Moonies and the orange-robed Hare Krishnas.

What does one say about the thousands of sects floating around the periphery of Christianity? Is there not a Mormon spirit as surely as there is a Moonie spirit? Do not these seducing spirits all march to one tune?

Destroy the church.
Attack the church.
Destroy the church.
We are the only ones.
We are the only ones.

On and on the mournful litany goes

Inquiring souls have been swept into the cults and reside in bondage still. Satan's army is not one bit diminished. The devotees simply switch from division to division in the army of darkness.

Seducing spirits are these. Sexual and religious. And a thousand other kinds. But always aligned against the church, always against Jesus Christ, the living God.

Samuel J. Stone, in his immortal hymn has caught the sound of battle and seen the triumph in the end.

The Church's one foundation
            Is Jesus Christ her Lord;
She is His new creation
            By water and the Word:
From heaven He came and sought her
            To be His holy bride;
With His own blood He bought her,
            And for her life He died.
Though with a scornful wonder
            Men see her sore oppressed,
By schisms rent asunder,
            By heresies distressed,
Yet saints their watch are keeping;
            Their cry goes up - "How long?"
But soon the night of weeping
            Shall be the morn of song.8

Emasculated Evangelism

In July, 1977, when Charles Colson, the convicted felon of Watergate fame and author of a best seller called Born Again, addressed the Christian Booksellers Association in St. Louis, Missouri, he told the assembled book people that forty million Americans professed to be born again and

that in his own endeavors and in those of many other evangelists, men and women were coming to Jesus Christ by the thousands; and this he termed the good news. Then he said, "Here is the bad news." He went on to chronicle the increasing lawlessness, immorality, and homosexuality in the United States. Something, he implied is seriously wrong in the most evangelized country in the world. People are, he said, making decisions for Jesus Christ, but moral transformation is not following. There abounds, implied Mr. Colson, a form of godliness which denies "the power thereof" (2 Tim. 3:5).

What Mr. Colson summarized is that which millions of Christians have come to feel. The contemporary declaration of the gospel seems to fail to carry with it the moral revolution that almost invariably accompanied conversion in the day of the celebrated revivalist Charles G. Finney, to say nothing of the solid conversion that came under Peter's preaching. But then, say others, where does one see repentance in John 3:16? Are we always obligated to demand repentance before conversion? Does not the very word believe imply repentance? Is not the nature of the word believe such that it requires a person to turn from one thing to another? So the discussion goes on. The emphasis shifts to discipleship. The inquirers must be discipled for permanent conversions and lasting results.

Evangelistic and discipleship movements are to be commended, not denounced. Still, in all fairness, the questions have to be asked.

Is ours an emasculated evangelism? Has the heart of the gospel message somehow been glossed over so that we now proclaim a pale shadow of the truly apostolic message?

Or, as some surmise, is wickedness inevitably to increase, even though in the last days God will also pour out His Spirit on all flesh? Are we to expect godliness and wickedness to explode in tandem? Who has the real answers to these vital, vital questions?

Social Action

Increasingly these days, evangelical leadership appears to be embracing the political left. If in the past evangelicals have not always been Regan Republicans, they have definitely found themselves on the right side of the political spectrum. The reason has been easy to discern. too. Those who take the Bible seriously have been likely to be conservative in their political views.

But this is no longer the case. Evangelical Canadians now blithely vote for the socialistic, and not incidentally, humanistic New Democratic Party. In America, publications like Sojourners, The Other Side, Radix, and even "the evangelical Mad Magazine," The Wittenberg Door focus on social justice and the prophet Amos.

No one has documented this change in evangelicalism, more adequately than Quebedeaux.

 As I said earlier, the vanguard of the evangelical left is centered on a small, highly literate, zealous, and generally younger elite, many of whose spokepersons helped formulate the Chicago Declaration. Evangelicals of the left range from moderate Republicans to democratic socialists, if not Marxists.9

Mr. Quebedeaux's entire text, The Worldly Evangelicals, chronicles the evangelical drift to the left.

Social concern has always been a byproduct of Christianity. And certainly that is not about to change. But the religious liberalism of the early twentieth century displaced evangelism with social action with disastrous results.

Evangelicals now are insisting still on the primacy of evangelism. They are in the words of John Stott, the elegant and erudite British spokesman for evangelicalism, prioritizing evangelism.10 But Arthur Johnston suggests in The Battle for World Evangelism that evangelism has been dethroned.11

This is not the place for a full discussion of these issues. But does the increasing evangelical attention to social activism indicate the dethronement of evangelism? Is not any attention paid to activism certain to dull the evangelistic passion to win souls for Christ?

Does the evangelical drift to the left provide the certain evidence that biblical conservatism is being abandoned, that salvation by good works and social action will ultimately become an evangelical option?

Nothing less than broadly based and deeply rooted biblical knowledge will ever sort out the issues and answers here. Another name for that so desperately needed knowledge is discernment.

The concurrent move of some evangelicals to the far right cannot be overlooked in the consideration of the social action controversy. One of the most vigorous of these movements was the Moral Majority led by Dr. Jerry Falwell of Lynchburg, Virginia. He believed that Christian morality had to be reestablished in America whatever the cost.12 Falwell's agenda of moral priorities differed, of course, from that which might be offered by: the publishers of Sojourners.

Presently, the Christian Coalition is attempting much the same thing.

Feminism

The ordination of women is a popular media issue, probably second only to the popularity of reports on homosexual clergy. There are, however, increasing numbers of women in the evangelical fold who are embracing contemporary feminism.

Again, Quebedeaux's comments are precise.

We have already seen that right and center evangelicals like Bill Gothard, Larry Christenson, and Marabel Morgan affirm the traditional subordination of women to men (in marriage, at least) by appealing to Scripture, taken literally. Former missionary and conservative evangelical author Elisabeth Elliot claims that the traditional man-woman relationship also reflects the submissive relationship of Christ to God. . . . The roots of contemporary evangelical feminism - a movement within the evangelical left - can be traced back to Russel Prohl's book, (Grand Rapids, Mich: Eerdmans, 1957). Then came free-lance writer Letha Scanzoni's article in the February 1966 issue of Eternity, "Women's Place: Silence or Service?" advocating the ordination of women. Two years later she argued in the same magazine for the elevation of marriage to a partnership. In 1969 Scanzoni began corresponding with Nancy Hardesty, who was then teaching at Trinity College (Illinois), about the possibility of co-authoring a groundbreaking book on evangelical feminism - a work that was published finally in 1974 as All We're Meant to Be: A Biblical Approach to Women's Liberation.13

The evangelical feminists seem to be determined to accept only Galatians 3:28. Every other stricture on the ministry or activity of women in the church must be explained away.

Author Elisabeth Elliot, in Let Me Be a Woman, affirms, on the other hand, that "a woman can find true freedom only by submitting to the authority of her husband because in so doing she is really submitting to God himself."14

The Scriptures must be considered in this controversy, but the Bible scholars sometimes reflect their hermeneutical suppositions in the conclusion they reach about the meaning of Scripture. Such is the case with Paul K. Jewett when he concludes that St. Paul was simply wrong in what he wrote about the role of women.15

Others believe that women may certainly prophesy, or even be apostles [Rom. 16:7). The only biblical prohibition for their ministry is that they may not lead churches because a woman can hardly be the "husband of one wife" [Titus 1:6). Nor should women teach or usurp authority over men [1 Tim. 2:12). As a defence of this subordinate or complementary role, it is argued that such a role does not diminish personality nor equality with men. Are there not subordinate roles in the Trinity itself? The Father sends the Son. The Son sends the Holy Spirit. And to suggest that the Son or the Spirit are less than omnipotent, omnipresent deity is heresy.

Where do the biblical guidelines lie? What is the true role of women in the church? Is the submission of the wife to the husband in marriage a beautiful biblical pattern or an archaic remnant from ancient Jewish culture? Is the woman made for the man? Is the wife most fulfilled when she is most sheltered - protected by her husband?

The modern woman is looking for answers. And modern man would like to find them too.

And Finally

Many other issues could be raised. The ones I have chosen are set in the cultural context of evangelicalism in Canada and the United States in the nineties.

You will notice that the subjects have been dealt with quite evenly. Where this has not been the case you can attribute it to my bias or perhaps some small discernment gained in this study.

And of course, you will certainly want to add your own issues.

_______

1.         Richard Quebedeaux, The Worldly Evangelicals, p. 89.

2.         K. Neill Foster, The Third View of Tongues. p. 89.

3.         Wilbert McLeod, Charismatic or Christian? pp. 149-150.

4.         James Strong, Hebrew and Chaldee Dictionary. p. 35, no. 2167.

5.         A. W. Tozer, The Menace of the Religious Movie. p. 29.

6.         Peter Buckles. "What Are Christian College Students Like?" Christianity Today. p.29

7.         Foster, Revolution of Love, pp. 38-47.

8.         Samuel J. Stone, "The Church's One Foundation," Hymns of the Christian Life. rev. and enl. (Harrisburg: Christian Publications, Inc., 1978). p. 395.

9.         Quebedeaux, The Worldly Evangelicals, p. 84.

10.       John R. W. Stott, Christian Mission. p. 35.

11.       Arthur P. Johnston, The Battle for World Evangelism. p. 302.

12.       Jerry Falwell, Listen America!, p. 23

13.       Quebedeaux, The Worldly Evangelicals. p. 121.

14.       Elisabeth Elliot, Let Me Be a Woman.

15.       Paul K. Jewett, Man as Male and Female. p. 119.

Chapter 5