Dr. Donald Grey Barnhouse and Neo-EvangelicalismMiles J. Stanford Spiritual Sharing Service (Tri-S-Series) Number 8 of 19 This is Section I "Many spirits are abroad in the world and the church, and the credentials they display are splendid gifts of eloquence and ability. Christian, look carefully. Ask for the print of the nails." Justin Martyr "Except a grain of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone; but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit" John 12:24 Dear friend in Christ Jesus This page (originally published in 1977) constitutes a brief sketch of Neo-evangelicalism, a movement that began its death march some twenty-five years ago, in the wrong direction, and under the wrong banner. Its design was denominational infiltration, its banner was brains. It avoided the crucifixion of the Cross, ultimately to fall to the ground, alone and fruitless. Had Neo-evangelicalism marched away from denominational Liberalism-under the banner of the Cross--the march would have resulted in death unto life, with much fruit for the glory of the Lord. In that the movement has been critiqued in literally hundreds of books and articles, we will share our warning and alternative via the example of one of the movement's founders, Dr. Donald Grey Barnhouse. You may inquire, "Why Dr. Barnhouse; why single him out? What of the many contemporary Neo-evangelical leaders who oppose separation and maintain the same ecumenical attitude and methods that he did? "Why not use as your example any one of such men as Drs. Edward Carnell, Harold Ockenga, Carl Henry, Billy Graham, Clyde Taylor, Vernon Grounds, Rufus Jones, Lorne Sanny, Russell Hitt, Bob Walker, Bill Bright, Raymond Edman, John W. Alexander, Bob Cook, Hudson Armerding, John Stott, David Hubbard, Frank Gaebelein, Arthur Glasser, Wm. Petersen, John Mackay, Dan Fuller, Paul Rees, George Ladd, Bob Pierce, Ken Taylor, Bernard Ramm, or Leighton Ford?" Dr. Donald Grey Barnhouse (born 1895), a founder and file leader of Neo-evangelicalism, was one of the most influential Christian leaders of his time. He stood well in the forefront in the realms of intellect, theological training, and in his knowledge of the identification truths. Our brother knew the principles of the Cross for the life of the believer --it was a part of his theology as can be seen in his Romans, Vol. III. However, the crucifixion of the old nature was more an article of his faith than a principle of his life and ministry. This is stated with reluctance, but is based upon his history, especially the events of 1957. Without the balance of the Cross to deal with the old nature ("always delivered unto death for Jesus' sake"), thereby freeing the new nature for growth and responsible leadership ("that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our mortal flesh"), there is the ever-present danger of a leader becoming doctrinally disoriented and antithetical. Ultimately Dr. Barnhouse's love and fellowship were directed toward those who stood against the Word of God and the Lord Jesus Christ. His opposition and contempt were directed toward those who stood for the Word of God and the Lord Jesus Christ. Avoidance or refusal of the crucifying Cross often causes one to consider evil good, and good, evil. "Shouldest thou help the ungodly, and love them that hate the Lord"? (2 Chronicles19:2). "It is an intensely mischievous error to transfer our sympathies from a right cause to a wrong one because of some repulsive elements in the advocates of the right, or some attractive ones in the advocates of the wrong." "Let love be without hypocrisy. Abhor that which is evil; cling to that which is good. Be kindly affectionate one to another with brotherly love, in honor preferring one another." (Romans 12:9,10). Dr. Barnhouse has been selected as a clear example of the man who had everything in life and ministry... except the Cross. For the believer who is learning of the death of the Cross, and the life that is Christ, there is a responsibility, as well as an opportunity. Your responsibility is to protect and nurture those Fundamental Christians who may be adversely influenced by the leaven of Neo-evangelicalism. Your opportunity arises from the fact that there are thousands of Christians in the movement who are under a pall of spiritual futility and loneliness, and who are beginning to hunger for reality and spiritual growth. It will do little good for these awakening ones to turn to Cross-less Fundamentalism for the "not I, but Christ" life, even if they were so inclined. It was from that realm of immaturity that the movement commenced its death march. Now it is to you, who can by one Spirit-led means or another share the truths of the Cross and the Life, that they may turn. It is for you to be available, approachable; it is for you to hold the line, and have a heart! As Dr. Francis A. Schaeffer has so well said, "There is nothing more ugly than an orthodoxy without understanding or without compassion." "The servant of the Lord must not strive, but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, in meekness instructing those that oppose him, if God perhaps will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth, and that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil" (2 Tim. 2:24-26). Resting in Him, Miles J. Stanford Dear Mr. Stanford I wonder if you could explain something to me concerning the late Dr. Donald Barnhouse? The Lord granted me the privilege of growing up under the influence of his wonderful ministry, and for that I shall always be grateful. But what I have never been able to understand, and still cannot seem to get over, is the fact of his shameful capitulation to the liberals in the latter part of his ministry. In the light of his doctrinal soundness, and his knowledge of the identification truths, how could he possibly have done such a thing? Dear friend in Christ Jesus The far-reaching ramifications of the oft-asked Barnhouse question cannot and should not be superficially considered, so if you will settle for an article in lieu of a letter, I will share some of the key causes and effects of the matter. SYMPATHETIC CRITIQUE -- You probably feel much as we do that, although the Lord took Dr. Barnhouse in 1960, it seems as though he is still among us, busy and influential as ever. To this day my wife, Cornelia, occasionally shares with others some of his outstanding tape messages. Then too, there are a number of radio stations that have continued to air his Bible studies, and of course his many books are still widely read. Few Christian leaders have had a more extensive outreach and influence than he, through his 33-year Tenth Presbyterian Church pastorate, longtime radio and TV programs, world-wide conference ministry, some thirty books, and his Revelation (now Eternity) magazine (founded in 1922). SPIRITUAL FATHER-IN-LAW! -- It may come as somewhat of a surprise, and afford you a chuckle when I tell you that Dr; Donald Grey Barnhouse was my spiritual father-in-law. The Lord brought it about on this wise. You of course remember his famous Monday night Bible class, held in a New York City church. Two brothers, friends of my wife Cornelia, had a Christian aunt who, in the hope that they would be converted, urged them to attend the class. Evidently in order to share the misery, they invited Cornelia to accompany them. According to the Lord's good pleasure and purpose, Cornelia was born again in the course of several meetings. For some years she had been searching for the Truth, and was prepared for what she heard. It would seem that the young men were not. That was in 1936. Ten years later I helped supply and man the book table at those Monday night meetings, and became quite familiar with Dr. Barnhouse's teaching and techniques. CAUSE AND EFFECT -- In approaching what might be termed the Barnhouse problem, I believe that his brilliant, all-encompassing mind and photographic memory were not only his greatest asset, but also his greatest liability. He possessed so much by nature, he accumulated so much by assiduous study and keen observation, and he developed it all by constant use to such a high pitch of efficiency that he became a master in nearly every field of the many he entered. Because of all that Dr. Barnhouse was and had, he did not find it easy to depend upon others to any great extent. And he did find it hard to fit in with others. Using the term in the best possible sense, his high level of "self-sufficiency" made it very difficult for him to lower himself and his all into the hands of the Lord Jesus. No one would ever deny or even question that he was all out for the Lord, and that he worked tirelessly and endlessly for Him, but I do not believe he was ever able to fully and finally turn his giant intellect over to the Lord and to the Cross. This is said advisedly, in the light of subsequent developments in his life and ministry--the witness of his history. FUNDAMENTAL FORTIFICATION -- In order to guide and protect Christians as to the Modernist maze that was clouding the theological scene at the turn of the century, a classic series of booklets known as "The Fundamentals" was published in 1909. The fundamental points of belief were: (l) the inerrancy of the Scriptures, (2) the deity of Christ, (3) the virgin birth of Christ, (4) the substitutionary atonement of Christ, and (5) His physical resurrection and future bodily return. Our brother obtained the finest possible training, both in the theological fundamentals, and the secular academics. He attended the Bible Institute of Los Angeles (now Biola), and was beneficiary of Dr. R.A. Torrey's teaching without being misled by the Torrey error concerning "the baptism of the Holy Spirit." During these formative years this stellar student also came under the ministries of such Fundamentalist stalwarts as A.C. Gaebelein, James M. Gray, W.B. Riley, and others of similar spiritual stature. As a result, young Barnhouse stood firmly grounded in the fundamentals of the faith. Furthermore, he was a thorough-going premillennial, pretribulational, dispensationalist. Thus established, he was safely able to pursue further study at the University of Chicago, Princeton University and Theological Seminary, and France's Grenoble University. FUNDAMENTAL PRESBYTERIAN -- It was at the peak of the school's spiritual and academic history that he attended Princeton Theological Seminary. There he sat under the greatest teachers of a great Presbyterian era--namely, B.B. Warfield, R.D. Wilson, W.B. Green, and J.W. Davis. Consequently, Dr. Barnhouse graduated from the Seminary more strongly established in the fundamentals than ever. He also emerged a confirmed Presbyterian. Evidently he was unscathed as to his pre-mil, pre-trib, dispensational convictions, despite Princeton's Covenant theology orientation. As a matter of fact, he was to write later, "I think Amillennialism is the greatest mass of ignorance ever assembled in a single brain." By the time he was installed as pastor of Tenth Presbyterian Church in the mid 1920s, it was evident that the Liberal element had gained control of the denomination. In 1929 Dr. J.G. Machen (President) and other members of the faculty resigned from Princeton Seminary, but remained in the denomination. From the very outset Dr. Barnhouse took his stand upon the fundamentals of the word, attacking, from within, the Liberalism in his denomination in general, and his Philadelphia Presbytery in particular. Year after year he mercilessly exposed the apostasy by which he was surrounded. He was virtually unchallenged, despite the fact that his favorite sword thrust was Revelation 3:1, "I know thy works, that thou hast a name that thou livest, and art dead." MACHEN BUCKS BUCK! -- Dr. Machen and others were also fighting from the inside during the early 1930s. It was then that he especially concentrated his attack upon the Presbyterian Board of Foreign Missions which was sending Modernist missionaries to the fields. His most widely known and critical encounter involved the modernistic Pearl S. Buck, whom the Board sent to China in 1933. Dr. Ken Taylor's Tyndale House has just published a large 536-page volume entitled The Story Bible. Many American children will be subjected to this material authored by the late and liberal Pearl S. Buck. SOUND CREED, LIBERAL CONTROL -- By 1936 the Presbyterian denomination's wrath came down upon Dr. Machen and the others who stood with him against Modernism. They were summarily put to trial and defrocked. These men had already made up their minds to resign, although Dr. Machen himself was opposed to the principle of separation. His theory was that as long as the Liberals were not in actual control, as long as the creedal basis was intact, the evangelical believer should remain within his own denomination and work to keep it sound. But when the Liberals usurped control of his denomination, while slyly leaving the creed unchanged, there was nothing to do but separate. Over fifty years ago Ruth Paxson commented: "There is a pseudo-union in Christendom today that is tantamount to dishonoring disloyalty. Its slogan is, 'For the sake of peace we must have union even at the cost of truth.' It bids the Fundamentalist sit silently while the Modernist seeks and secures control of the machinery of the church both at home and abroad. If he protests he is accused of being unloving and divisive" (Life on the Highest Plane, p. 237). BARNHOUSE UNMOVED -- It was much the same for all of the large Protestant denominations. Their scriptural creeds were left intact, but meaningless; their leadership was dominated by Liberalism. And what of Dr. Barnhouse at this crucial juncture? He was not brought to trial, he was not defrocked, and he elected to remain "in." MASS EXODUS -- Through the years, however, thousands of faithful evangelical believers have separated themselves from the main denominations in the wake of the Liberal piracy. This mass exodus has resulted in the Bible church movement spearheaded by the Independent Fundamental Churches of America, some new denominations, plus thousands of independent churches, schools, seminaries, etc. Many of these outcast, outraged believers continued to attack the Liberal denominations, the Modernistic National Council of Churches, and the politically radical World Council of Churches--from the outside. On the other hand there were many equally conscientious Christians who deemed it best to remain within their denominations and work to regain control. However sincere the convictions both within and without, the situation constituted a vast split among U.S. evangelical Christians. SOLID STATE -- During the ensuing years of his Philadelphia Presbyterian pastorate, Dr. Barnhouse established himself as one of the finest of expository preachers. He was especially known for his uncompromising stand on the verbal inspiration of the Bible, a stand from which he never wavered. His preaching, writing, and radio work were also outstanding for a wealth of apt and incisive illustrations. And who could set forth the way of salvation more clearly than Dr. Barnhouse? KESWICK ACCUMULATION -- Due to his own study and the influence of America's Keswick, he included the identification truths in his teaching and preaching. But these growth principles never became central in his message and ministry, although they are all there in his Romans, Vol. III--as well as some "deeper life" expositions that might better not have been there. In the summer of 1946, Dr. Barnhouse gave the five one-hour addresses of the afternoon Study Hour at English Keswick. His assigned subject was "Identification in Christ's Ascension." in 1948, as speaker for the same series of meetings, his subject was "Baptism into Christ." In the course of those messages he informed his Keswick audience, "It was because of my study for that series two years ago that I began to enter into the deeper truth of our identification into Christ in all of His being and work from eternity to eternity." KESWICK ADMONITION -- It must be said that Dr. Barnhouse, although well known as a Keswick speaker who was invited to such conference platforms both here and abroad, did not see the necessity of the continual application of the Cross in the life of the believer. Although English Keswick, the mother of them all, included him in their annual week of meetings a number of times, he didn't really fit in there. Nor did the Keswick folk feel sure about him, or comfortable with him. He just did not have the Keswick heart, the thorough and clear understanding of identification truth necessary for such a conference. In regard to his "Baptism into Christ' messages during the 1948 Convention--which were outstanding in many respects--the Conference chairman subsequently wrote in Keswick Week 1948, "Dr. Barnhouse is a stimulating speaker, and held the close attention of his hearers; but by no means all agreed with the extreme Calvinist doctrine underlying his thesis." That was not written, incidentally, from an Arminian point of view. KESWICK ATTENUATION -- But the problem went somewhat deeper than that, as is evidenced in those same messages. Intermingled with the clear doctrines that he enunciated concerning our baptism into Christ, there was considerable clutter, if not actual error. Included with our baptism into Christ's death, burial, resurrection, and ascension life, he went so far as to teach that we were also baptized into His circumcision, His Jordan River baptism, and His increase in wisdom, etc. He also stated, while knowing better, that the law died, that our sin died, and that at our new birth the Holy Spirit placed the divine nature within our old sinful nature. Finally, he made the mistake of saying, "In the spiritual life, the life of Christ dominates the old Adamic life with which we were born." Right here we have the key to the Barnhouse problem. Reliance upon the new life to overcome the old life eliminates dependence upon the work of the Cross for the old nature. No Cross, no crucifixion; leaving the old man free to ruin all. It is this side-stepping of the Cross, whether by intention or ignorance, that renders barren most growth ministries today. Resurrection and ascension life emerge from death by crucifixion. THE TURNING OF THE KEY -- While Dr. Barnhouse chose to remain within the Presbyterian denomination and the National Council of Churches, he managed to maintain active fellowship with much of the Fundamentalism that had separated from denominational Liberalism. He was a welcome, and always outstanding speaker at many Fundamental functions, conferences, rallies, churches, etc. But even the dexterous Dr. Barnhouse could not maintain this tenuous tension indefinitely--that of fellowshipping with the Fundamentalists on the outside, and fighting with the Liberals on the inside. Evidently, for their own reasons, the Liberals could go on tolerating the situation, but the Fundamentalists could not for any reason. It is both interesting and instructive to see something of the cause and effect, the outcome (or "income") of our brother's inclusivistic position. Four brief aspects of the development will be considered:
DISASTROUS DECISION -- Christians in general could never understand why Dr. Barnhouse was not defrocked, or why he didn't resign from the Presbyterian denomination along with Dr. Machen and the others. Certainly he was as doctrinally sound as they, and he outdid them in his long-time vilification of denominational Liberalism. But there was one devastating difference. Whereas these men finally decided to separate, Dr. Barnhouse preferred to stay. Although that decision may not have been understood by the Fundamentalists, it was certainly understood by the Liberals! "UNEQUALLY YOKED" -- They couldn't have cared less about his Fundamental doctrinal profession; they could weather his wordy welts--they had the man! And from his ecclesiastical death in 1936 (due to his fateful decision to remain in the Liberal fold) until his physical death in 1960, Presbyterianism put Dr. Donald Grey Barnhouse to good use as their Exhibit A, their "front man." Despite all that he said and wrote to the contrary, his ordinational yoke with the Liberals was a distinct service to the cause of Modernism for twenty-five years and more. Whether for good or for ill, Dr. Barnhouse's influence was always immense and far-reaching, as it is to this day. He was by no means alone as he separated himself in spirit from the separated, while moving in ever deeper harmony with his heretical yokefellows. Even if the shepherd entered the den in the hope of making lambs out of the wolves, he never should have taken the sheep with him! By both conviction and experience, Charles H. Spurgeon valued separation.
NEO-EVANGELICALISM SPAWNED -- During the 1940s there was a vast evacuation of believers from the ranks of the already separated Fundamentalist movement. There was a joining of minds and mood with Christians who had remained within the Liberal denominations, a "union" which finally resulted in the formation and growth of the National Association of Evangelicals. Thus we have the emergence of the ecclesiastical hybrid, self-identified as Neo-evangelicalism. Initially Fundamental in its beliefs, but ecumenical in its bent--the anomaly of the separated inclusivists. Its strategy is to penetrate the Liberal denominations in the hope of regaining control for orthodoxy. It seeks to infiltrate with love, without making an issue of doctrinal error or attacking personalities who hold those errors. It has love for the Liberal; but it has very little love for the separated Fundamentalist brother in Christ. FUNDAMENTAL "FAILURE" -- We should look for a moment at some of the basic characteristics of Neo-evangelicalism. The movement asserts that it separated from Fundamentalism because the latter is separatist, and therefore divisive. It also accuses Fundamentalism of being "obscurantist," "hypocritical," "anti-intellectual," "unloving,' "anti-science," etc. The Neo-evangelical admits to being Fundamental in doctrine, but not fundamentalist in name. Call him anything but that! "There are thousands of Neo-evangelicals who would bristle at being termed Liberal. But they would bristle even more at being tagged Fundamentalists." "Do not call me a Fundamentalist. While I really do believe the great Fundamental truths of the Bible; still, I do not wish to be known as a Fundamentalist because the 'intellectuals' hate the term. I wish to be accredited." LIBERAL LOATHING -- The Neo-evangelical also accuses the Fundamentalist of failure to win the Liberal and reclaim the denominations because of his "ill-reasoned" and "poorly-presented" Gospel. Conversely, Neo-evangelicalism would win the campaign by means of infiltration, intellectual approach, accommodation, and love. It is true that naught can be accomplished apart from the Savior's love. But what Neo-evangelicalism fails to comprehend is that Liberalism does not reject the claims of Christianity because it is ill-reasoned or poorly presented, but because it is Christianity! Neither does it accept Christianity when it is intellectually reasoned and proudly presented. THE CROSSLESS CHRISTIAN -- Even if all of his accusations were true of the Fundamentalist--and some of them are--the truth is that the Neo-evangelical cannot bear to be looked down upon. He will avoid stigma at any cost, and he will seek recognition at any price. His thinking is that if he can gain the respect and approbation of the religious and secular worlds, he will thereby gain a hearing. However, fear of the stigma of being known as a Fundamentalist, plus fearlessness of acceptance by the Liberal, add up to Neo-evangelicalism's avoidance of the Cross concerning intellect and reputation, if nothing more. What we should all realize is that "the world's frown is comparatively powerless; it is its favor that we have most to fear." Dr. Vance Havner once observed, "The devil goes about as a roaring lion, but he does far more harm as an angel of light." LEADERS LEACHED -- The Neo-evangelical movement was originally marshaled and directed, mainly under the aegis of the National Association of Evangelicals, by such well-known leaders as Dr. Harold Ockenga, Dr. Carl Henry, Dr. Billy Graham, and Dr. Donald Barnhouse, to mention but a few. If Dr. Ockenga is considered to be the father of the movement, Dr. Barnhouse could certainly be considered its "mother." The shame is that while Liberal denominations made great gain of Dr. Barnhouse, the same 'penetrated combine' manages to make immeasurable gain by means of manipulating one Dr. Billy Graham. A leader of the World Council of Churches has boasted, "We are using him to build our churches." Yes, infiltrate, accommodate, stay in--and be won instead of win! This is exactly what happened to Dr. Barnhouse, to name but one among all too many. The penetrator is himself penetrated. Let the would-be infiltrator beware! If it can happen to these giants, what makes you impervious? "While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption; for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage" (2 Peter 2:19). |
|
MJStanford
Home | MJS | Hungry Heart Devotional | Testimony | Memorial | Order Books | Email Best viewed in Explorer 6+ or Netscape 6+, 1024x768 screen display, 16 bit color or higher, and JavaScript on 900MB (2,000+ pages of text) Copyright © 1996-2010 withChrist.org Last updated: December 17, 2009 (Materials by Miles J. Stanford are republished here under exclusive permission from the author.)
|