February 12, 1997 (David W. Cloud, Fundamental Baptist Information Service, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061-0368, fbns@wayoflife.org) - One of the root problems with New Evangelicalism is what it refuses to preach. It is a Christianity which aims to be positive. This fact causes many to be deceived by New Evangelicals (most Evangelical leaders today have adopted the New Evangelical philosophy). They hear a popular Evangelical speaker and say, "My, how he teaches the Bible so wonderfully; I don't see anything wrong with him." These fail to understand that the problem with the New Evangelical's teaching is not so much what he says that is wrong, but what he refuses to say that is right. He refuses to proclaim the whole counsel of God. He will not deal with many of the negative aspects of the Word of God, such as ecclesiastical separation, rebuke of apostasy, a fiery Hell. He will not plainly identify false teachers. He will not deal plainly with the sins of the common Christian.

This spirit is finding its way into churches which claim to be fundamentalist. The preacher steers clear of many controversial things, and when he does deal with something that is unpopular he has an almost apologetic demeanor.

Charles Finney noted this tendency in his day: "Ministers generally avoid preaching what the people before them will understand as addressed to them. They will preach to them about other people, and the sins of others, instead of addressing them and saying, 'You are guilty of these sins.' They often preach ABOUT sinners instead of preaching TO them. They studiously avoid being personal, in the sense of making the impression on anyone that he is the man."

This is becoming descriptive of some Fundamental Baptist pulpits which in year's past plainly preached against sin and error.

Here are some questions I would propose to test the content of a preacher's ministry:

HELL. Does he preach Hell hot? Does he preach Hell at all, meaning does he even use the word when referring to the sinner's destiny? Or does he more often tend to avoid that term and refer to the eternal condition of the lost in more general ways? Billy Graham does mention Hell from time to time in passing but he does not preach plainly on that subject. In fact, he no longer is certain that Hell is a place of fiery torment. He has said, "[I have] often wondered if hell is a terrible burning within our heart for God, to fellowship with God, a fire that we can never quench" (Fundamental Baptist Fellowship News Bulletin, Mar.-Apr. 1986, p. 3). In 1986 Kenneth Kantzer, senior editor of Christianity Today, said the last sermon on Hell he heard he preached himself, nearly 30 years ago! You say that is terrible that New Evangelicals no longer preach on Hell. Let me ask this: When, Fundamentalist friend, is the last time you heard a red-hot sermon on Hell in your church? The Lord Jesus Christ, the most loving, compassionate Preacher this world has ever witnessed, preached frequently and in great detail on the topic of Hell.

DENOMINATIONAL ERROR. Does he warn of the denominational error in particular and by name? It is highly unpopular in this present ecumenical climate to speak against other denominations, so it is comfortable for the preacher to deal only in generalities. Instead of saying, for example, baptismal regeneration is a gross error and all those denominations which practice it are involved in this error--Roman Catholicism, Anglicanism, Episcopalianism, Lutheranism, Church of Christ--he fails to mention any denominational error by name. He might speak in general against the error of baptismal regeneration or Armenianism or episcopacy or ceremonialism or sacramentalism, but he will not tell his people exactly who is practicing such dastardly things. He will not plainly identify the false teachers who are deceiving God's people.

COMPROMISE. Does he warn of compromising preachers and movements and name the names of these so the people can know exactly who he is talking about? It is one thing to warn about psychology in general; it is quite another to warn about James Dobson in particular. It is one thing to warn about New Evangelicalism in general; it is quite another thing to warn about Billy Graham or Chuck Colson in particular. We could ask whether the preacher EVER mentions chief compromisers by name from the pulpit, or does he forever speak in generalities? Our people are being influenced by the Charles Stanleys, the Billy Grahams, the Chuck Colsons, the Charles Swindolls, and the James Dobsons, and it is crucial that the man of God identify their error plainly. Any Fundamental Baptist pulpit which ceases to preach pointedly and to plainly name the names of heretics and compromisers is a mislabeled pulpit.

WORLDLINESS. Does he define worldliness in particular, or does he speak only in generalities? It is one thing to say, "People, we must not be worldly," or "People, we must not be immodest." That kind of preaching is really meaningless if it is not defined. People can sit under that preaching and be comfortable in all sorts of wickedness. It is quite another thing to say, "People, we must turn off those wicked movies and sitcoms and Saturday morning cartoons on T.V.; we must stop listening to Hollywood's cursing; we must stop watching Hollywood's harlots parade themselves before us in our homes; we must keep on our clothes and stay away from the beaches where people are half naked and lust is rampant; men must dress like men and women like ladies; let the men wear the pants, ladies, and you cover yourselves with wholesome, feminine attire; we must reject that worldly 'Christian' rock music; we must turn off that rebellious country-western junk."

It is not easy to name names and to be specific in unpopular matters. The backlash from the unsaved, the carnal, the fence-straddlers, and the ignorant can be terrific. One pastor noted, "Many fundamental churches would be twice their size if they only went along with Billy Graham." Indeed! I have had people in Fundamental Baptists churches stand up and walk out on my preaching because I mentioned the name of James Dobson in a negative context. The same would be true if the church would only soften its stand a little here and there on any number of controversial matters. AND MANY FUNDAMENTAL BAPTIST CHURCHES ARE DOING EXACTLY THIS.

We need to be on guard lest we adopt a New Evangelical, compromising, soft ministry without being aware of it. Our chief duty is not to please man or to have a large church or to be well liked in the community or to make our congregation comfortable and happy; our chief duty is to please God and to proclaim His Word--all of it--without apology. The first duty of the preacher is to "reprove, rebuke, exhort" (2 Tim. 4:2). The time HAS come when people will not endure sound doctrine (2 Tim. 4:3-4). They are indeed heaping to themselves teachers which will tickle their fancies rather than be faithful to God.

I refuse to tickle the ears of a rebellious generation, though I well understand the pressure to soften the message. That old war horse Charles Haddon Spurgeon, in speaking of Christian publications, said, "A magazine which is not outspoken, and is destitute of principle, is a literary nuisance." The same can be said for any preaching ministry. A preacher that is not outspoken, and is destitute of principle, is a ministerial nuisance!

In conclusion, consider some statements by men of God on this issue:

"Ministers generally avoid preaching what the people before them will understand as addressed to them. They will preach to them about other people, and the sins of others, instead of addressing them and saying, 'You are guilty of these sins.' They often preach about sinners instead of preaching to them. They studiously avoid being personal, in the sense of making the impression on anyone that he is the man." -- Charles Finney

"Many religious persons have a dread of controversy, and wish truth to be stated without any reference to those who hold the opposite errors. Controversy and a bad spirit are, in their estimation, synonymous terms, and to strenuously oppose what is wrong is considered as contrary to Christian meekness. Those who hold this opinion seem to overlook what every page of the New Testament lays before us. In all the history of our Lord Jesus Christ, we never find Him out of controversy." --Robert Haldane

"Independent Baptist churches have gone full circle and are now in most cases identical to the association churches I left in my early twenties--DEAD--just trying to be respectable. Our teens look scrubby, our church services are powerless, and a soul winner is rare." --Roger Voegtlin

"Again, men say that instead of engaging in controversy in the Church, we ought to pray to God for a revival; instead of polemics, we ought to have evangelism. Well, what kind of evangelism is it that is indifferent to the question what evangel it is that is to be preached? ... not the evangelism that Paul meant when he said, 'Woe be unto me, if I preach not the gospel.' No, my friends, there can be no true evangelism which makes common cause with the enemies of the cause of Christ. ... Every true [moving of the Holy Spirit] is born in controversy, and leads to more controversy." -- J. Gresham Machen

"The problem of doctrinal 'wishy-washiness' is a cancer that is spreading through the Church. The alarm must be sounded and the troops rallied. We must 'fight the good fight' of faith with the same fervor that was characteristic of the early Church. Every believer is to be a 'watchman on the wall' giving warning, lest, as the Scripture states, 'Their blood will be on your hands.'" --Rich Varlinsky

"We ought never try to make the gospel popular to anybody. It is always repentance, and forsaking all to follow Christ. Anything less will fill the church with false believers looking for an easy way to Heaven." --Doug Sehorne

"Folks will sometimes accuse us of crossing every t, and dotting every i, but it is only that we are trying to judge every sin in our lives to become a spiritual house before God. If we have standards and convictions, we will become very narrow and straight in our lifestyle--not because we are legalists, but because we realize that the smallest of sins can affect our relationship to the Lord." --Doug Sehorne

"No amount of earnestness can be condemned when pleading, on straight lines, the cause of God. ... To employ soft words and honeyed phrases in discussing questions of everlasting importance; to deal with errors that strike at the foundations of all human hope as if they were harmless and venial mistakes; to bless where God disapproves, and to make apologies where He calls us to stand up like men and assert, though it may be the aptest method of securing popular applause in a sophistical age, is cruelty to man and treachery to Heaven. Those who on such subjects attach more importance to the rules of courtesy than they do to the measures of truth do not defend the citadel, but betray it into the hands of its enemies. Love for Christ, and for the souls for whom He died, will be the exact measure of our zeal in exposing the dangers by which men's souls are ensnared." -- George Sayles Bishop, 1885