[The following material is from O Timothy magazine, Volume 12, Issue 7, 1995. Updated April 24, 2000. David W. Cloud, Editor. This material cannot be stored on BBS or Internet sites without permission from the author. Any articles which are redistributed by e-mail or print must be left intact and nothing must be removed or changed, including these informational headers. All rights are reserved. O Timothy is a monthly magazine. Annual subscription is US$20 FOR THE UNITED STATES. Send to Way of Life Literature, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061-0368, fbns@wayoflife.org. FOR CANADA the subscription is $20 Canadian. The Way of Life web site is located at http://www.wayoflife.org/]

MANY EVANGELICALS ARE MODERNISTS

Evangelical theologian Carl F.H. Henry in the 5/27 World, says that postmodernism denies the existence of objective truth/meaning and is an attack on Christianity and reason. He discusses a new book, Truth Is Stranger Than It Used To Be, by Richard Middleton and Brian Walsh and a promotional interview of the authors by IVP editor Rodney Clapp. Henry says Walsh uses neo-orthodox terms to deplore "propositional theology" (which champions divine revelation and verbal inerrancy of Scripture) for affirming timelessly true doctrines. Middleton says: "Even the truth of the gospel...is a human construction." Henry said the authors reject any identification of Scripture as revelation. Not only does IVP herald/support this forthcoming book, but, Henry added: "Much of the same revolt against truth emerged during the recent theology conference of postliberal speakers sponsored jointly with Inter-Varsity at Wheaton College. NOT A SINGLE REPRESENTATIVE OF HISTORIC EVANGELICAL ORTHODOXY COMMITTED TO THE UNBROKEN AUTHORITY OF THE BIBLE WAS FEATURED..." (Calvary Contender, July 1, 1995)

O TIMOTHY EDITOR: Carl Henry does well to speak out against the modernism which is flowing from many Evangelical quarters today. What he fails to acknowledge is that the modernism which he decries is the direct product of the philosophy of New Evangelicalism which he and Harold Ockenga and other Evangelical leaders of the last generation formulated in rebellion to the clear teaching of the Word of God. New Evangelicalism was a rejection of separation and other of the more negative aspects of biblical Christianity.

A man who rejects one part of the Scripture should not be surprised if his children reject many other parts. New Evangelicalism also promoted an intellectual approach to the ministry, claiming that God's men need to be trained in the same way and in the same schools as the modernistic scholars. It is little wonder that the New Evangelical's children have cleaved to the theology of the modernists under whom they were trained.

UPDATE TO THIS ARTICLE: Richard Middleton contacted me on March 29, 2000, and challenged the accuracy of Carl Henry's quotation which is cited by the Calvary Contender, July 1, 1995. Middleton made the following statement:

"Carl Henry quotes me as saying "Even the truth of the gospel . . . is a human construction" (in World, May 20/27, 1995, p. 25). First of all, what Henry was quoting was a telephone interview, the record of an oral conversation (and not a position statement), so context is crucial. The context was the subject of the Gospel as given to us (as non-negotiable truth) in relation to what we bring to the Gospel and how we formulate and articulate it. I was addressing the second, not the first aspect of the subject. Secondly, Henry omitted crucial words in the quote, which totally changes the meaning of what I said. What I actually said was (following up on someone else's comment): "Yes, because even the truth of the gospel--which we constantly articulate in the church, in liturgy and proclamation and evangelism--is a human construction. I mean [note this clarification where I give an example of what I mean, which Henry conveniently omits], the Four Spiritual Laws is a human construction in response to the truth of Jesus." In other words, while we must accept the biblical expression of the Gospel, which is from God, we have the task to articulate and communicate this Gospel to our contemporaries. You may check the text of this interview yourself at http://www.gospelcom.net/ivpress/title/int/1856-a7.html. It is also simply false that Walsh and I reject any identification of Scripture as revelation. If we are going to disagree, let it be genuine disagreements, please. Thank you. J. Richard Middleton."

I wrote to Middleton and asked some questions in order to clear up the matter in my own mind: "First of all, let me note that the article which quotes you is not mine. It is an article in the Calvary Contender, which is edited by Jerry Huffman, a retired NASA engineer. I did reprint that article, though, and added my own comments to it, as the editor of the monthly O Timothy magazine. I visited the web site you mentioned and read the entire interview carefully. I have also read your book Truth Is Stranger Than It Used to Be. I still am not clear about what you actually believe about the Bible, though. Carl Henry was saying that you and Walsh represent two of the many Evangelicals today who have rejected "propositional theology" (which champions divine revelation and verbal inerrancy of Scripture). I am still trying to ascertain if this is true. Please answer the following simple questions so I can clear up this matter and make a correction if necessary: Do you believe the Bible is the verbally inspired Word of God, infallible, inerrant, the sole authority for faith and practice? Do you believe that Adam and Eve were real people and that the events of Genesis 1-3 are genuine history? Do you believe the miracle accounts of the Old Testament occurred precisely as the Bible states?" (E-mail from David Cloud to Richard Middleton, April 17, 2000).

Middleton replied as follows: "A brief answer to your questions: I wouldn't use the language you use to articulate the authority of the Bible (after all the language isn't itself biblical), but I do seek to be in submission to the full authority of scripture, which I believe is the revealed Word of God and the ultimate authority for my faith and life. There are actually two issues for me here. First, if Scripture intends to teach something (e.g. a literal Adam and Eve, miracles), then I believe it (I certainly believe there must have been an original human pair, just as I believe that God can--and did--create the universe out of nothing and can--and did--raise Jesus from the dead; I deny nothing of the sort). The second issue is that the doctrine of inerrancy, although a noble attempt to articulate the authority of Scripture, isn't itself taught in Scripture. It is exactly what I meant by 'a human construction,' which doesn't mean it's false, just that we can't identify our doctrines with God's absolute truth. On the contrary God's truth, revealed in his written Word, is the standard and judge of our doctrines. Nevertheless, perhaps I could get to the issue I raised. I note that you deflected my criticism with your questions. I would hope that you don't need to agree with a person theologically to quote that person accurately, and in context. Or do you?" (E-mail from Richard Middleton to David Cloud, April 17, 2000).

I made one final attempt to further clarify Middleton's position on the Bible in the following e-mail: "Hello, again. You ended your latest e-mail with these words: 'I would hope that you don't need to agree with a person theologically to quote that person accurately, and in context. Or do you?' The answer is that I want to quote people accurately regardless of what they believe. If that were not the case and I were not an honest man, I don't understand why I would try to communicate with you at all. I would have ignored your e-mail and let the article stand. That is usually the way men have treated me when I have attempted to correct what I perceive to be an error. The statements in question are not even my own. I have never personally misquoted you in any way. I simply reprinted a report from a reputable publication and commented on it. Be that as it may, I take accuracy in reporting very seriously, and I treat each challenge with care. I intend to put a note with the article in question stating that your answer was taken out of context by Dr. Henry, but I am also trying to understand the overall picture. Dr. Henry was using you and Walsh as examples of Evangelicals who are undermining the traditional view of infallible biblical inspiration. I want to know if he is correct in that, regardless of whether or not he misstated one particular quote. Based on my personal communication with you and my personal reading of your published works, I believe it is the case that he made a mistake with that quote but was still correct in his basic assertion. You refuse to define your view of inspiration. You refuse to answer simple questions about your belief in the complete and plenary historicity of the Scriptures. (You answered, but only selectively and obliquely.) We have learned that out-and-out modernists as well as modernistic evangelicals tend to use terms like authority of scripture and inspiration so that it sounds as if they believe the Bible is the divinely inspired Word of God in whole and in part, when they really do not believe any such thing. I personally believe that is a form of deception. Unless you can answer my questions simply and candidly, I will stay with the view that Dr. Henry was correct in his basic assertion." (E-mail from David Cloud to Richard Middleton, April 17, 2000).

Richard Middleton did not reply to this last e-mail.

See "Fundamentalism, Modernism, and New Evangelicalism."

See "Evangelical Unbelievers."