________

Dr. Lee Roberson (1909-2007), Pastor of Highland Park Baptist Church, Chattanooga, Tennessee, and head of Tennessee Temple Schools, stood for God’s Word on many important points and was a blessing in a dark world. He was a blessing to me and my wife as Temple students in the 1970s.

He stood for the infallible inspiration of Scripture, the Triune Godhead, the substitutionary atonement and bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ, six-day creation, pre-tribulational Rapture, sacred music, modest dress, a pilgrim lifestyle, and an honest Christian testimony. He had a passion to fulfill Christ’s Great Commission.

We are commanded to “prove all things; hold fast that which is good,” and those things are very good and we must hold fast to them in an age when they are under attack as never before.

But biblical proving is not a focus on the positive only. We are to “esteem all thy precepts concerning all things to be right; and ... hate every false way” (Ps. 119:128). We are to bring into captivity “every thought to the obedience of Christ” (2 Co. 10:5).

Dr. Roberson modeled a soft, no warning fundamentalism that has negatively influenced a large number of independent Baptist churches. It was said that Roberson’s “influence and stature among fundamental Baptists in the South was unparalleled” (James Wigton, Lee Roberson: Always about His Father’s Business, p. 92). But his influence wasn’t limited to the South; it was nationwide and indeed worldwide. The soft-no warning principle is one of the reasons for the great collapse we are witnessing today. A large number of independent Baptists are moving rapidly toward a wishy-washy evangelicalism, and it is because they don’t understand or practice biblical separatism, though they think they do. This is no small thing, because evangelicalism today is a bridge to any and all dangers in the “broader church.”

Dr. Roberson was willing to leave the Southern Baptist Convention where he had been saved, educated, and long served as pastor and evangelist, but that is as far as he went. And he allegedly expressed regret about that to some men, such as Tom Messer of Trinity Baptist Church in Jacksonville, Florida (Wigton, Lee Roberson, p. 232).

Paul’s preaching is filled with clear warnings. Paul named names, and he said, “Brethren, be followers together of me, and mark them which walk so as ye have us for an ensample” (Php. 3:17).

But this biblical pattern wasn’t followed at Highland Park. Everything was kept on a positive, upbeat note, which is a foundational New Evangelical principle. Dr. Roberson’s official biographer observes:

“Roberson developed a focus that controlled his ministry. ‘I kept my mind and ministry settled--winning people to Christ, getting people to grow in grace,’ he said. ‘Stay out of controversy in the pulpit--stay out of it and stay on the main line. I think that helped me a lot. I tried to avoid personalities and stay on the main line: preaching the gospel, emphasis on winning people to Christ, emphasis on developing the spiritual life, dying to self, the fullness of the Spirit, the second coming--kept on the positive side, kept negatives away from the people’” (James Wigton, Lee Roberson--Always about His Father’s Business, pp. 78, 243).

That is a textbook definition of New Evangelicalism.

It has been said that no position can be maintained without a campaign, and there was a complete lack of campaigning for ecclesiastical separatism and against error and compromise at Highland Park Baptist Church. I learned many good things there, and I thank the Lord for those things, but the problem resided more in what I didn’t learn. This is the heart and soul of the New Evangelical error. The problem is not so much the heresy that is preached but the truth that is neglected.

Typically, warnings were given only in generalities. Leading compromising men and institutions such as Jerry Falwell, James Dobson, Bill Bright, Jack Wyrtzen, Charles Swindoll, Dallas Theological Seminary, or even the pope were not identified by name from the pulpit and their error was not described and highlighted so that the people could get a proper grasp of the danger they represented and where their compromise would lead.

I don’t recall ever hearing from Highland Park Baptist Church’s pulpit a sermon plainly identifying and exposing New Evangelicalism, Christian rock, modern textual criticism, communism, socialism, the social gospel, denominationalism, charismaticism, Reformed Theology, or the errors of the Lodge, among other things that the people should have been well educated about.

“Later when Billy Graham’s ecumenical cooperation became a controversial issue among fundamentalists, Lee Roberson quietly backed out of such cooperation. ‘Dr. Roberson NEVER SAID A CRITICAL WORD ABOUT IT,’ said Faulkner. ‘If he had anything to say, it was always positive. That was his position on all issues. HE JUST NEVER HAD A CRITICAL WORD ABOUT ANYTHING. ... He won’t talk about the brethren. YOU NEVER HEARD HIM IN THE PULPIT HERE CALL ANYONE NAMES.’ ... Ed Johnson, always loyal to Dr. Roberson said, ‘HE AVOIDED CONTROVERSY. We were not exposed to the rise of the neo-evangelicalism in my days at Temple. Doc stayed away from that controversy.’ ... When it became common for some Independent Baptists to criticize independent Baptist leaders such as Jerry Falwell or evangelist Tim Lee for preaching for Southern Baptists or other non-independent Baptist ministries, Roberson never wavered in his support of such men. He felt that men like Falwell and Lee had a heart for the Lord and for souls, and that was all that mattered to him” (Wigton, Lee Roberson, pp. 240, 241).

“Roberson never fought against Southern Baptists, nor did he openly criticize them” (Wigton, p. 227).

“Negativism and criticism simply were not a part of Lee Roberson’s life” (Wigton, p. 243).

But there is plenty of “negativism” and “criticism” in the Scriptures! The prophets were eaten up with it. John the Baptist was a firebrand of negativism and criticism toward impenitent Israel. The Lord Jesus was negative and critical toward Herod (called him a fox), the Pharisees, the Sadducees, the scribes, and the lawyers. Paul’s epistles are filled with negativism and criticism. He warned about false teachers and compromisers and named their names. It is impossible to “earnestly contend for the faith once delivered to the saints” without a good measure of “negativism and criticism.” You simply can’t be a true, full-blown New Testament preacher without plenty of “negativism and criticism”!

It was a sad day in my life when I came to understand that Dr. Lee Roberson was more of an evangelical than a fundamentalist, or, more importantly, a Biblicist, and that he had a great influence in promoting this type of soft, non-militant stance to a great many fundamental Baptists at large.

In A History of Fundamentalism in America, George W. Dollar gave the following assessment: “Roberson has never, in his church or schools, provided outspoken leadership in leading churches out of the Southern Baptist Convention and by a continuing silence on issues of compromise, collaboration with New Evangelicalism, and new forms of middle-of-the-roadism. This has been demonstrated by recognition and honors given such middle-of-the-roaders as George Sweeting, Merv Rossel, J. Vernon McGee, and Bill Bright of Campus Crusade” (A History of Fundamentalism in America, updated edition, p. 202).

Speakers at Highland Park under Dr. Roberson’s ministry included prominent Southern Baptists (R.G. Lee, W.A. Criswell, J. Harold Smith, E.J. Daniels, Charles Stanley), New Evangelicals (J. Vernon McGee, Warren Wiersbe, Bill Bright, Charles “Tremendous” Jones), even E.V. Hill (an associate of Martin Luther King, Jr., Billy Graham, and Jimmy Swaggart). In 1987, Hill spoke at the North American Congress on the Holy Spirit in New Orleans to an ecumenical crowd representing about 40 denominations, including 15,000-20,000 Roman Catholics. I was there with media credentials. Hill began his keynote message by looking around dramatically at the mixed multitude, which included a special section for Roman Catholic priests in their clerical garb off to his right, then exclaiming with his typical enthusiasm, “Wow, we’re almost there!” He was praising the ecumenical unity. He specifically uttered thanks for “our Roman Catholic brethren.” I thought to myself, “We’re almost where, Pastor Hill? To the one-world apostate church!”

The speakers at Highland Park had a great influence on the church and the students. I recall Warren Wiersbe’s popularity and how the students would crowd around him and ask questions during his visits. One year I joined the group and heard him recommend the New International Version. When I was a student, I knew nothing about Wiersbe’s ecumenical compromise. All I knew was that he was an interesting expository Bible preacher.

In his book New Neutralism II: Exposing the Gray of Compromise, John Ashbrook identified men such as Warren Wiersbe and E.V. Hill as dangerous “Popularizers.” Oh, that I had heard these plainspoken, wise words of biblical warning when I was a young preacher at Tennessee Temple!

“If health authorities are to battle the outbreak of any new disease, they must determine how that disease spreads. I would submit that the men whom I have called ‘the popularizers’ are an effective network for spreading the virus of new evangelicalism. They speak with and for those who are more liberal than they are--the National Council of Churches, Southern Baptist Convention, National Religious Broadcasters or some Billy Graham program. Then, they speak with and for those who are more conservative than they are. The latter group would not associate with the former group. However, the popularizer speakers for both and forms a bridge between them. In so doing, he softens the attitudes of the more liberal and more conservative to each other. Both sides decide that the other can’t be that bad, because the popularizer speaks there. So, the virus spreads. As they move from school to school, the popularizers soften the attitudes of impressionable young people. Many of us remember sitting in college chapel and considering as spiritual heroes those who spoke in the pulpit. Because we got a blessing from the speaker we assumed that wherever he spoke must be all right. Every pastor learns that he must be careful where he goes, for his actions sanctify that place for his people. The pastor’s presence at an entertainment, a restaurant or an event sanctifies that place for his people. The popularizers’ presence with any group, speaker or school sanctifies that for his young disciples” (New Neutralism II, p. 75).

After I was on the mission field in the early 1980s I began to research contemporary Christianity for myself. I was learning firsthand about the destructive fruit of New Evangelicalism in personal dealings with organizations such as Campus Crusade, Youth for Christ, and the Bible Society. One of the publications I used in that research was Christianity Today. I was shocked by the lack of spiritual conviction and the promotion of heresies such as the myth of “evangelical Catholics,” the defense of heretic Robert Schuller’s self-esteem theology, praise for Neo-orthodox theologians, praise for the popes, etc. For example, the April 6, 1998, issue of Christianity Today contained a full-page ad for “Six Inspirational Video Sets,” including one featuring Pope John Paul II.

One day, I was amazed and shocked to notice in the front of Christianity Today that Warren Wiersbe was an Advisory Editor. How could this be, I thought to myself? I heard him speak at Highland Park. I enjoyed his Bible teaching. Prior to this, I had gotten permission from Wiersbe to have his Expository Notes on the Old Testament translated into a South Asian language. I wrote to him, reminded him of who I was, then asked how he could be associated with such a deeply compromised publication. In a brief reply, Wiersbe said, “Frankly, some of us need to take off our gloves and pick up a towel.” In other words, he advised me to stop worrying so much about doctrinal purity, stop earnestly contending for the faith, stop taking a separatist stance, and to focus rather on a more positive approach to Christianity.

I didn’t instantly slough this off. I was a young missionary, and I respected this man as a senior Bible teacher, so I considered his advice before the Lord in light of God’s Word in obedience to 1 Thessalonians 5:21, “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.” It was clear that Dr. Wiersbe was advising me contrary to the revealed will of God. The Lord has instructed me in no uncertain terms to stand for doctrinal purity, and to earnestly contend for the faith, and to mark, rebuke, and separate from error (Ro. 16:17; Eph. 5:11; 1 Ti. 1:3; 6:3-5, 20-21; 2 Ti. 2:16-21; 3:5; 4:1-2; 1 Jo. 4:1; Jude 1:3; 2 Jo. 1:8-11; etc.). I determined to continue to do this regardless of the counsel of popular evangelical leaders. Dr. Wiersbe counseled me to have only the towel of positive ministry, but God’s Word counsels me to have both a towel of positive ministry and the gloves of a spiritual warrior, both the shepherd’s staff and the shepherd’s sling, both a builder’s trowel and a fighter’s sword (Ne. 4:17-18).

Stephen Olford was another prominent New Evangelical who spoke at Highland Park Baptist Church, yet what a great compromiser he was! After Olford delivered a strong-sounding sermon on the authority of the Bible at Billy Graham’s Amsterdam conference for itinerant evangelists in 1986, Foundation magazine reporter Dennis Costella asked the following question in a recorded interview: “Dr. Olford, you emphasized in your message the dangers of liberalism and how it could ruin the evangelist and his ministry. What is this conference doing to instruct the evangelist as to how to identify liberalism and the liberal so that upon his return home he will be able to avoid the same?” Olford reprovingly replied: “That’s the wrong spirit—AVOID the liberal! I love to be with liberals, especially if they are willing to be taught, much more than with hard-boiled fundamentalists who have all the answers. ... Evangelicals should seek to build bridges” (Foundation, Jul.-Aug. 1986).

Olford’s true colors were exposed by a wise, probing question. He didn’t really care about the danger of liberalism. That was just “preaching.” These men know how to sound like they are great lovers of the truth, when in reality they know nothing of the spirit of Psalm 119:128, “Therefore I esteem all thy precepts concerning all things to be right; and I hate every false way.” They will preach against error in a general manner; but in practice, they reject the biblical solution to the problem of error, which is separation from it. This philosophy of spiritual neutrality is the very heart of New Evangelicalism, and it has long been leavening large segments of fundamental Baptists

As a student at Tennessee Temple in the 1970s, I was not introduced to “warning” publications like Foundation magazine. They were considered too negative, but what a great thing it would have been had the church members and students been properly educated!

Dr. Roberson hired teachers with degrees from New Evangelical institutions such as Dallas Theological Seminary without requiring that they renounce New Evangelicalism, and they had a great influence.

George Dollar explained how that this same thing weakened the General Association of Regular Baptist Churches (GARBC). “Still another cause of friction has been the infiltration of new-evangelical moods, through GARB students who have attended Dallas Seminary and reentered the Association as pastors or teachers. They brought with them the open-mindedness of the seminary, which has invited to its platform a long list of New Evangelicals and their fellow travelers” (A History of Fundamentalism in American). (See the section on “Dallas Theological Seminary” in the chapter “Interdenominational Fundamentalism.”)

My Greek teacher at Tennessee Temple in 1976 was a Dallas graduate who brazenly promoted the critical Greek text edited by modernists Bruce Metzger, Kurt Aland, and Matthew Black, and Catholic Cardinal Carlo Martini, and ridiculed a “Received Text Only” position.

Not surprisingly, even key church members and staff of Highland Park did not have personal convictions about separation.

J.R. Faulkner, Dr. Roberson’s associate, was “a life-long friend of Billy Graham, Cliff Barrows, Grady Wilson, and T.W. Wilson” (Wigton, p. 140). This was only possible because of Faulkner’s non-criticism policy. Had he reproved these men for their terrible compromise in promoting ecumenical evangelism, you can be sure that this fine friendship would have ended!

Faulkner didn’t have strong convictions about separation and music and other such things. Dr. Roberson truly believed in sacred music and rejected contemporary music from personal conviction. “Trained in music, Roberson’s tastes were always conservative and traditional” (Wigton, p. 178). But with Faulkner it was only a matter of taste. After Highland Park had changed and moved in a contemporary direction, Faulkner said, “It’s different now. That’s all right. I have no argument with that” (Wigton, p. 178). What a wishy-washy man!

As a result of the no warning, “keep it on a positive keel” philosophy, Highland Park as a whole was ignorant of a great many things it should have been informed of. I graduated from the school without understanding New Evangelicalism in a practical sense.

After Roberson resigned, a number of the key Highland Park Baptist Church leaders joined Southern Baptist churches (Wigton, p. 233). Obviously they were not biblical separatists by conviction and they were not opposed to the terrible compromise and error that permeates the Southern Baptist Convention, including worldliness, deacon-rule, widespread participation in pagan lodges (e.g., Masonic, Eastern Star), female Bible teachers (e.g., Anne Graham Lotz and Beth Moore), contemplative prayer, widespread acceptance of charismatic heresies, theological modernism in the liberal arts colleges, modern textual criticism, modern Bible versions (including widespread acceptance of the most rotten, such as the Today’s English Version, the Living Bible, and The Message), Billy Graham ecumenism, Rick Warren’s great compromise, Reformed Theology, etc.

It is no surprise that Highland Park called evangelicals such as Don Jennings after Dr. Roberson’s retirement. They didn’t check things out carefully. They didn’t probe. They didn’t know what to look for. They were made gullible and susceptible to error because of the unscriptural “no warning, no criticism” philosophy.

Even a little probing would have discovered that Don Jennings was an evangelical in philosophy. In the 1980s I wrote to him after he became pastor of Highland Park. As a young missionary in the thick of the battle, I was concerned about things I was learning about New Evangelicalism and I wanted to know where Jennings stood. I asked him if he was opposed to New Evangelicalism.

He asked me to define this, so I replied that I was referring to the standard definition as stated by men such as Harold Ockenga--the chief characteristic being “a repudiation of separatism.” I told Pastor Jennings that I was referring to men such as Billy Graham and Charles Swindoll and institutions such as Moody Bible Institute and Dallas Seminary and Wheaton College and publications such as Christianity Today.

Jennings thanked me for the clarification and said that he was definitely opposed to New Evangelicalism by that definition.

I then asked him why the church and school invited New Evangelicals such as Warren Wiersbe as speakers. I reminded Jennings that Wiersbe was affiliated with Christianity Today, a magazine he himself had labeled New Evangelical.

Jennings’ demeanor changed at that point, and he said that not only had he invited Wiersbe to speak again at Highland Park that year but that he himself was scheduled to speak at Founder’s Week at Moody, one of the very schools that previously he had said he stood against!

I learned a lot in those days about the deceitful character of compromise. Men can make a very bold-sounding stand for the truth when their actions aren’t taken into consideration and when it doesn’t cost anything.

The weakness in association and the softness in separation was one of the most prominent reasons for the spiritual downfall of Highland Park Baptist Church and Tennessee Temple.