Compromise Is Always A
Synthesis
By Rick Shrader
R.C. Sproul wrote concerning the modern
evangelical penchant to build bridges with defective theologies that,
“The mythical element is the naïve assumption that one can build bridges
that move in one direction only.”1 Meaning, that such
bridges will bring the error closer to truth but not the truth closer to
error. But it is the nature of compromise to move from what is right to
what is wrong. In the Christian context, that would be from what is
biblical to what is not biblical. Sproul continued, “In an effort to
win people to Christ and be ‘winsome,’ we may easily slip into the trap
of emptying the gospel of its content, accommodating our hearers, and
removing the offense inherent in the gospel.”2
The compromise,
of course, is subtle. If unvarnished truth were set directly beside
blatant error, the difference would be so obvious that no conscientious
person would want or be fooled by the error. It was because of Paul’s
absence that he wrote to the Corinthians, But I
fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his
subtlety, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is
in Christ. For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have
not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not
received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well
bear with him (2 Cor 11:3-4).
Sometimes the buffer
that enables compromise between truth and error may be sufficient time,
or increased distance, or growing dissatisfaction—anything that allows
the truth to be forgotten for the moment. No Christian commits sin with
the holiness or the judgment of God fresh on his mind. We sin when we
become temporary atheists and seem, at least briefly, to forget that God
is immanent. Whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him
(1 John 3:6).
Some men, both ancient and modern, believe this
gradual compromise is a good and necessary thing. One prominent
proponent was the German rationalist G.W.F. Hegel (1770-1831) who is
famous for his “dialectic” approach to truth (see Fig. 1). As one editor
describes it, “In his effort to reveal the implications of reality and
reason, he employs the method of thesis, antithesis and
synthesis, with analysis as the starting point, the examination of
contradictions as the second step, and finally the arrival at unity by
means of reason in a summation of ultimate truths.”3 Hegel
thus believed that history moves in this dialectic pattern from
generation to generation, always settling on a compromise view between
two extremes. Truth as historical fact is always “incomplete” until it
becomes the “unifying” synthesis.
My reason for using Hegel is the
same as Paul used Aratus in Acts 17:28. Not that his opinion is the way
God intends it to be, but his opinion is the way man prefers it and the
way it often is in a fallen world. (Because Paul quoted Aratus, as well
as Menander in 1 Cor 15:33 and Epimenides in Tit 1:12, does not mean he
agreed or approved of everything they wrote; nor that Paul was placing
the same approval on them as He would on one of his pastors.)
For Hegel, the
Thesis was the traditional approach, what society has accepted as fact.
He called it the Idea, the Warp or the Design of the house (see Fig.
2). But every generation challenges the Idea with its opposite, or
Anti-thesis. This he also called Passion, the Woof or the Material to
build the house. But no society is ready for such radicalism right
away, so a Syn-thesis naturally develops between the Idea and the
Passion, which he calls Liberty (or Freedom), the Hue or the House in
which we finally live. Interestingly, Hegel sees this as the necessary
evolution of society in that the Synthesis then becomes the Thesis for
the next epoch. In this way, he observed, Truth is constantly being
brought up to date and changed for each new age.
In our society,
this process happens much more quickly than in Hegel’s day (see Fig 3).
A process that took centuries may now take decades or even less. Easily
within a life-time, we can see the whole process take place. We have
seen the values of the Great Generation challenged by the Radicals of
the Sixties and Seventies, that have now become the mediating values of
young “Millennials.” In a matter of three generations, what was once
the Antithesis is now the Thesis. The very thing the grandparents once
warned of has become a reality in their own grandchildren! We often
hear, “The seeds of our own destruction are already sown within us.”
This may be more apt today than at any other time. The expanding of
communication and the shrinking of the world accelerates this process
ten-fold. The process of this gradual compromise can be stopped by any
generation rediscovering the Scriptures and returning to its fundamental
thesis of godliness and separation from the world. Until then, each
generation will continue to slip further and further away from the faith
of their fathers.
Thesis: The Traditional Church
When a
generation of believers begins to love God enough to stop loving the
world, they will return to the simple and historic Christianity of their
fathers. They will find their message and method plainly taught in the
Scripture. Hegel even said of this step, “To him who looks upon the
world rationally, the world in its turn, presents a rational aspect.”4
Faith is no longer a matter of pragmatism nor traditionalism,
but of simple obedience. Separation becomes a principle that pleases
God, not a detriment to reaching the world. J.N. Darby said,
“Separation from evil is the necessary first principle of communion with
Him. Separation from evil is His principle of unity.”5 Even
John MacArthur has written, “There’s nothing sacred about human
tradition. I’m not in favor of staid formalism or hackneyed custom. I
agree with those who warn that stagnation can be fatal to the church. I
just don’t believe the church needs to abandon the centrality of the
Word of God, the primacy of preaching, and the fundamentals of biblical
truth in order to be fresh and creative.”6
Antithesis: The Contemporary Church
This church
loves the world more than it loves God. It believes that the church
exists primarily as a confirmation of men’s passions and only
secondarily for repentance. Hegel characterized this position as having
“the convenient license of wandering as far as we list, in the direction
of our own fancies.”7 This is why he often calls it Passion
from which such people “respect none of the limitations which justice
and morality would impose on them.”8
This is not unlike
the contemporary churches today who set the Word of God aside because
they have decided they need to believe and practice something else.
Consider Peter Wagner’s statement: “I [used to] focus mostly on Bible
study . . . . Now I know more about worship, reverence, and praise . . .
. I am beginning to distinguish the voice of God from my own thoughts
and to allow him to speak to me directly. I still study my Bible, of
course, but I find this other dimension of personal intimacy equally
important.”9 Or consider John Wimber, founder of the
Vineyard churches: “But there are problems related to the
grammatical-historical method [of interpretation] . . . . The student
easily falls into reliance on study rather than reliance on the Holy
Spirit.”10
The so-called
Evangelical churches that deny the supremacy of Scripture, that deny the
literalness of hell, that deny the catastrophe of creation, et al., have
catapulted the church into the world and have made it what the world
wants it to be—non-threatening! Or, as Hegel would have observed, “as
far as they list, in the direction of their own fancies.”
Synthesis: The Blended Church
The “necessary”
synthesis is arrived at when “at last we draw back from the intolerable
disgust . . . . Into the more agreeable environment of our individual
life—the Present, formed by our private aims and interests. In short we
retreat into the selfishness that stands on the quiet shore.”11
This “synthetic” compromise wants to have its Christian cake and eat its
worldly cake too! The old thesis of separation from error has become
distasteful, and yet the contemporary antithesis is obviously too far
afield. Alas! There is safer ground.
Some decry the thesis
outright: “Should we become separatists? No, the answer to the
challenge of entertainment is not to become secluded in ‘holy huddles’
of legalism and cultural isolation.”12 Others simply admit,
“We began ‘Saturday Night’ to reach unchurched people without
identifying a biblical basis for our methods.”13
But as Os Guinness
recounts, “A well-known proponent states, ‘I don’t deal with theology.
I’m simply a methodologist’—as if his theology were thereby guaranteed
to remain critical and his methodology neutral.”14 Or as
Tozer wrote, “We of the evangelical faith are in the rather awkward
position of criticizing Roman Catholicism for its weight of unscriptural
impedimenta and at the same time tolerating in our own churches a world
of religious fribble as bad as holy water or the elevated host. Heresy
of method may be as deadly as heresy of message.”15 And all
this because of the “necessary synthesis.”
It is the nature of a
synthetic position to become expert at pragmatic methodology. As long
as we can “build” a church, attract a crowd, gain notoriety among our
peers, we think we are the same as our forefathers. As Vance Havner put
it, “We say that we depend on the Spirit, but actually we are so wired
with our own devices that if the fire does not fall from heaven, we can
turn on a switch and produce fire of our own; and if there is no sound
of a mighty rushing wind, the furnace is set to blow hot air instead.
God save us from a synthetic Pentecost!”16
Notes:
1. R.C. Sproul, Willing
To Believe (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1997) 19.
2. Ibid.
3. G.W.F. Hegel,
“Philosophical History,” The World’s Great Thinkers, Man and the
State: The Political Philosophers, Commins & Linscott, eds. (New
York: Random House, 1947) 404.
4. Hegel, 408.
5. Quoted by Ernest
Pickering, Biblical Separation (Schaumburg: RBP, 1979) 116.
6. John MacArthur,
Ashamed of the Gospel (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 1993) 188.
7. Hegel, 411.
8. Ibid.
9. C. Peter Wagner, The
Third Wave of the Holy Spirit (Ann Arbor: Vine Books, 1988) 129.
10. John Wimber & Kevin
Springer, Power Evangelism (San Francisco: Harper, 1992) 191.
11. Hegel, 419.
12. Jerry Solomon,
Arts, Entertainment & Christian Values (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2000)
141.
13. Ed Dobson, Starting
A Seeker Sensitive Service (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1993) 54.
14. Os Guinness, Dining
With The Devil (Grand Rapids: Baker Book, 1993) 26.
15. A.W. Tozer, Worship
and Entertainment (Camp Hill: Christian Publishers, 1997) 185.
16. Vance Havner, Why
Not Just Be Christians? (Westwood, NJ: F. H. Revell, 1964) 15.
| 
