OUR CHANGING WORLD

 

The pastor of the largest (24,000 members) Southern Baptist Church in the world, covering four city blocks of downtown Dallas (value $200 million), says his denomination is on the decline. W. A. Criswell, one of the richest preachers in the world who vows that all the salary he has received from the church will be returned at his death, insists that infidels have taken over his church’s seminaries and have turned out preachers who no longer believe in evangelism. The Baptists will go the way of other mainline denominations, he says, and “God will raise up somebody else to take our place.” He has hopes for the evangelical groups. “Give them time,” he says. Since Criswell presides over what is sometimes called “The Baptist Vatican,” he ought to know whereof he speaks.

Rubel Shelly, now on the faculty at David Lipscomb, writes in Bible Truth concerning Churches of Christ: “We have spent so much energy in intramural bloodletting that we have become an unattractive people to our religious neighbors --- and to the more thoughtful and sensitive among our own people.” Calling for more moderation, he quotes from a 1907 article from David Lipscomb: “The love of truth is a spirit of kindness and love toward all. even to the holder of error.”

Christianity Today recently featured a lengthy discussion on the possibility of “an evangelical chair” at Harvard. The overture was made by Roger Martin, associate dean at Harvard Divinity School, who indicates that Harvard is interested in such a chair. The responses to this proposal reveal what an “evangelical” has come to mean to some folk. Kenneth Kantzer, once editor of Christianity Today, implies that a “genuine representative” could not believe such things as a late date for Daniel or that Isa. 40-66 was the work of a “second” Isaiah. I am now reading Dale Moody’s The Word of Truth, who has no problem taking either of these positions, and who is more “evangelical” than that crusty old professor at Southern Baptist Seminary? Other “evangelicals” have a problem with consistency in calling for freedom at Harvard. Norman Geisler of Dallas Theology Seminary responded to the overture by challenging Harvard to show its “sincerity” by hiring several evangelicals, and thus demonstrate its “long-standing commitment to toleration and freedom of thought.” Prof. Geisler would do well to call for freedom and toleration at his own institution. Dallas not only has a strict doctrinal statement for its faculty but for its students as well. In some instances Dallas has rejected students because they did not conform to the school’s dispensational theology, even when they were premillennial. One would suppose that if a seminary believes it has the truth and is able to communicate that truth that it would not require that the students have their minds made up before they ever embark upon their studies. Hardly shades of Harvard! It is probably just as well to let Harvard be. If certain “evangelicals” took over, one would have to be a sectarian even to matriculate!

A printout from Oak Hill Chapel in St. Louis, where Carl Ketcherside is allowed, lists their Sunday evening speakers for February 1983. One is from the Wesleyan Church, one from the Christian Church, one from the Church of Christ, and one from the Chinese Gospel Church.