Thomas And Neo-Orthodoxy
A good brother has requested that some comment be made on an article by J. Harold Thomas which appeared in 20th Century Christian, January, 1957. The title of the article was, "How Can I Know That God Has Revealed Himself to Me?" The article is rather obscure in its expression, as the title would suggest to a Bible student. Such lack of clarity is characteristic of "Neo-orthodoxy." The expressions used in the article have every mark of this form of modernism. Brother Thomas is not being accused of being a modernist, or neo-orthodox. His understanding and motives are not being questioned; but the content of the article is questionable.
His first sentence sets the pace of the entire article; "A man can know by experience that God has revealed himself to man!" That sentence and the entire article ignores the fact that "revelation" was made known by the Spirit through the apostles and prophets. That is how we believe, "know assuredly," that "God has revealed himself" to us; not by experience, but by his revealed word. This is adequately expressed in Ephesians 3:3-5:
"How that by revelation was made known unto me the mystery, as I wrote before in few words, whereby, when ye read, ye can perceive my understanding in the mystery of Christ; which in other generations was not made known unto the sons of men, as it hath now been revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit."
Sectarian Experimental Religion
In the light of such inspired statement listen to this sectarian and modernistic drivel from the article:
"Once a man whom I knew to be indifferent to formal religion said to me, 'You'll be surprised to know it, but I pray, and I know God answers prayer.'
I'm sure God gave me the answer that came because I had never been given it before. I said, 'Fine. You've learned that a little Christianity works, why don't you try the whole thing?' "
If that article had been written as much as a half century ago it would have passed in any "experience meeting" of the Baptists and Methodists. They "knew" that God had spoken to them and had saved them because they had never had such an experience before. It might have been an imaginary voice, a stroke of good fortune, a fainting spell, or a better felt than told experience, in answer to prayer. They talked of God's revealing himself by experience.
This same conception of the inadequacy of the Bible to reveal God and Christ was expressed by Henry Ward Beecher in more eloquent terms than those used of experiences by the common man. Beecher was speaking of the proof of the acceptability of sprinkling of infants, according to a quotation from Wilkes in The Louisville Debate, page 173:
" . . . but some theory similar, it may be, to that of Henry Ward Beecher, who said that he had no authority from the Bible for the baptism of infants, and that he wanted none; that he had better authority for it than even if the Bible commanded it; 'that he had tried it, and knew from actual experience that it was a good thing;' 'he had the same divine authority for it that he had for making an ox-yoke — it worked well — and, therefore, it was from God.' "
The New Theory
There is now a theory of experimental religion which goes beyond that of the past century. This theory, called neo-orthodoxy, strikes at the inspiration of the Bible, making every great thought and experience of man equivalent to that which is expressed in the Bible. One of the more readable and fundamental works, perhaps, which attempts to define this neo-orthodox form of skepticism is The Relevance Of The Bible, by H. H. Rowley, published by The Macmillan Company, 1953. Some brief statements are here given to show this idea of progressive experimental religion:
"No longer, therefore, do we suppose that when we have understood words as their first hearers understood them we have achieved the goal of Biblical study." (page 17).
"There is another feature, of enduring significance, that stands out again and again in the records. It is that religious advance came time and again through the private experience of some individual, that the men who gave God's word to Israel constantly received their message through their own personal experience." (page 41).
"Every generation needs the prophet, the man who can expound God's message in terms of its life and necessities. It is not alone the ability to understand and to expound the prophets of Israel that we need, but the mantle of their spirit to bring the creative Word of God to our age." (page 73).
That is the kind of thing which the 20th Century Christian article is teaching. It is not merely experimental religion of sectarianism of the past century; it is experimental revelation in this generation, which is being taught in the article. It says:
"A man can know by experience that God has revealed himself to man! . . . Once a man whom I knew to be indifferent to formal religion said to me . . . `I pray, and I know God answers prayer. I'm sure God gave me the answer that came because I had never been given it before.' I said, 'Fine.' ... God has revealed himself to me and has left me very grateful... "
Imagine, if you can, a preacher of the gospel teaching that a man who is indifferent to "formal" religion can expect to find his prayers answered without his obedience to the "formal" teaching of the gospel. Imagine, if you can, a preacher of the gospel teaching that God is still revealing things to men today by experience. Imagine, if you can, this same preacher successfully refuting a follower of Mary Baker Eddy, Ellen G. White, or one of the holiness groups, who believe that they too have received revelations by experience; that God has revealed himself to them. He will have to concede that theirs is equally as authoritative as his experience, and will be logically forced to take the same position of the work by Rowley:
"That the religious quality and value of the teachings of non-Christian religions finds a fuller appreciation in the Church than formerly is well known. We do not today regard all founders of such religions as imposters, but recognize a measure of divine revelation in them." (page 78).
If men are to depend upon experience for their knowledge of God, the Bible is rendered invalid and incompetent; it makes the things revealed therein pertinent only to those through whom they were revealed; it elevates human experience to the realm of divine revelation; it denies the completeness of the Bible; it destroys faith in the inspired Scriptures. That is the work of neo-orthodoxy, phases of which are to be found in the brother's article.