The Lord Is Coming Again!

When the first Christians finally grasped the fact of Jesus’ intended Second Coming, that knowledge resolved all sorts of perplexities. Basically, it enabled them to see how God could keep his word in the Old Testament about the Messiah’s role. Bible students had previously assumed that the prophets were speaking of one triumphant advent of the Messiah. The prophets had not distinguished what the Christians were now told: that the advent would be in two distinct parts, the first in humility, to make sacrifice for the sins of the world, the second in glory, with judgment for unrepentant sinners.

Paradoxically, the revelation of a Second Advent that solved interpretative difficulties for the first Christians has led to continuing difficulties among their successors. Of the four main elements in the message about Christ, his Lordship, his atonement, and his resurrection find nearly universal agreement in all chief particulars among evangelicals today. But beyond the bare affirmation that Christ will indeed return, there is a wide range of disagreement on the Second Coming.

This lack of common understanding is evident in the New Testament itself. The Thessalonian correspondence was written in large part to attempt to clear up misunderstandings. For examples and discussion of the current diversity, see the review of several 1971 books on prophecy in our May 26 issue, page 14, and in our June 9 issue see L. Nelson Bell’s column, page 25, and the review of George Ladd’s Commentary on the Revelation of John, page 33.

While every writer on prophecy naturally thinks that his is the correct picture, the very diversity of interpretation even among men who accept the entire truthfulness of Scripture should (but all too often does not) lead to modesty in anyone’s claims to know how it’s going to be. Not only are there differences between those who tend to believe God means certain passages to be taken figuratively and those who think he means them literally; there are also significant differences even among those who agree that literalness is to be favored whenever there is an option.

May we suggest that the reason we are not able to agree is that God has not given us all the information we need to arrange a systematic presentation of all the events surrounding the Lord’s return? On the other hand, a close study of the various passages in the apostolic writings that convey what we know of the Second Coming shows that they almost invariably present this glorious truth in the context of what it should mean for our lives here and now. God has given us all the information necessary to do his will. He is not honored when we seek to fill in the gaps or strain to harmonize the various passages, especially when in doing so we neglect the stress in the original context upon holy, non-materialistic living. There are many commandments to do good works and to show the results of lives changed by acceptance of the living Christ as Saviour and Lord. But are there any commands to prepare charts and memorize details about the Lord’s return? And are we called to censure our brethren who don’t see the Scriptures as we do on this issue?

The Lord is coming again, but many Christians act as if it is important to know and debate the signs that point to his return in their own generation. Does this mean that previous generations in which the Lord did not return had less incentive for holy living? Even if the Lord does not return for ten thousand or ten million years, our obligations remain the same. Some teach that the Lord may come at any moment, while others say certain events must take place first. What is clear, especially to those of us who have occasion to ride in automobiles, is that at any moment we may go to be with the Lord.

There are three worthwhile correctives to keep us from getting off the course in the study of prophecy and making it something other than what God intended. First, read books by men who, while agreeing on the authority of Scripture, disagree in their interpretations of the of the key eschatological passages. Those who read or recommend only books with which they agree are implying that their minds are made up and they don’t want to be confronted with different interpretations.

Second, read books on the history of prophetic interpretation. They will show how godly men of the past often misread the signs of their own times and used precious time and energy to convince men that certain things were undoubtedly going to happen which, as the passage of time has shown, did not. Two examples of such books are: (1) The Roots of Fundamentalism: British and American Millenarianism, 1800–1930, by Ernest Sandeen (University of Chicago, 1970, 328 pp., $12). The subtitle might better have been the main title, for early twentieth-century fundamentalism, contrary to Sandeen’s assertions, was only partially and incidentally an eschatological movement. However, Sandeen’s work is fairly reliable when read as a history of the prophetic teaching initially spread by certain of the Plymouth Brethren, later popularized in the Scofield Reference Bible, and currently represented in such best-sellers as Hal Lindsey’s The Late Great Planet Earth and the works of Salem Kirban; (2) The Puritan Hope, by Iain Murray (Puritan Publications, 1971, 301 pp., $4.50). Murray describes the eschatology that probably predominated among English-speaking evangelicals from the Reformation until the close of the nineteenth century, a view commonly known as post-millennialism. Allowances must be made for the author’s own desires to see this teaching revived.

Finally, always keep in mind the scriptural context of the key prophetic passages. Some informal systematizing is inevitable, and it is natural to lean one way or the other on various disputed points; but this should always be subordinate to the emphasis that the Bible itself gives. For example, when Peter mentions the “day of the Lord,” which will come unexpectedly “like a thief” and in which “the earth and the works that are upon it will be burned up,” he immediately concludes, “Since all these things are thus to be dissolved, what sort of persons ought you to be in the lives of holiness and godliness …” (2 Pet. 3:10, 11).

The Lord is coming again. Let us stress that central fact rather than our differences over details. And far above precision in prophetic detail let us value obedience to the clear commands of the One who has told us to be faithful servants while we wait for his return.

Cocu Alternative

The withdrawal of the United Presbyterian Church from COCU does not necessarily mean the end of COCU, and it certainly will not curtail the efforts of those who are committed to the organic union of the churches. Princeton Seminary’s president James I. McCord called the General Assembly’s action an “aberration” that “will have to be corrected” since “there is no alternative to it [COCU] on the boards.” We would like to suggest an alternative.

We believe in religious liberty and freedom of association. We think that no church members should be forced into a union they disapprove, and also that those who desire transdenominational union should not be kept from attaining it. How can these two points be reconciled?

We propose that each local congregation be free to decide whether or not it wishes to become part of the united church toward which COCU is aiming. Let every congregation that votes affirmatively be set free to join the uniting church, taking with it all its property and other assets.

Then, when all the congregations have made their decisions, let each denomination’s properties and resources, such as endowments and seminaries, be divided proportionately. If half of the members go and half stay, let everything be divided evenly. Each minister would have the privilege of joining or staying out of the united church.

In most congregations, some members would favor merger and some would oppose it. It is also likely that some churches in every sizable community would enter the union and others would not. This would mean that a church member who was on the losing side of his own congregation’s vote could probably transfer to another church whose majority voted as he did.

The new united church would have full freedom to show the world what it could do. It would have the advantage of starting off truly united, without discontented minorities who entered only because they feared losing their properties and their share of the common assets. Of course, its doors could be kept open for any congregation to enter later.

The denominations still participating in COCU as well as the departing United Presbyterians are quite divided over the Plan of Union for the Church of Christ Uniting. These tensions are not good for them. If after ten years of effort there is still not a consensus, the time has come either to scrap COCU completely or to go forward with a plan that would give both the proponents and the opponents what they want. If such a plan is adopted, the air will be cleared, harmony can come, and everyone can get to the important business of fulfilling the mission of the Church.

Gay Ground-Gaining

The Gay Liberation Front is gaining ground in both state and church. Recently legislatures in five states—Connecticut, Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, and Oregon—repealed laws prohibiting homosexual acts between consenting adults. In the District of Columbia, under an agreement between the city government and the American Civil Liberties Union, private homosexual acts between consenting adults will not be subject to criminal prosecution. A U. S. District Court ruled that the city’s sodomy statute “cannot be applied to private consensual sexual acts involving adults.” The ruling defined adults as those sixteen and over. There are at least two problems with the ruling: its definition of adulthood, and its lack of definition of privacy.

In the District of Columbia the legal age is 18; until that age all lawbreakers are referred to juvenile court. Why should the homosexuality ruling be based on a lowered adult age? An impressionable sixteen-year-old who was seduced by an older homosexual could be left with deep psychological scars and perhaps a lifetime of homosexual practice; yet such seduction could be considered “consenting.” The court overlooked the statutes against corruption of minors and disregarded its responsibility at this point. The city’s homosexuals, of course, called the agreement a “major victory in the struggle for homosexual rights.” One society even held a victory dance.

The question of privacy is ambiguous. A “house” in which homosexual activities take place for pay—or a gay bar or club run for this purpose—could be ruled private. Such prostitution is not uncommon; the New York Police Department recently uncovered a large homosexual ring run by “respectable” adults. It included boys from ages seven to seventeen.

A 49-year-old father and successful businessman, an English professor, and a married couple were implicated. The couple, parents of a teen-age son, had encouraged him to join the ring. The group’s “bill of rights” included this assertion: “Every boy has a right to a loving relationship with at least one responsible male adult after whom he can pattern his life.” Apparently these homosexuals do not consider 16- and 17-year-old boys adults. Even though organized, the encouraged homosexual relations took place privately. Fortunately no district court in New York has ruled as did the one in the nation’s capital.

Our justice system should protect minors from “consenting” but perhaps innocent or unknowing participation in immorality. Christians must assume responsibility for being informed and active in this social and political field.

Recently the United Church of Christ in San Carlos, California, approved ordination of a homosexual. The central ruling body of the church, however, has refused to categorically endorse homosexual ordination. Instead, the council has requested that the church’s local ordaining bodies judge each case individually. A United Methodist minister, an acknowledged practicing homosexual, has asked his bishop, Thomas Pryor of Chicago, to assign him to a “gay community.” These are just two examples of the burgeoning homosexual situation within churches.

We do not condemn the homosexual, but we do oppose the practice of homosexuality as contrary to God’s commands. Certainly Christ’s treatment of the woman taken in adultery is apt in the homosexual’s situation. In working with him or her, in or out of the church, Christians should follow Christ’s example.

Neither Right Nor Left

Generally speaking, evangelicals fare no better under rightist governments than under leftist ones. Evidence repeatedly appears of religious persecution and restraint in the leftist countries of the world, notably the Communist nations, which are usually anti-religious. But the recent conviction of a native evangelical in Greece on charges brought by the “established” Orthodox Church (see our June 9 issue, page 47) is a reminder that right-wing governments, though like Greece they often profess an acceptance of religious values, are in practice as intolerant of the kind of spiritual “deviation” represented by evangelicalism as are militantly secularist states.

A case can be made that much of the persecution of Protestants in certain countries with predominantly Catholic populations, such as Spain, has rightist political more than religious roots. This is evidenced on the one hand by the relative freedom evangelicals have in largely Catholic countries with centrist governments, such as Belgium and West Germany, and on the other hand by persecution meted out to Roman Catholics in rightist countries by their co-religionists when they deviate from the political line, as is now happening in Spain.

Centrist governments are not easy to achieve or to maintain. Faced with the problems that inevitably result when sinful human beings live together in society, people tend to lean toward the “easy” solutions offered by the far right or left. But the lessons of the past and present make it clear that the work of evangelism is most readily done when the secular ship of state is kept from veering into the channels carved by either extreme.

Servant Or Master?

The decision of the United Presbyterian General Assembly to withdraw from COCU produced an unexpected turn of events. The stated clerk (chief executive officer) of the General Assembly, William P. Thompson, delivered what the New York Times called (and others who were present agreed with the description) a “stinging rebuke” to the General Assembly for its decision to withdraw. What Mr. Thompson did was both unfortunate and instructive.

The stated clerk is the servant of the General Assembly, not its master; his title makes it clear that he is neither bishop nor pope. It is not his business to lambast his employer.

There is also a deeper spiritual question. Modern ecumenists have been quick to see the Holy Spirit at work in strange ways—in violent revolutionary movements, in Marxist arenas, and in the Angela Davis defense fund, for instance. Now, Thompson expressed no regret at the assembly’s decision not to cooperate in Key 73, the twentieth century’s most promising trans-denominational evangelistic effort. If he thought that this decision was correct and that the Holy Spirit was in it, why should he not accept the decision on COCU as being the mind of the Spirit as well? And since Presbyterians are to be in subjection to their brethren, why did he not show a willingness to be in subjection to them at this point?

If the General Assembly had decided the other way and the Presbyterian Lay Committee had responded in Thompson’s manner, the fur would fly and charges of divisiveness would abound. Indeed, it was Thompson who only a year ago wanted the General Assembly to discipline the Presbyterian Lay Committee for printing material critical of the assembly and the boards and agencies of the denomination.

What is instructive is this: If a stated clerk can presume to judge and chastise his church’s elected representatives in this way, what sort of attitude toward grassroots opinion could be expected from the leaders of the united church Thompson favors? The COCU Plan of Union provides for consolidated authority with plenty of clout. Would we not see then a monolithic and authoritarian structure that would put even the papacy to shame?

Justice American Style

The acquittal of Angela Davis is further evidence that the American judicial system is not as hopelessly bankrupt as many of its critics, including Miss Davis, have been alleging these past few years. Miss Davis is an advocate of one-party Communist rule, besides being at once in three categories supposedly repressed in our country: female, young, and black. Yet she was acquitted. We wonder in how many one-party states an advocate of multi-party democratic government would get a fair trial?

Miss Davis expressed her intention to work for the release of political prisoners not only in America but everywhere in the world. We aren’t in favor of holding political prisoners either. We would only recommend that Miss Davis alternate between East and West in her commendable aim. Since she considered herself a political prisoner and has been set free in the Western world, let her start by gaining the release of some political prisoner in a Communist country. The extraordinary attention, leading to adulation, that she has gained in the Communist world should enable her better than anyone else we know to make some headway.

America is far from perfect, but when someone who is as disdainful of this country as Angela Davis is able to get a fair trial, it reinforces our conviction that, owing in no small part to the biblical heritage that has influenced so much of our national life, America is probably as safe a place for a dissenter as any other major nation on earth.

The Burundi Tragedy

Burundi is a small country on the shores of Lake Tanganyika in central Africa, little known by the outside world. But in God’s eyes, its 3.5 million people are as precious as those living elsewhere. The media have kept us fully informed of the deaths in the hundreds over the past few years in Northern Ireland, but Burundi, with about twice the area and population, has suffered incomprehensibly more deaths (numbering in the tens of thousands) in just the past two months of civil war (see News, page 38). Who knows? Who cares, besides God?

The prime difficulty in Burundi is like that which afflicts most of southern Africa: a small minority of the population, ethnically quite distinct from the vast majority, holds all effective power. There is one distinction: the Burundi rulers, unlike their counterparts in southern Africa, are black. But should this make any difference? Because of military weakness, the other African states are not able to do much besides verbally complain about the white dominion in the south. Over the years, there has not been much evidence of even verbal protest about the situation in Burundi! One cannot justifiably be for democracy when different races are involved without also supporting it when the adversaries are of the same race.

Christian missionaries become involved in the political conflicts of their lands only when they are ready to be evicted. But national Christians have greater responsibilities to speak for justice. And now that the Burundi tragedy has been given some space in the media, black Americans who protest minority rule in southern Africa have the opportunity to show that it is minority rule that is the issue, even when the minority is black rather than white.

Southern Baptist Watershed?

Messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in Philadelphia reversed their former decision about the “Broadman Bible Commentary.” Previously the convention forced the Sunday School Board to withdraw Volume 1 on Genesis-Exodus and have it rewritten so as to be more representative of traditional Baptist convictions. The recent decision gives the board the green light to publish differing viewpoints, which in the plainest English means de facto endorsement and promotion of destructive higher critical views within the denomination.

Already the Broadman series has adduced the documentary hypothesis of the Pentateuch and has included such assertions as: the Book of Esther may be fictional; Daniel was written around 165 B.C., years after the predicted events occurred; the Messianic psalms do not refer to the coming Messiah; there were two Isaiahs, not one; Jesus did not walk on the water; the Gospel of John was not written by John the beloved. These are not simply matters of interpretation. No one is arguing against presenting differing viewpoints, such as Arminianism versus Calvinism, or discussing varying baptismal practices, or debating whether church government should take the congregational, presbyterian, or episcopal form. What is at stake here is the trustworthiness of the Bible.

In 1925 and again in 1963 the Southern Baptist Convention approved the statement that the Bible “has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter.” The action of the 1972 convention compromises this controlling principle and opens the floodgates to all kinds of serious theological error.

The pages of church history abound with examples of what happens when the full fruit of such a viewpoint is harvested—theologically liberal seminaries, defective churches, a declining interest in evangelism, and at last apostasy. This will ultimately be the unhappy course of the Southern Baptist Convention if the present action is not in turn reversed at the next convention.

Have something to add about this? See something we missed? Share your feedback here.