Volume 45 | Number 2 | March–April 2017

Inglés Español

Accommodation: Redefining Christianity


By Dr. H. T. Spence

How clear the message of Christianity was in its beginning, both in power and purity! The Book of Acts commences revealing that on the Day of Pentecost Peter stood with the Apostles and was anointed by the Holy Spirit to preach with clarity the Gospel. This clear Gospel brought heart conviction to three thousand souls, leading them to repentance and to the acceptance of Jesus as the Messiah. The Book of Acts also reveals how Peter and John stood before the Sanhedrin Court to witness to the power of God in healing a lame man. Though they were forbidden by the Jewish Court to preach in the name of Jesus, yet they and the other disciples prayed for God to continue to grant them boldness; without any hesitation of heart, they stepped forward once again and boldly preached uncompromisingly what they knew to be true. When a second persecution arose from the authoritative Sanhedrin Court, several were arrested for preaching the message of Jesus as the Christ. This time they were beaten before being released.

And they departed from the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer shame for his name. And daily in the temple, and in every house, they ceased not to teach and preach Jesus Christ (Acts 5:41, 42).

In Acts 7, a deacon named Stephen preached with boldness a message that led to the first martyrdom (apart from the death of Christ on the cross) for the Christian Faith. Stephen’s death only intensified the persecution against the Christians which the Book of Acts continues to give witness.

The imperial persecutions fomented against the Christians by the Roman Empire in those early centuries were not brought about simply because the Christians believed that Jesus Christ was God. In fact, there were many religions that pervaded the Roman Empire from Italy of the west to Parthia of the east. As long as everyone in the Empire gave credence once a year to the deity of the emperor, each was permitted to continue believing his own religion. Each had to accommodate the Empire’s religion with his own. It was this imperial demand that brought the anathema of Rome down upon the Christians; the Christians refused to acknowledge any other god, or any other religion, or any other Lord. They were adamant in their belief that there was only one Lord and one God, and there was only one true religion. None other would be acknowledged. It was this tenacity of belief, this declaration of absolutism with no room for accommodation that would bring the imperial persecution from Nero to Diocletian upon the Christian Church.

When the Emperor Constantine legalized Christianity through the Edict of Milan (A.D. 312), to survive politically public Christianity entered a perpetual spirit of accommodation. Nevertheless, there has always been a remnant that refused to compromise or accommodate the message of Scripture amidst the political and religious pressures of their day.

The twenty-first century has brought us to the most crucial hour within the history of Christianity where “accommodation” has become the formidable cry of the global, contemporary Church. What is this concept and spirit of accommodation; what does it mean in the End Time of the last days?

Accommodation: Theologically

As the true believer looks to the Scriptures to continually define the terms and principles by which he lives as a Christian, he must be aware that both the world and the institutional Church are aggressively redefining biblical terms that will eventually fully redefine public Christianity.

One such example is the reinterpretation of the theological term accommodation. Theologically, this term has the understanding that God has accommodated the revelation of Himself in order to communicate with mankind. Because God is infinite and we are finite, His communication with us necessitates an accommodating miracle. For God to bring His Eternal Word (His Scripture of Truth found in heaven) down to man, it necessitated placing His truth in an anthropomorphic language. Through this means He accommodated His Truth for us. This is equally true of His Son’s coming down among men: God accommodated His Son in human flesh and form in order for man to see and understand Him. Yes, God truly condescended to bring about this accommodation in behalf of man.

Perhaps for clarity, the word adaptation can be used for accommodation. Note Isaiah 55:8, 9:

For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

Thus, somehow God must adapt Himself for us to know and understand Him. It necessitated His becoming as us and adapting His Word to our language. The miracle of the Bible and the incarnation truly was an accommodation on the part of God for humanity.

Nevertheless, we must be careful in our declaration of this accommodation. It can never be stated nor even implied that through adaptation God lost anything of His Deity nature or His pure Word. This too is part of the miracle—nothing was sacrificed, weakened, or became error. Placing His Word into the words of human language did not bring God’s Word into error or failure. Likewise, bringing His Son into flesh did not affect the Deity of the Son. Though He accommodated us in this adaptation, the accommodation did not affect in any way what His Word was and what He was. Additionally, although God used anthropomorphisms (human terms to express Who God is) He never used myths, falsehoods, errors, or lies to accommodate Himself to us. God cannot lie (Hebrews 6:18); yea, it is impossible for God to lie.

First Corinthians 13:12 expresses an important principle: “For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.” This indicates that there may be texts given by God that reveal only a portion of truth and not the fullness of the truth. But this does not mean that He lied or was deceptive with us. There may be a portion of truth given earlier in Scripture that not until later was revealed in all its fullness. We must remember that God did not drop the entire Bible down from heaven at one time to one writer. Rather, He chose to give us His Scripture progressively over approximately 1500 years and through 40 to 44 writers. But in doing so, He never gave His revelation erroneously.

Accommodation: A Method of Compromise?

We have wanted at the outset of this article to be careful in defining theologically the term accommodation. In contemporary times there has been a redefining of this term, “accommodating” it to other contexts. This redefining commenced in the context of how Jesus lived and taught among the Jewish people during His earthly ministry. Over the decades the Liberals have doggedly attacked the infallibility and historicity of the Scriptures, in which, concerning the Old Testament, the Jews of Jesus’ day strongly believed. Though the Liberals acknowledge that Jesus gave lip service during His earthly ministry to the authority of the Old Testament (the eternality of the Scriptures, as well as its divine inspiration), they believe that Jesus did so to “accommodate” the Jews. Thus, with intent and ulterior motive, He did not refute anything they believed so that He might gain their acceptance of what He preached. Though He did not believe these doctrines, yet He accommodated the Jews by accepting these teachings. The Liberals therefore say that because Jesus did so, we as Christians must follow His example and accommodate the times in which we live in order to gain a greater acceptance of our witness for Jesus Christ.

But did Jesus pragmatically accommodate the Jews? Did He give allegiance to that which He did not believe in order to gain audience and acceptability with the Jews? As one carefully reads the history of the four Gospel writers and their perspective of Jesus Christ, he will realize that this observation by the Liberals is definitely not true. Jesus never accommodated Himself to the false teachings of His day. He always spoke the truth; He spoke what He believed even if it was against the beliefs of His day.

The four Gospel writers all give clear indication that Jesus did the opposite of what His contemporaries accused Him of doing. Note Matthew 5:21, 22:

Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

Here the Lord corrected what was said and gave the truth of the matter. As one continues reading in Matthew chapter 5, the Lord gives five additional statements that had been made, yet He gives the correction of these statements (5:27–28, 31–32, 33–34, 38–39, 43–44).

Matthew 15:3 also reveals where Jesus attacked the many teachings that collectively had become Jewish tradition (the oral interpretation of the Law). Jesus questioned them, “Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?” He continues to attack the traditions of the Jews in verse 6: “Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.” Another incident is found in Matthew 22:29, where Jesus attacked the Sadducees by stating, “Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.” In the very next chapter we read one of the strongest attacks Jesus made in His ministry (Matthew 23:13–36). He brought forth eight scathing woes upon the Pharisees condemning their deep hypocrisy and false teachings.

Surprisingly, the Pharisees acknowledged His integrity and honesty: “Master, we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth, neither carest thou for any man: for thou regardest not the person of men” (Matthew 22:16). From these and other Scriptures, it is firmly established that Jesus never used accommodation as a form of compromise to get the Jews to listen to Him. He never accommodated His audience in the context of deceiving, stretching the truth, exaggerating, or telling a lie. This would have been totally contrary to our Beloved Lord’s character.

Accommodation Today in Christianity

Contemporary Christianity embraces this redefining approach as the necessary methodology of Scripture interpretation. According to their belief such a method is imperative for Christianity’s survival in these days. This pragmatic approach is pressed into service to accommodate the world, the amalgamation of all the religious faiths, and even the unification of various divisions within Christianity. Contemporary Christianity reasons that we have come into a global pluralistic society that demands that all religions become accommodating to one another; Christianity especially must lay aside its divisive dogmatism of absoluteness.

This accommodation movement goes back to the turn of the twentieth century with the birth of Neo-Protestantism, later known as Neo-Orthodoxy. Neo-Orthodoxy initially was partially a reaction to Liberalism. This latter hermeneutical theology arose in the mid-1800s through such men as Adolf von Harnack. Under the cloak of Biblical Criticism, Liberalism strongly attacked the literality of both the Old and New Testaments. By doing so, it also denounced the historicity of the Scriptures, forcing its message into the context of myths, legends, sagas, with the Old Testament being an evolutionary product of the Jewish people, and the New Testament the product of the second-century Church.

As the Bible became a “dead” book through the critical scalpel of the spiritual abortionists of Truth among the Liberals, there were a few of their students who believed the Bible could still have benefit in Christianity. These students believed the Bible could be interpreted not by reason but by the principle of existentialism. Men such as Karl Barth, Emil Brunner, Rudolf Bultmann became the founding theologians of Neo-Orthodoxy. While acknowledging that the teachings of the Liberals concerning the Scriptures were true, these men believed that perhaps there could be another approach of interpretation to the Scriptures and the Jesus of Scriptures. If reason announced the Bible dead, perhaps an “existential” interpretation could be the hope of giving worth to the Bible. Though the content of the Bible may be distorted historically, as the Liberals declared, an existential interpretation could view it subjectively rather than objectively.

For religious purposes these men could accept what the Bible says, but only in a non-real context. Though a person may not believe in the existence of God, yet in an existential realm (by a “leap of faith” with no need of absoluteness of foundation) he could believe in God. Therefore, a Neo-Orthodox approach could produce a “Christian atheist.” One could accept what the Bible says for his own personal need, although it may not be true in reality. Only in this subjective acceptance does the Bible “become” the Word of God. This accommodation brought a compromising perspective to the view of Christianity. It accepted a redefinition of the Scriptures, God, Jesus Christ, and even a Christian. Now this false accommodating approach has mutated into a new cloak of existentialism called Postmodernism.

Formally arising in the late 1940s, Neo-Evangelicalism was another movement of accommodation. This movement, born behind the scenes within Fundamentalism, pulled away from the Fundamentalists and intelligently chose this contemporary principle of accommodation as an integral part of its methodology. It believed the battle with Liberalism and Neo-Orthodoxy should be set aside to accommodate Christianity with the world making them their friends rather than their enemies. Its leaders drew from 1 Corinthians 9:19–23 believing that Paul’s statement of becoming all things to all men was the needed principle of accommodation.

However, when one carefully reads 1 Corinthians 8 and 9, the context becomes very clear. In chapter 8 Paul pleads for the principle of love on the part of the enlightened believer for the benefit of the unenlightened. This principle is likewise seen in Romans 14:1, “Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations.” Paul furthers this principle truth in Romans 15:1, “We then that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves.” Note again in 1 Thessalonians 5:14, “Now we exhort you, brethren, warn them that are unruly, comfort the feebleminded, support the weak, be patient toward all men.” Although we read of Paul’s desire to help the weak, the feeble minded, those with a weak conscience, there is never a hint of accommodation or adaptation that violates biblical principle. In matters of principle Paul was adamant in his stand for the truth.

And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage: To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you (Gal. 2:4, 5).

When it came to the circumcision of Titus (a full Greek), Paul refused to yield to the request of the Judaizers. However, concerning Timothy, Acts 16:3 declares, “Him would Paul have to go forth with him; and took and circumcised him because of the Jews which were in those quarters: for they knew all that his father was a Greek.” Yes, though Paul chose not to circumcise Titus, he did choose to circumcise Timothy, believing it was of honorable expediency in the light of Timothy’s mother being Jewish. Paul never believed that compromise of principle was part of “becoming all things to all men.”

Accommodation’s Appearance Today

Even in conservative churches today, the contemporary method of accommodation is also manifested in the redefinition of God’s love. The biblical principle of God’s love has been extracted from its biblical context. Their theological view of the Cross is simply a declaration of God’s love void of God’s judgment upon sin and mankind. In contrast, note Exodus 34:5–7:

And the LORD descended in the cloud, and stood with him there, and proclaimed the name of the LORD. And the LORD passed by before him, and proclaimed, The LORD, the LORD God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth, Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children’s children, unto the third and to the fourth generation.

Although God is loving, merciful, and kind, He by no means clears the guilty. The Neo accommodation gives “no hell” to the unbeliever and an “ecumenicity” for those within the church that do not believe in the Fundamentals of the Christian Faith.

A congruent principle to accommodation is pragmatism. Carefully woven into the fabric of accommodation is the motive that if the end purpose is either to bring people to the Lord or for Christianity to be accepted by others, then it is most proper to use any means available. This relativistic logic has received with open arms the promotion of contemporary music with Gospel language as an accommodating music style for the Church. Even dress standards have radically changed over the years because traditional conservative dress is out of style with the world. Yet, Christians today believe this must change to accommodate the world.

Several years ago at a Fundamentalist meeting in Virginia Beach, a certain guest ministry was present for the final night of a regional Congress of Fundamentalists. The pastor of the church was requested by this ministry to have his young people “dress down” for the evening service. During the day throughout the city, this ministry had invited unsaved young people to attend that evening; the Christian youth were told to accommodate their clothing so that these unsaved youths would feel more comfortable at church. For some time now, accommodation has been the thinking of contemporary Fundamentalism.

Likewise, we grieve over bold decisions of accommodation now being made at Bob Jones University. My dear father, fresh from the Navy after World War II, was saved there through the preaching of Dr. Bob Jones Jr. For many years the University was a beacon for the Truth. It became the sentinel in Fundamentalism, teaching us how to unsheathe the sword for battle and to wield it earnestly in contending for the Faith. But time has a way of eroding the strength of truth if it is not diligently preserved and kept in the heart. Though the campus continues to be a monument of beauty and logistics, the powers of this age have aggressively taken their toll upon the student body and the spirit and mood of its former precious, Christ-honoring character. Academic and business secularism now directs its purpose and existence. Dress standards yearly diminish in meaning, at times fully discarded. Its past battles for truth have now become a memory as accommodation with the religious apostasy becomes more and more evident.

BJU’s three-part forum “Balancing Piety and Pragmatism: Evangelicals and Politics” (Fall, 2016) seemed to display a supreme ruling choice of accommodation for both the world and the Christian world. Certain biblical truths dearly understood as a paradox or hypostatic union were laid aside for a contemporary dialecticism. To the Christian, piety and pragmatism only remain antithetical terms until piety is redefined to accommodate pragmatism. The principle of “balance” is now accommodatingly presented as a “synthesis.” Has this institution of a past, rich Fundamentalist legacy laid aside the term Fundamentalist for the rising singular accommodating term Evangelical? Most who participated in this forum are thorough-going Neo-Evangelicals: Furman University, Clemson University, Regent University, and Cedarville University, and Wheaton College (the official voice of Neo-Evangelicalism). Only God knows how far this school will fall, and what conservative schools and ministries will follow in its wake.

Conclusion

Prophetic history tells us that Nebuchadnezzar heralded the command for all to fall down and worship a golden image which he had erected in Shinar. We believe a future image will be erected for all religions to worship during the rule of Antichrist (Revelation 13). Until then, we find ourselves in the prelude of global preparation for such an hour. We are hearing the demands for Christendom to accommodate the forces of religious pluralism and political correctness. These demands will ever increase as the Interfaith movement rises in unprecedented powers. Such a movement is surprisingly driven by the leaders of contemporary Christianity. And present-day Christianity has become the most fluid and accommodating religion on the planet. For this reason End-time Christianity will be a motivating leader for the amalgamation of all the religions for the Antichrist. Neo-Orthodoxy, Neo-Evangelicalism, Neo-Fundamentalism, and the Charismatic movement are all redefinitions of biblical Christianity. They are “another” Gospel.

Dear Reader, we must be careful in our own heart and living of the Christian life that we will always be true to the absoluteness of the Word of God. We cannot submit to the forces of our time that can slowly destroy the very spirituality of our soul and our walk with God. The Christian Faith is based upon the absoluteness of Christ and His Word. There is no room for accommodating the world, the flesh, the apostasy, contemporary Christianity, and even sympathy with our weaknesses, failures, and sins. The message of the Gospel will not tolerate accommodation; it stands infallibly and unalterably as it declares itself to be. It is non-negotiable; any other view is spiritual suicide to an individual, a ministry, and a school. May God have mercy on us in these perilous times!

Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty. Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God (2 Cor. 6:14–18; 7:1).