THE INHIBITED MIND
By Pastor Carlton Helgerson
The Challenge of a New Religion, 1971, rev. 1996
Used with permission from Middletown Bible Church
http://middletownbiblechurch.org/separate/separate.htm
Use of the article does not indicate a endorsement of all views of the Middletown BC
THERE IS TODAY a very strange approach to truth. Black versus white thinking is not the vogue today. Gray thinking is. We began to observe this in the middle fifties.
Something is inhibiting the minds of men, something they cannot readily explain, something they feel and assume, namely, that one cannot be too sure about anything in the realm of morals and religion! To some degree this affects us all, believers as well as unbelievers.
Man’s approach to truth tends to be on the basis of synthesis rather than antithesis, i.e., mixture rather than opposites. The result is an aversion to dogma and absolutes.
The mind is exposed in the Scriptures as a marvelous thing yet a part of man’s fallen nature. The Bible shows us not only what the natural mind thinks, but how it thinks.
The slanting of the mind has always been an effective work of Satan. Paul warned the Christians about the ever present danger that their minds be corrupted.
This combination of circumstances, the current brainwashing plus Satanic influence, causes uncertainty to lurk in the mind on every subject, with the possible exception of certain scientific disciplines.
The scholar is aware, of course, that our society has become saturated with the old humanism.
However, the average person has simply found himself immersed in uncertainty and does not really know how or why.
To protect his ego the scholar may assume a posture akin to aloofness and maintain an air of being willing “to look at all sides of a question” so as not to have to admit to himself or to others a sense of despair that he is also an insecure man. The average person, unable to cope with the inner frustrations he cannot explain seeks refuge in activity or carnal pleasure.
This frame of mind—uncertainty and insecurity—is particularly present and in many ways peculiar to our era. It also affects the Christian in that it subconsciously hinders a complete subjection to the written Word of God.
This prevailing mental state makes it easier for the devil to introduce doubts about the accuracy and importance of many passages of Scripture. Unless we understand this, we will not discern the underlying factors that produced such changes in emphasis and in practice which we witness today among some of our brethren. This is written not to try to excuse neo-evangelicalism but to help to explain it.
For example, anyone familiar with education in America knows that for years children have not had their minds properly guided with respect to authority, values and absolutes—the influence of humanism in the educational system. Many Christian schools have shied away from dogma, having yielded to the “let’s-not-be-too-dogmatic” attitude.
Earlier generations thought in terms of absolutes: some things were right, and therefore if they were right the opposite was wrong. The way people thought and reasoned gave them a mental security. In our day the thinking, knowingly or unwittingly, with respect to truth and how to approach truth, has shifted from the positive to the uncertain.
More of this is in each of us than we may be prepared to admit. It lies at the very root of neo-evangelicalism, hence the resort to mixture and compromise. The combination of the absence of dogma in education plus man’s egotistic bent to appear scholarly by avoiding dogma produces insecure men. It has certainly had its effect upon evangelical theology.
Once there was general agreement that “faith is taking God at His Word and acting accordingly.” Today logical preference is equated with faith, but mere logical preference is not faith!
In this prevailing atmosphere of uncertainty, Christians who have not become slaves to the Word of God will seek sanctuary and emotional satisfaction in a religion that, while giving the appearance of being progressive and somewhat conservative, requires but the very minimum of dogma.
It is doubtful if many who have been influenced by neo-evangelicalism will admit or even recognize the mood that prevails in the way they think. Nevertheless, we cannot provide a fair analysis of the movement unless and until we note the current frame of mind in our society where moral and religious uncertainty prevails.
When evangelical leaders who should know the truth confess to be “seeking after truth,” there is the symptom of the presence of synthesis in their thinking.
If we are to be fair and penetrating in exposing neo-evangelicalism, these influences must be recognized! Not until then can we be helpful.
A man is not certain and secure in his faith if he requires the endorsement of other insecure and uncertain men. To the best of my knowledge, those who have been infected by the extremely dangerous virus of the new religion of mixture and compromise are inwardly insecure.
We should try to see them as victims and not as villains. To begin to understand neo-evangelicalism, it is necessary to discern the peculiar way of thinking that produces it. For when the mind of contemporary society has been long conditioned to operate in uncertainty, the basis for moral assurance is destroyed. Seminaries contribute to this by devoting much time to the reading and consideration of opinions. The courses acquaint the student with the thinking of man, forfeiting the opportunity to learn the discipline of intelligent submission to the Word of God. In fact, among theological students doubts are honored as virtues! The virus spreads rapidly in this mental climate
