The Language of Defeat
By Dr. Rick Flanders
“Now in the fourteenth year of king Hezekiah did Sennacherib king of Assyria come up against all the fenced cities of Judah, and took them. And Hezekiah king of Judah sent to the king of Assyria to Lachish, saying, I have offended; return from me: that which thou puttest on me will I bear. And the king of Assyria appointed unto Hezekiah king of Judah three hundred talents of silver and thirty talents of gold.” (Second Kings 18:13-14)
Most church-goers and
Bible-readers are familiar with the story of King Hezekiah’s stand against
Sennacherib, and with the amazing answer to his prayer. However, few are aware
of the events that led up to the confrontation. The Bible says that young King
Hezekiah began his reign by reforming the ways of his people, and by reviving
their religion. It is written that “he did that which was right in the sight
of the LORD, according to all that David his father did.” He made a decision
early on to follow the pattern set by his godly forefather Davud, instead of
the wicked example his direct biological father had left him. “He trusted in
the LORD God of Israel; so that after him was none like him…he clave to the
LORD, and departed not from following him” (Second Kings 18:1-6).
The Bible records that “the LORD
was with him; and he prospered whithersoever he went forth: and he rebelled
against the king of Assyria, and served him not” (Second Kings 18:7). Of
course, the Bible teaches that rebellion against duly constituted authority is
wrong, and so the rebelling of Hezekiah against Assyria raises question. The
kingdom of Judah was not a vassal state to the Assyrian empire, and King
Hezekiah had no legal or moral obligation to put himself under their control.
The power of the Assyrians over Judah was an illegitimate moral and spiritual
influence that had developed in the reign of Ahaz, Hezekiah’s father. At a
time when the armies of the apostate king of Israel and the pagan king of Syria
had invaded Judah, Ahaz “sent messengers to Tiglath-pileser king of Assyria,
saying, I am thy servant and thy son: come up, and save me” (Read about this in
Second Kings 16). But the alliance with Assyria became much more than a
military arrangement. Soon the king of Judah was absorbing Assyrian religion
and defiling the ways of God’s people with their wicked ways. But when his son
took the throne, he “rebelled against the king of Assyria,” and purged Judah of
paganism.
The Second Book of Chronicles
tells us more about Hezekiah’s reforms than the Second Book of Chronicles. Chapters
29 through 31 record the successful efforts he made to bring about spiritual
revival in the land. These early days of Hezekiah’s reign were glorious times
in Judah, characterized by the king’s intolerance of evil, faith in God, and
obedience to God’s Law.
It was during these days that the
hand of the Lord moved to judge the apostate kingdom to the north, called
Israel. Second Kings 17, and then verses 9 through 12 of chapter 18, recounts
the conquest and captivity of the northern kingdom because of their sins. The
eighteenth chapter carefully notes the progress of Hezekiah’s reign in the
southern kingdom of Judah while these things were going on. Verse 9 marks the
fourth year of his reign, and verse 10 marks the sixth year. Time was marching
on, and Hezekiah was growing older.
Now he was thirty-nine years
old. The Bible says that Hezekiah became king when he was twenty-five years
old, and it was in the ninth year of his reign that the Assyrians carried the
people of the northern kingdom away (verses 10-12 of Second Kings 18).
Hezekiah would have been thirty-four. Five years later, in the fourteenth year
of his reign, the Assyrians invaded the southern kingdom, Judah, when the king
was thirty-nine. What a different attitude Hezekiah had toward the heathen when
he was thirty-nine compared with his attitude when he was twenty-five. The
young Hezekiah “rebelled against the king of Assyria, and served him not.” Now
the middle-aged Hezekiah was apologizing to the Assyrian king with the words “I
have offended.” Further he yielded to the pagan monarch’s demands. “That
which thou puttest on me will I bear,” he said. So Sennacherib demanded that
Hezekiah pay him a vast amount of money (see verses 14b through 16), which the
king of Judah did pay by raiding the temple treasury as well as his own. A
softening of one’s resistance to evil can come with age. Older men get tired
of standing against things. Life can get complicated as time goes on, and
mitigating factors can drain a man, even a good man, of his will to resist
evil.
But evil is not appeased by
compromise. Very soon, the armies that Hezekiah thought he had placated by
bribery surrounded him in Jerusalem. His back was against the wall, and he
could back up no farther. The representatives of King Sennacherib demanded
that the inhabitants of the holy city surrender to them, turn themselves over
to the invaders, and let them destroy the city (read carefully verses 19-25 and
29-35). For many reasons (look at chapter 19, verses 15-19), the king could
not agree to these demands. Even a weakened character has limits as to how
much it is willing to surrender. Hezekiah had been backed up to a wall, and he
could retreat no farther. Therefore (as we see in the glorious nineteenth
chapter) he stood his ground, brought his troubles to the Lord, and saw God bring
him a miraculous victory. Read it again to bolster your faith. God is well
able to meet any challenge that confronts the man who stands firm with Him for
what is right. It is unbelief and the fear it generates which causes the man
to yield when he ought to resist. It is weariness in well doing that puts into
our mouths the language of defeat, apologizing for the boldness of our former
days.
We have been there.
The history of evangelical
Christianity (which is Biblical religion, true Christianity), with its many
stories of both triumph and defeat, demonstrates the fact that great losses are
preceded by defeatist language masked as progressive innovation. Believers
have often talked about changing their ways in order to meet the challenges of
“a new day.” New methods are recommended as required if we are to reach “a new
generation” for Christ. Policies must be altered, we were told over and over
again, because we are living and ministering in “a changing world.” Yet this
kind of talk has never ushered in a period of advance for the Gospel or for
spiritual Christianity. It has consistently preceded a period of defeat and
tragedy for the Cause of Christ.
Actually, theological Liberalism
was introduced in the nineteenth century and advanced in the twentieth century
as a necessary adjustment for the preservation of Christianity in changing
times. We think correctly of Liberal theology as opposed to the true gospel,
but it was sold to the churches as the key to preserving Christianity. Times
were changing, the church was told, and Christians would have to adjust their
teachings to survive in a new day of scientific advances and practical
thinking. Evolution had pretty well proven the idea of Biblical infallibility
wrong, they confessed, and therefore Christians must go forward with a less
than infallible Bible. Christianity is still taught in the doctrinal and
ethical parts of the scripture, is it not? Why shall we quibble over the
accuracy of the historical and scientific parts? People nowadays are more
interested in the salvation of society than in the salvation of souls, we were
told. Why can we not change the focus of our message to suit the spirit of the
age? Several of the doctrines that have been held as cardinal truths have
little practical application in modern times, it was asserted. It is the moral
and ethical teaching of Jesus that still has relevance, not his deity or virgin
birth, it was said. Can we not save the core of our religion by not insisting
on ancient beliefs that make it offensive to intelligent men in this changing
world? This was the language of the Liberal. Yet Liberalism in the churches
did not save Christianity; it ate out the heart of it. The churches were not
made stronger by the changes Liberalism brought; they were weakened, and fairly
destroyed.
During and after the Second World
War, evangelical youth ministries in America took the theme, “Anchored to the
Rock; geared to the times.” The music of their evangelistic meetings was made
more appealing to the “new generation.” Publicity for revival crusades aimed
at the young was more “up-to-date.” They were now called “rallies” instead of
campaigns. Preachers talked more like radio personalities. Harsh
denunciations of sin were replaced with more “positive” sermons (or “talks”).
The old-time religion was going to be re-formatted for a new day, so that
revival could be achieved in our time. Yet the results were nothing like what
was anticipated. The new spirit of the youth movements infected the
fundamentalist movement as a whole, and changed it into the New Evangelicalism,
which, in spite of its great influence and impressive achievements, has been a
colossal failure. The hoped-for national and international revival never
came. The compromises with evil grew and spread. Ecumenical evangelism moved
Bible-believers to endorse Bible-deniers, and worldly ways adopted by the saved
gave us the Contemporary Church, with its rampant carnality and shameless
marketing methods. At the beginning, the great evangelical disaster was
launched with words about changing Christianity for a changing world. They did
not know it in the ‘50s, but it was the language of defeat.
More than once, even the more
conservative and cautious fundamentalists have been lured by talk about
changing methods or standards in order to relate to changes in the world. More
than once in the 1970s, the 1980s, and in our own time, compromises in
principle have been masked as adjustments necessary for reaching a new
generation for Christ. But it has been the language of defeat: “I have
offended…that which thou puttest on me will I bear.”
Even in the non-religious world,
talk about giving up principles and positions for the purpose of reaching the
masses has proven to be a predictor of bad things. The “RINOs” (Republicans in
Name Only), moderate or liberal voices in the Republican Party, have often
pushed for their Party to give up part or all of social conservatism
(opposition to abortion, assisted suicide, same-sex marriage, and such things)
in order to win elections, only to guarantee defeat when such a thing is done.
The “we were wrong; we went too far” attitude comes just before capitulation.
The President’s apologies for our country’s strong stands against evil in the
world have failed to bring the new era of peace and cooperation he expected.
Coca-Cola’s surrender to the pressure to come up with something new (do you remember
“new Coke”?) produced a marketing nightmare for them that gave us “Coke
Classic” (the old product brought back) and eventually to scrapping of the new
stuff. We do well to recognize the language of defeat.
Why repent?
There are times and situations
when Christian people and whole spiritual movements ought to repent of their
ways, and make some real changes. Not every call to repentance represents the
language of defeat. At the beginning of his reign, King Hezekiah made some big
changes that needed to be made.
Legitimate adjustments in the
policies, standards, teachings, and methods of God’s people are those mandated
from Heaven. They are the changes necessary in our lives and ministries to
gain the approval and blessing of the Lord. Hezekiah made big changes in Judah
in order to obey the scriptures, and please God. That is exactly what we must
do in these times of general defeat for our precious Cause. The changes we
ought to make are those that please God, not necessarily those that please
men. In defense of the truth and in opposition to perversions of the gospel,
Paul was inspired to ask,
Effective evangelism is a matter
of persuading God a great deal more than of persuading men. There is a
horizontal factor, persuading men, but much more important is the vertical
factor of seeking and conforming to the will of God. When old-time Christians
worked together to win souls, they often ran into the same kind of obstacles
that some have mistakenly identified as characteristics of a new day. But
instead of adjusting their message and their methods in order to overcome the
obstacles, the old-timers used to have all-night prayer meetings to clear the
way for His blessing. Again and again, God came through and melted hard
hearts, and showed Himself strong to move any mountain (Let us remember
Zechariah 4:6-7). The changes we need to make are changes required by God for
His blessing and power. Changes to conform to the ways of the world are more
than suspect. Evil is never appeased by our compromise with it. It always
demands more concessions, until we can surrender no more or until our
capitulation is complete.
What shall we do?
At a time when some of our
brethren are calling for fundamentalists to make doubtful adjustments for “a
changing world,” reason dictates that we do seven things.
1. We should consider what exact proposals are being made.
2. We should distinguish between changes that involve conforming to the will of God expressed in the Bible, and those that involve conforming to the world in order (supposedly) to win men.
3. We should immediately recognize what things in our lives and ministries are shown by the light of scripture to be displeasing to the Lord, and we should repent of them.
4. We should openly admit that any standards and policies we have followed in the past that violated scriptural principles were wrong then, just as they are now. When we are reluctant to call long-standing practices “wrong,” it may well be that they were not wrong, but that we are tempted to shed them for another reason.
5. We should be suspicious of proposed changes that move us in the direction of the world. Do we think that those who are dead in their sins can be resurrected if we learn to relate more fully to them? Is it our music that is keeping them from Christ, or our sins? Is it our holy living is are making our evangelism impotent, or is it the lack of God’s power in our lives? Do we need to revise fundamentalism, or do we need to be revived?
6. We should recognize the language of capitulation as the language of defeat, and stop using it! We live as we do, and sing as we sing, and witness as we witness, and preach what we preach, because this is what pleases God. We are not open to displeasing God in order to please men.
7. We should seek the face of the living God for the revival needed by His people everywhere.
May our words be words of faith and victory, and not words of capitulation to this present evil world.