Theology Thursday - Ernest Pickering on "New Evangelicalism"
Image
![](/sites/default/files/styles/article_full/public/article_images/2016/evangelicalism.jpg?itok=U5xkK5di)
Donald Pfaffe, "Views Of New Evangelicalism," CENQ 02:2 (Summer 1959)
In the spring of 1959, Ernest Pickering wrote an article for the Central Bible Quarterly entitled “The Present Status of the New Evangelicalism.”1 This was only one of the first in an eventual avalanche of articles written by passionate and articulate fundamentalists, beginning in the late 1950s, as the breach between the “New Evangelicalism” and “Fundamentalism” became, for many men, a bridge too far.
Elsewhere, Robert Ketchum wrote to GARBC churches and pleaded with them to not participate in Billy Graham’s crusades. To do so, he warned, would be “the same in principle as going back into the [American Baptist] Convention for a season.”2
In the summer of 1959, William Ashbrook (also writing for the Central Bible Quarterly) solemnly warned his readers about the “New Evangelicalism.” He thundered forth, “First, it is a movement born of compromise. Second, it is a movement nurtured on pride of intellect. Third, it is a movement growing on appeasement of evil. And finally, it is a movement doomed by the judgment of God’s holy Word.”3
This isn’t the language of diplomacy! The gauntlet had been thrown down, and Pickering’s article was one of the opening salvos fundamentalists launched to warn its constituents about this insidious threat.
One of the most significant theological movements of this generation is exercising an increasingly large influence in American church life. It has arisen out of the soil of American fundamentalism. The distinguished character and ability of its leaders and the wide-spread exposition of its principles are combining to assure it a ready hearing among many conservative ministers and laymen today.
By common usage this movement has come to be known as the “new evangelicalism.” Basically, it is an attempt to find a meeting place between liberalism (with its more modern expression, new-orthodoxy) and fundamentalism. It is unwilling to espouse all the tenets of liberalism, but is anxious to escape some of the reproach attached to fundamentalism.
Probably several factors have contributed to the rise of this new approach. Apparently one of the most basic of such factors is a long-cherished desire to exert more influence and receive more recognition from the contemporary secular and religious society. A hint of this is given in this statement by one of its advocates:
And we have not always been granted even that measure of civilized respect which our competitors seem willing to accord each other in the world of scholarship and learning. Too often our best reception has been an amused indulgence…” (Christianity Today, March 4, 1957).
Some evangelicals have for years chafed at the bit because their classification as fundamentalist precluded any serious consideration of their thought and writings by the masses of our country. The bitter pill of reproach, isolation, and derision because of their theological position has been a difficult one to swallow. They have longed for acceptance as bona fide religious leaders among the recognized religious groups of the day. This driving motive has compelled them to change their approach in order to better conform to the pattern of the day, and so seek to make themselves acceptable.
Coupled with this has been an unwillingness to continue in a constant, vigorous defense of the faith. New evangelicals express impatience and disdain with those who expose the sin and error of apostasy and long to forget the whole fundamentalist-modernist controversy and move on to something more “constructive.” They have grown weary in the battle, and have decided that the advice of the old frontiersman is wise, “If you can’t lick ‘em, jine ‘em.”
The Principles of The New Evangelicalism
The new evangelicalism is a very recent movement, an emerging movement, and hence it does not as yet present itself in any highly organized form nor have its principles been all thoroughly crystallized. However, it is not too difficult to discover their major premises by a perusal of various articles which are appearing in defense of their cause.
Friendliness to liberalism and neo-orthodoxy.
This new evangelicalism approaches the liberal bear with a bit of honey instead of a gun. It expresses the feeling that liberalism is on the wane and that conservatism is growing in many of the major denominations. So, Donald Grey Barnhouse, in a letter of apology to the Presbyterian Church for his uncooperative spirit in the past, states that, “there has been a change of circumstances and of theological emphasis within our denomination,” (Monday Morning, Dec. 20, 1954). He declares in another place that “the movement in the theological world today is definitely toward the conservative position,” (Eternity, Sept., 1957).
Feeling that theological liberals are increasingly “repentant” and are seeking Bible truth, the new evangelicals are advocating a rapprochement with them, and one editor has noted “a growing willingness of evangelical theologians to converse with liberal theologians.” This feeling has expressed itself in many ways — cooperative evangelism, acceptance of speaking engagements in liberal institutions, and in other ways. Specifically, this tenet of evangelicalism is gradually bringing its proponents into a closer relationship with the leaders of the ecumenical movement— the National and World Council of Churches.
Alva McClain, President of Grace Theological Seminary, has very aptly and forcibly put his finger upon the fallacy of this reasoning.
Does anyone really think that we might “profitably engage in an exchange of ideas” with blasphemers who suggest that our only Lord and Master was begotten in the womb of a fallen mother by a German mercenary and that the God of the Old Testament is a dirty bully? Basically, the problem here is ethical rather than theological. We must never for one instant forget that they are deadly enemies with whom there can be neither truce nor compromise, (King’s Business, January, 1957).
Disavowal of fundamentalism and hostility toward separation
The adoption of the title “evangelicalism” is in itself an expression of rebellion against fundamentalism. The statement has been made by one leading figure that “God has bypassed extreme fundamentalism.” A number of journals have produced articles severely castigating the fundamentalists for their “divisiveness,” “bitterness,” and a host of other evils. The temper of the new evangelicalism is definitely one of strong criticism of fundamentalism as a movement.
This is accompanied by a hostility to separatists, those who hold that severance from denominational apostasy is the only Scriptural course to follow. Harold Ockenga, first president of Fuller Seminary, stated at the inception of that seminary that it intended to train young men to go back into the established denominations and that it was not a separatist institution. Donald Grey Barnhouse, for the past few years, has severely reprimanded anyone who separated from an ecclesiastical organization on doctrinal grounds.
Theological elasticity
New evangelicals view fundamentalism as impossibly rigid in its theological expression. In an article setting forth some of their major beliefs it was suggested that the “whole subject of biblical inspiration needs reinvestigation,” (Christian Life, March, 1956) … In fact, they resist the use of the phrase, “verbal inspiration,” because they feel that it antagonizes liberal theologians.
This contemporary brand of evangelicalism is very broad in doctrinal inclusivism. It opposes the preciseness of dispensationalism and registers an impartiality which borders on indifference when faced with the great prophetic questions. It is cordial to Pentecostal and holiness theology, “advocating great latitude on the doctrine of the Holy Spirit. In short, it tries to embrace as wide a constituency as possible by removing as many theological obstacles as it can. This results of course in an undefined evangelicalism which bypasses many important doctrines.
Emphasis on social problems
One of the leaders of the new evangelicalism was requested by reporters to define its nature. He replied that the new evangelicalism “differs from fundamentalism in its willingness to handle the social problems which the fundamentalists evaded,” (Associated Press, Dec. 8, 1957). Vernon Grounds declares, “We must … make evangelicalism more relevant to the political and sociological realities of our times,” (Christian Life, March, 1956).
The problem the evangelicals face at this point is the rather clear fact that nowhere in Scripture is the church commissioned to agitate for better social conditions or to attempt to solve current social problems. While it is the duty of every believer to conduct himself as a good citizen and vote for whatever measures seem right, it is not the responsibility of the church of Christ to remedy all the social evils of its day. Paul never organized a “Society for the Abolition of Slavery.” He simply admonished slaves to be good slaves for Christ’s sake.
The New Testament does not reveal any divine plan for a church-sponsored social program. History teaches that preoccupation with this eventually leads to the ruin of the church.
A positivism without negativism
New evangelicals wish to avoid as much controversy as possible. The leading editorial spokesman for the position seeks a ministry which is “positive and constructive rather than negative and destructive,” (Christianity Today, March 4, 1957). The clear implication is that negativism is not constructive.
For this reason the new evangelicalism does not clearly and consistently expose the machinations and error of religious apostasy. It feels that to engage in such ministry would be to alienate the liberals and render their hopes of winning them void. To bolster their program of positivism evangelicals have branded fundamentalists as too “negative” and “reactionary.” Doctrinal controversy has been described as unfortunate and divisive.
However, John F. Walvoord answers this charge. “Fundamentalists have inevitably been controversialists, since historically they have fought the tide of liberal theology. Those who dislike controversy naturally turn away from fundamentalism,” (Eternity, June, 1957, p. 35).
An obedient church must contend with error as well as propagate truth.
The Impact of The New Evangelicalism
Compromising theologies are not new in the Christian church … The two extremes of liberalism and fundamentalism are bound eventually to bring forth a mediating effort such as the new evangelicalism. Very rapidly the new evangelicalism is cohering into a definite theological movement. It already can lay claim to its own leaders, its schools, and its magazines. It has become a force which cannot be ignored in Protestantism today.
For any honest observer it is obvious that the new evangelicalism is dividing the conservative camp. Many conservatives are being swayed by the large-scale scholarly and popular presentation of the new evangelicalism. Possibly the single greatest asset to their cause is the ecumenical evangelistic technique which in metropolitan centers of the world is uniting liberals and fundamentalists and thereby subtly gaining the objective of evangelicalism — a synthesis.
On the other hand, many fundamentalists of various denominational allegiances are standing fast against the inroads of this evangelicalism and not without great opposition.
The effect of this entire movement will have to be decision. Decision on the part of all those who have in the past been identified with what is known as the fundamentalist movement. The interdenominational schools of our country are facing a decision. Will they stand for fundamentalism or will they abdicate to the new evangelicalism? For most of them it is not an easy decision for their interdenominational character relates them to leaders on both sides of the issue.
The same decision will face interdenominational missionary agencies. Many of them are reluctant to take sides in any doctrinal or ecclesiastical controversy for fear of alienating some of their supporters. However, the very nature of the new evangelicalism will demand a decision.
The new evangelicalism, while propagated by sincere and able men, is not worthy of the support of Christians. It lacks moral courage in the face of the great conflict with apostasy. It lacks doctrinal clarity in important areas of theology. It makes unwarranted concessions to the enemies of the cross of Christ. Christians everywhere should resist it steadfastly in the faith.
Notes
1 Ernest Pickering, “The Present Status of the New Evangelicalism,” Central Bible Quarterly, CENQ 02:1 (Spring 1959).
2 Robert T. Ketchum, “Special Information Bulletin #5,” GARBC, (n.d.), 4.
3 William Ashbrook, “The New Evangelism - The New Neutralism,” in Central Bible Quarterly, CENQ 02:2 (Summer 1959), 31.
Tyler Robbins 2016 v2
Tyler Robbins is a bi-vocational pastor at Sleater Kinney Road Baptist Church, in Olympia WA. He also works in State government. He blogs as the Eccentric Fundamentalist.
- 120 views
Thanks for sharing Tyler. Talk about stirring the pot! I believe that many of his criticisms would not stick to conservative evangelicalism today but that the more seeker-sensitive and charismatic factions of evangelicalism probably fit much of this bill.
I would have to disagree strongly with his view on social matters. As Salt and Light, we have a duty to press for social reform that seeks to honor the image of God displayed in humanity. The problem comes when we confuse these efforts with gospel work, which they are not. And the greater part of our energies should be directed to gospel work. But that does not mean that pushing for social change is not a responsibility of the church.
I’ve also wondered about the charge that evangelicals were obsessed with “academic recognition.” While this is likely the case with some, I wonder if the underlying motivation for more academic prowess within “new evangelicalism” was for the advance of the gospel. To be able to dialogue with them for the sake of calling out the problems with their views. Not that I am advocating that such an approach is wise or prudent, but, I think it is unfair to paint them all as pride-hungry academics.
I think looking back on this illustrates how diverse “evangelicalism” has become. While the pendulum certainly swung towards liberalism in the advent of “new evangelicalism,” I think it is safe to say that the pendulum has swung back the other way with the conservative and reformed resurgence in the modern evangelical church. But it is always fascinating to learn where we were so that we can work to protect swinging that way again!
Phil Golden
Quite a bit of “assuming motives” on the part of Pickering here. For example, the old saw that neo-evangelicals simply wanted to be respected by liberals—perhaps some did, but if we take a look at the state of fundamental “educational” institutions at the time, exactly what choice did neo-evangelicals have? If they wanted to do real academic work, they weren’t going to be able to do it in fundamental institutions at that time. Pickering’s own theological degrees were from Dallas, after all, just as Clearwaters’ were from Kalamazoo College and the University of Chicago. They knew from experience that evangelicals couldn’t do academic work in the fundamental orbit.
And the comment on “Paul didn’t start a society to end slavery”—my goodness, we fundamentalists have been trying to get past statements like that ever since, haven’t we? Reality here is that our movement did indeed show a huge blind spot when confronted by slavery and Jim Crow, and statements like that are not only an embarrassment, but also a great opportunity to think through “where did Ernie Pickering go wrong with this statement, Biblically speaking?”. The Bible does have cultural implications that we ought to think through; some degree of “social” is inherent in the Gospel.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
It was stuff like this that actually drove me AWAY from fundamentalism.
It was stuff like this that actually drove me AWAY from fundamentalism.
Could you clarify what specifically the “this” is that drove you away from fundamentalism?
John B. Lee
There can be negativism without positivism.
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
Are you positive about that?
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
I think Pickering was right (for 1959)
We do not live in a Billy Graham environment today
A very strong Conservative-Evangelical world has emerged (or converged HT FBFI :) ).
Half of (generalizing) the C.E.’s are former fundamentalists who were sick of the Fundamentalist excesses (which are):
- Legalism
- Anti-calvinism
- KJVOnlyism
As Jim wrote, the context seems to be a bit different today. You often see in these articles from the late 1950s an accusation that new evangelicals are flirting with modernism. Neo-orthodoxy was a big concern. For example, the Central Bible Quarterly’s early editions have several articles warning people against neo-orthodoxy.
Today, evangelicalism has fractured into several million pieces, and the “new evangelicals” were essentially holding the same ground the conservative evangelicals hold today. Do ya’ll see a danger, a “slippery slope” in men like Mohler, MacArthur, Dever, Carson, Kaiser (et al) that will lead Christians into modern “modernism?” In other words, are Pickering’s warnings directly applicable to the contemporary context?
To quote Ashbrook, can we say that (for example) Carson’s commentaries, DeYoung’s books or MacArthur’s sermons and writings are indicitive of (1) a movement born of compromise, (2) a movement nurtured on pride of intellect, (3) a movement growing on the appeasement of evil, and (4) a movement doomed by the judgment of God’s holy Word?
According to the FBFI’s unfortunate “Convergent” issue of Frontline, fundamentalists should be wary of the conservative evangelical world.
- Are Pickering’s warnings still directly applicable?
- If they are, to whom are they applicable? Who is “the enemy?”
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
[TylerR] Who is “the enemy?”
An element of Fundamentalism lost effectiveness when “contend[ing] for the faith” (Jude) became just being cantankerous
I don’t think any one of the 4 dangers Ashbrook mentions can rightly be levied at the individuals you mention, Tyler. But that doesn’t mean that there are not some things we need to be wary of with these individuals.
I think there is a growing concern over Macarthur’s connection with James White (a guy I immensely respect and appreciate but who has made some questionable decisions as of late).
It always puzzled me that Mohler signed the Manhattan Declaration. (He tried to explain his reasons here but I find them to be not very compelling, especially since the Declaration was declared a document from Christians and there were those in that group who, if we believe orthodox Christian doctrine, are not Christians)
Carson’s (and Keller’s) views on Origins are troubling for me (albeit I am no where close to anathematizing them for those views) and may be an indication of compromise for the sake of academic respectability.
Beyond these, the desire to entertain in worship has almost wholesale support in broader conservative evangelicalism. (I was a little weirded out at TGC this year when you knew the session was about to begin because the fog machines were turned on).
So do I think Ashbrook’s critique applies today. No. Are there still concerning things within conservative evangelicalism? Yes.
Phil Golden
No question, per Phil’s comment, that there are many concerns with the neo-evangelical (and now generally “evangelical”) movement, theologically speaking, from the youth pastor vaping at TGC, to origins, to positions on the inerrancy of Scripture, to Graham’s willingness to partner with apostates in his crusades.
The trouble I have with Pickering’s rhetoric mostly transcends the time frame; it’s that Pickering is assuming motivations in a fairly perjorative way when he knew from personal experience that there really wasn’t much of a place for academic level work in fundamentalism. And as DL and Jim have noted, this crosses the line between “contending for the faith” and “just being cantankerous”, and it explains a lot of why there’s a fairly significant population of people who have “kissed fundamentalism good bye” in favor of being CE/Convergent.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
I don’t believe that most of the Conservative Evangelicals are the same as the New-Evangelicals. I did listen to a podcast yesterday with a guy who writes on the New Perspective and he said many or most guys in academia calling themselves evangelical have adopted much of it.
Historic fundamentalism was known for waging war against modernism and for raising the standard for Biblical truth. From the late 50’s on it waged war against neo-evangelicalism and particularly against its willingness to affiliate with modernism in evangelism. Unless I missed something examples of Bible believers uniting with modernists in evangelistic efforts are rare today. Nothing unites a group like a common enemy and with the diminishing of NE a new enemy was needed. Pseudo-fundamentalists created enemies by declaring the enemy to be Calvinists, non-KJV, and/or CCM users. Those with whom I identify decided that the CE’s/convergents (whatever they are-still waiting for a definition) were the rebirth of NE. Meanwhile the new generation and some of the older ones saw clearly that the fundamentalists were standing against certain things but weren’t hearing a clarion call as to what they were standing for.
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
Phil:
You bring up some issues that aren’t necessarily indicative of “conservative evangelicals” as a group. In other words, I’m not certain whether we can point to “evangelicals” as if they’re a coherent group which engages in questionable practices. Pickering was arguing against what he perceived to be a monolith. Your issues (and others that could be brought up) are more about disagreements about what individual leaders have done from time to time. Is that an “evangelical problem,” or is it just a disagreement with another Christian?
I hope I’m making tha distinction clear. Pickering argued against a coherent movement of conservative evangelicals who flirted with modernism. Today, I doubt this monolith exists, and even if it did, I don’t see the “movement” flirting with modernism. Instead, I see genuine disagreements with some Christian leaders over past decisions they’ve made. But, that isn’t necessarily the same as saying “the movement sucks.”
My own opinion on your points:
- James White is good to go. I watched both his dialogues with Qadhi when they happened. No problem. This is an issue manufactured by Brannon Howse and others for their own reasons. I watched the dialogues, and I;m not concerned. I also follow Qadhi on Twitter.
- Mohler was wrong. Not sure what he was thinking.
- Carson and Keller on origins. Bad stuff. Matt Recker did a series about his concerns about Keller in Proclaim and Defend a few years back.
- Fog machines. Get a life, people! How ridiculous. Catering to younger people.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
I think the situation within conservative evangelical circles is more serious than some realize. Most in here would call D.A. Carson a conservative evangelical. And so he is, and continues to defend inerrancy. But would any fundamentalist want to send a student to Trinity for anything other than an upper-level degree (PhD/DMin - because upper-level degree programs are lacking in Fundamentalism)? Vanhoozer doesn’t really believe in inerrancy anymore. The nature of biblical studies and historicity has been completely turned on its head by Enns/Sparks. Walton (at Wheaton) is knocking on the door of liberalism and will likely do more than any others in pulling people away from inerrancy, without even realizing the intellectual end of his positions (the criticism of a lack of theological intellectual dishonesty does not come from me, but from Enns critiquing Walton). Intellectually, the evangelical left is winning (one only needs to read the Zondervan multiple-views series on the Historicity of the Early Chapters of Genesis, or Inerrancy).
Concerning Carson/Keller on origins - the problem is not a textual one, but epistemological. As soon as we have to hold a certain interpretation (or reject a certain interpretation) because “science” we have lost Scripture as authority.
Every generation will refight the battle for inerrancy and authority. I have a feeling, that apart from the SBC and fundamentalism, the mainstream of evangelicalism, and much of what is currently called “conservative evangelicalism” will lose the authority of Scripture, especially in relation to historicity within a generation.
Discussion