Theology Thursday - Ernest Pickering on "New Evangelicalism"
Image
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.
- 132 views
I only mentioned music because some (many?) believe there’s not much difference between conservative Evangelicals and Fundamentalists. No intention of talking about music; Just illustrating that the differences are more than what is apparent.
Wally Morris
Huntington, IN
[Jay]Jumped out at me:
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).
I don’t know who the author is, but if this quote is correct (and I have no reason to doubt it), then my first question to the author is - “why are you even in ministry or academia?”
I don’t expect affirmation from academics because I know they don’t believe the truth that I do and teach. I will talk with and minister to them if they tolerate it, but trying to get a book published by Harvard University Press (for example) is going to entail sacrifices and compromises that I am not willing to make and neither should any seriously committed Christian.
We aren’t of this world and shouldn’t expect it’s praise, and Jesus makes that abundantly clear. Is that really hard to understand?
We don’t have to expect affirmation from academics, to be sure, and it’s not necessary. I would even go as far as to say that if a person’s reviews in academia are consistently good, that’s generally a sign of simply being on the right side of groupthink, not good work. For example, in Ed’s poll about marriage and divorce, one fact is that all that great, “peer reviewed” work that says that fundagelicals divorce at the same rate as everybody else is (a) using the wrong units (divorces/1000 adults instead of divorces/1000 marriages) and (b) does not differentiate between fundagelicals who do, and do not, actually attend church.
And that, in turn, demonstrates “our tribe’s” need to do academic level work whether or not we are approved in academia. And really, this is, again, where the rubber meets the road in Pickering’s critique; whatever we might say about “our view” of the neo-evangelical movement (Wally’s comment demonstrates that we get some of the same signs today in Graham rallies, no?) today, we must simultaneously ask why Pickering did not, despite having earned his own degrees from Dallas and not BJU, clue in to the fact that those endeavoring to do good academic work had no likely home in fundamentalism at the time. In other words, “our tribe” helped create the neo-evangelicals by shunning the tools of academic inquiry.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
[WallyMorris]I only mentioned music because some (many?) believe there’s not much difference between conservative Evangelicals and Fundamentalists. No intention of talking about music; Just illustrating that the differences are more than what is apparent.
That’s quite a narrow view of who is actually a fundamentalist if you divide it by one’s approach to music. Both GARBC and IFCA association of churches identify themselves as fundamentalists and both have over 1000 churches in their association. In my two decades of connections with these churches throughout the Midwest and parts of the East, at least half of the churches of both these associations contain similar musical philosophy with conservative evangelicals. And the other half that is more traditional don’t see it as a big enough problem to separate from. Your stripe of fundamentalism doesn’t necessarily represent all of fundamentalism.
A few points of note:
Jay, the quote from 1957 CT would either have been from Henry or at least endorsed by Henry as the editor of CT at the time. I’m not near Central at the moment, so I can’t look at the archives for that copy.
Phil, To call Henry akin to the “conservative evangelicals” would be misunderstanding Henry and the New Evangelical movement. Henry’s “Uneasy Conscience” was one of the works that really started the NE movement, and the NE movement was carried forward on the popular level by Chrisitanity Today - Henry’s paper.
And remember the “when” of where we speak. Pickering would have been at Dallas during the final years of Chafer’s ministry, and during the height of S.Louis Johnson’s time. Alva McClain (McClain was a fundamentalist, as is John Whitcomb) at Grace was putting out good scholars. And if you know men who served during those days, some were unable to finish, or were not allowed to finish (PhDs) because of their conservative beliefs (C. Raymond Buck did all work including dissertation for a PhD from Central Seminary in Kansas, but was not accepted due to his stance against the “inclusive policy” - he later did a PhD in education). So with the exception of Dallas and Grace, and perhaps a few of the secular schools (or Jewish schools for OT studies), what academic choices did fundamentalists have? And remember that evangelicalism (in general) had to rebuild an educational infrastructure that was lost to liberalism. Thus, the rise of Westminster seminary, Wheaton college, Fuller, TEDS (gaining faculty from Fuller after the ‘62 split), and Biola on the evangelical side, and Central, followed by Calvary, Detroit, Faith, Maranatha, Northland on the fundamentalist side (Note: this only deals with the controversy in the North, and leaves out the Southern Baptists and southern fundamentalism).
For some music is a shibboleth, a convenient shortcut to discern “us” from “them”. With others it’s Bible versions, schools attended, levels of dispensational commitment, eschatological nuances, or clothing standards. Can we stick to essential issues?
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
[Philip Golden Jr.]Bauder, as is usual with him, hits it right on the head. Today’s Conservative Evangelicals are not the past generation’s New Evangelicals. To answer Don’s charge about “tearing down statutes,” I don’t think anyone here is necessarily faulting Pickering for what he said (the bit about social justice is concerning, but, makes sense understanding his cultural context- it doesn’t justify what he said, it just explains it) in the context of what he was combating. The bigger issue is that some recent Fundamentalists have tried to paint conservative evangelicals with the same brush that Pickering uses. And as Bauder rightly points out, they are not the same.
I think Kevin is a little too charitable here. Granted, the current crop of CEs are not exactly like NEs of the 50s, but who of any generation is exactly like their heirs of the next generation, or their ancestors a couple of generations back. Issues change, stuff happens, decisions are made. The key is, is the philosophy the same? I would say that the current CEs are almost identical to the NEs philosophically.
I have two follow ups then for discussion. First, in the era of New Evangelicalism’s rise, were there any who stood apart from both Fundamentalism and New Evangelicalism- in other words, are there any historical figures from that time that would fit more in with the “Conservative Evangelical” tag of today. (Perhaps Carl Henry would be an example?)
Henry was the New Evangelical. I’m astonished you would suggest him, of all men. He was a good man in a lot of ways, but was the architect of New Evangelicalism.
Second, today, who best represents the equivalent of the New Evangelical of Pickering’s Era? Bill Hybles? Rick Warren? Who else? If, as Bauder argues, conservative evangelicals are not New Evangelicals, then how is their response different than the Fundamentalist response to today’s New Evangelicals. I think as we identify the players and their reaction to the various groups, we may find that the conservative evangelicals of today are principally standing in nearly the same spot that Pickering and Ashcroft stood, with perhaps a more toned down rhetoric.
Al Mohler: Manhattan Declaration, common cause with Mormons, cooperation with Billy Graham Evangelistic Assoc, desire for influence more than separation
he is a good man in a lot of ways, but he is by philosophy a compromiser in order to have maximum “influence” as he defines it
All said, I think that today’s Conservative Evangelical and today’s moderate Fundamentalist (I say moderate to differentiate between the KJV-Only, anti-Calvinist and big “B” baptist factions in fundamentalism) have more in common than either group wishes to give to each other.
I think that view is extremely naive. (I almost said “hopelessly” but I haven’t given up hope.)
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
A quick word of clarification about Henry. Henry was definitely a HUGE part of the new-evangelical movement. That said, I don’t think he ever thought it would go where it went. I picked Henry as he was probably the most conservative of the whole classic New Evangelical group. Its interesting that you pick Mohler as the quintessential modern example of a “new evangelical,” as Mohler was heavily influenced by Henry.
That said, Mohler is not the same as the old line new evangelicals. For instance, he is not for cooperative evangelism. (yes, Southern and he participated in a BGEA crusade, but, if you look deeper into the details of that crusade, Mohler made a point to not cooperate with apostates and actually made his participation contingent on that fact). Also, again, while I think it was perhaps not prudent for Mohler to speak at BYU, he made it very clear that he stood apart from them regarding their understanding of salvation. It was more of a co-beligerant focus on some major cultural issues in American life and politics that brought him there. He was not recognizing them as brothers and sisters in Christ. As for his desire for influence rather than separation, that speaks to his heart motives, which I am not prepared to judge.
When I attended the Shepherds’ conference two years ago, Mohler was one of the Keynotes. He also did a breakout session on, of all topics, separation, titled, of all titles “The Dividing Line.” (I’m sure he was not taking that from Dr. Sidwell’s book but I found it ironic, to say the least!) You can listen to the session here.
All said, there are some major differences between Mohler and Ockenga, Billy Graham, Dan Fuller, and even Carl Henry.
Phil Golden
Not indicating that music is THE dividing line - You are reading that into my comments. Only saying that music is ONE of the issues and still unresolved. For those who consider music important, then music IS one of the essential issues. The “cultural” label is often an attempt to put music in the “non-essential” category. Again: I never intended a discussion about music. Others have made it that way. I am only using music as one of the unresolved and major differences that many Fundamentalists have with conservative Evangelicals, no matter how much Evangelicals have changed over the last 60 years.
Wally Morris
Huntington, IN
Let me also agree with Don and others that Carl Henry was one of the prime movers and shakers in the nascent ‘New Evangelical’ movement back in the ’50s. Marsden’s work Reforming Fundamentalism makes that very clear.
As for this:
I have two follow ups then for discussion. First, in the era of New Evangelicalism’s rise, were there any who stood apart from both Fundamentalism and New Evangelicalism- in other words, are there any historical figures from that time that would fit more in with the “Conservative Evangelical” tag of today. (Perhaps Carl Henry would be an example?)
Bauder refers to some of those people as ‘Indifferantists’ in an old series he did about this, but I’m not sure that everyone that stood aside from those battles was necessarily indifferent. I think that some (but I don’t have names to give) likely saw the battles escalating and decided they would go about their own business of making disciples and preaching and etc. I’d be curious to know if this is when the IFCA International took off, as I was never exposed to that association at NBBC or BJU and they seem to do that.
Second, today, who best represents the equivalent of the New Evangelical of Pickering’s Era? Bill Hybles? Rick Warren? Who else? If, as Bauder argues, conservative evangelicals are not New Evangelicals, then how is their response different than the Fundamentalist response to today’s New Evangelicals. I think as we identify the players and their reaction to the various groups, we may find that the conservative evangelicals of today are principally standing in nearly the same spot that Pickering and Ashcroft stood, with perhaps a more toned down rhetoric.
All said, I think that today’s Conservative Evangelical and today’s moderate Fundamentalist (I say moderate to differentiate between the KJV-Only, anti-Calvinist and big “B” baptist factions in fundamentalism) have more in common than either group wishes to give to each other.
I’m not sure, but when I think ‘Conservative Evangelical’ in our day, I think of men like MacArthur, Piper, Dever, Carson, almost anyone with ‘name recognition’ and involved with TGC, Mohler, and possibly Tim Keller. I think I’d probably have to include Hybels and Warren if pushed to do so, but they aren’t the names that come to mind immediately. I know some people would object to Mohler, but I’m also fairly sure that I saw something somewhere that Mohler regretted signing off on the Manhattan Declaration.
I also agree that there are issues in conservative evangelicalism that merit scrutiny, but I think that if/when they blow up, Fundamentalists of our stripe should be willing and able to help defend Biblical truths. TylerR’s mention of the New Perspective on Paul is an example of something to fight. Attempts to re-water down Biblical inerrancy are another.
But…if we can’t even define ourselves, how are we going to define conservative evangelicals in any meaningful way?
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
[Philip Golden Jr.]A quick word of clarification about Henry. Henry was definitely a HUGE part of the new-evangelical movement. That said, I don’t think he ever thought it would go where it went. I picked Henry as he was probably the most conservative of the whole classic New Evangelical group. Its interesting that you pick Mohler as the quintessential modern example of a “new evangelical,” as Mohler was heavily influenced by Henry.
That said, Mohler is not the same as the old line new evangelicals. For instance, he is not for cooperative evangelism. (yes, Southern and he participated in a BGEA crusade, but, if you look deeper into the details of that crusade, Mohler made a point to not cooperate with apostates and actually made his participation contingent on that fact). Also, again, while I think it was perhaps not prudent for Mohler to speak at BYU, he made it very clear that he stood apart from them regarding their understanding of salvation. It was more of a co-beligerant focus on some major cultural issues in American life and politics that brought him there. He was not recognizing them as brothers and sisters in Christ. As for his desire for influence rather than separation, that speaks to his heart motives, which I am not prepared to judge.
Mohler has said something to the effect that the fundamentalists were basically right but by their separatism they lost the opportunity to be an influence. It was on a podcast some years ago, I should have kept it for reference, but didn’t.
My point isn’t that he is exactly like the New Evangelicals in direct application, but in basic philosophy. I think this is behind the “co-belligerency” stands. In most cases, its a bridge too far and is a distraction from the Great Commission. The social gospel infects men’s hearts over more issues than merely feeding the hungry. I think you are way too optimistic about his philosophy and that you (and many other posters here) don’t have a good grasp of the culture of the 50s and 60s. You all tend to look at the past from a very “presentist” perspective, hence the judgementalism towards the previous generation of fundamentalists.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
My point isn’t that he is exactly like the New Evangelicals in direct application, but in basic philosophy. I think this is behind the “co-belligerency” stands. In most cases, its a bridge too far and is a distraction from the Great Commission. The social gospel infects men’s hearts over more issues than merely feeding the hungry. I think you are way too optimistic about his philosophy and that you (and many other posters here) don’t have a good grasp of the culture of the 50s and 60s. You all tend to look at the past from a very “presentist” perspective, hence the judgementalism towards the previous generation of fundamentalists.
Can you help me understand where you are coming from with Mohler and relating his philosophy to the social gospel?
Mohler has said something to the effect that the fundamentalists were basically right but by their separatism they lost the opportunity to be an influence. It was on a podcast some years ago, I should have kept it for reference, but didn’t.
My point isn’t that he is exactly like the New Evangelicals in direct application, but in basic philosophy. I think this is behind the “co-belligerency” stands. In most cases, its a bridge too far and is a distraction from the Great Commission. The social gospel infects men’s hearts over more issues than merely feeding the hungry. I think you are way too optimistic about his philosophy and that you (and many other posters here) don’t have a good grasp of the culture of the 50s and 60s. You all tend to look at the past from a very “presentist” perspective, hence the judgementalism towards the previous generation of fundamentalists.
Don, do you really think you have a good grasp of the culture of the 50s and 60s? I think you are about my age. So I don’t know if either of us have a good grasp except by what we read and hear what’s been passed down. I don’t think you are correct in claiming that Mohler is like the NE in basic philosophy. If he is it might be in areas where even the NE were right. I’m sure I would have some areas of disagreement with him as I would with most others. Whether those disagreements rise to the level of separation is the question I ask myself. I’m not sure they do. My experience with Fundamentalism is that much of it was “righter than thou” and those less right are compromisers. Fundamentalism in its zeal to defend Scripture, which zeal I admire, often goes beyond Scripture and separates where there is no scriptural warrant, IMO. As far as losing influence, well………………..
I think not. Let’s take a look at Pickering’s writing and see if it passes muster, theologically speaking.
The first section simply attacks the motives of the neo-evangelicals as being all about pride, wanting to be accepted, and the like. Sorry, that’s not a theological argument at all. The next section, “friendliness to liberalism”, is also not theological, but rather notes apologies for the excesses and tone of fundamentalists—OK, reading fundamental history, including some of the writings of Bob Jones Sr. and Jr., Frank Norris, I’m at a loss as to how it would be wrong to make this apology.
Now I concede that Pickering has something of an argument with his reference to “reinvestigating Biblical inerrancy”, but a single unattributed quote without naming the author/speaker or page number? Would any of our high school English teachers have accepted that in a sophomore level paper? My teachers would have applied red ink to such a stunt on my part.
Pickering does not leave us to wonder how much more theological heft he’s going to bring to the discussion, however, because he then goes to pick a fight with the infant civil rights movement by pointing out that Paul did not start an anti-slavery society. Let’s not forget that Dr. King had just gotten going four years before—there is no other reasonable inference to Pickering’s words here than that he is objecting to Christians working to end Jim Crow. Exactly how Pickering reconciled this with Galatians 3:28 and James 2:2-3 is beyond me. Keep in mind as well that in Rome, it was largely Christians who put the kibosh on emperor worship, gladiatorial games and ritual combats of the Circus, and cultic prostitution in the Roman empire, among other abuses. Yes, the ancient church did indeed do social Gospel—and grew immensely when they took in the pagan victims of a plague that killed those who did not get care.
Sorry, I don’t let him off the hook because things were “so different back then”, in great part because he was doing the same kinds of things that had gotten fundamentalists in the bad graces of their peers for the previous 50 years.
Now that doesn’t mean that I have no concerns with neo-evangelicals, or for that matter the weird things many factions of evangelicalism do. I’m a daily reader of the Babylon Bee for a reason, after all, and my concerns with the Graham association go way further than simply partnering with Catholics. But that doesn’t let “my tribe” off the hook.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
[Steve Davis]Don, do you really think you have a good grasp of the culture of the 50s and 60s? I think you are about my age. So I don’t know if either of us have a good grasp except by what we read and hear what’s been passed down.
I am sure that our grasp isn’t complete, although these were the decades of our childhood. My point isn’t that my view of the period is perfect, but that we need to try to understand the times. The same is true for evaluating men like (ahem) Robert E. Lee, and others [of his ilk?] of bygone eras. You have to read history thoroughly and sympathetically. You can’t expect those of the past to be aware of sensibilities of the present. We are much too ready to criticize when if we had been active in that era, no doubt we would have looked at, valued, and done things in a much different way than we do today.
[Steve Davis]I don’t think you are correct in claiming that Mohler is like the NE in basic philosophy. If he is it might be in areas where even the NE were right. I’m sure I would have some areas of disagreement with him as I would with most others. Whether those disagreements rise to the level of separation is the question I ask myself. I’m not sure they do. My experience with Fundamentalism is that much of it was “righter than thou” and those less right are compromisers. Fundamentalism in its zeal to defend Scripture, which zeal I admire, often goes beyond Scripture and separates where there is no scriptural warrant, IMO. As far as losing influence, well………………..
First, our disagreement is not just a matter of opinion. Mohler has clearly and consistently been willing to bend in some areas for the sake of exercising or increasing his influence as he sees it. That is really incontroverible.
Our disagreement may be whether he is right or wrong to bend where he does. I mentioned several examples above. To me those are pretty serious compromises. If you differ, then, you differ. But the fact remains that he is willing to bend and has made it clear that influence is a major motivator in his position making.
Second, I don’t deny fundamentalism has lost its influence … if it ever had any. My point is that our goal is not to have influence, but to be witnesses. The increase of the kingdom doesn’t depend on my influence, but on my obedience in proclaiming the Word of God. I acknowledge that the evangelicals, when they proclaim the word of God (which they do) likewise have a part in the increase of the kingdom. I think their desires for influence, however, often undermine the gospel they proclaim.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
……….
First, our disagreement is not just a matter of opinion. Mohler has clearly and consistently been willing to bend in some areas for the sake of exercising or increasing his influence as he sees it. That is really incontroverible.
Our disagreement may be whether he is right or wrong to bend where he does. I mentioned several examples above. To me those are pretty serious compromises. If you differ, then, you differ. But the fact remains that he is willing to bend and has made it clear that influence is a major motivator in his position making.
Second, I don’t deny fundamentalism has lost its influence … if it ever had any. My point is that our goal is not to have influence, but to be witnesses. The increase of the kingdom doesn’t depend on my influence, but on my obedience in proclaiming the Word of God. I acknowledge that the evangelicals, when they proclaim the word of God (which they do) likewise have a part in the increase of the kingdom. I think their desires for influence, however, often undermine the gospel they proclaim.
I’m not sure our disagreement is whether he ‘s right or wrong (in our eyes) but whether it rises to an issue of biblical separation. I would grant that he’s been wrong in some areas which I would not support. But does that make him a compromiser? Is he is disobedience to God’s Word? As one example take the Manhattan Declaration you mentioned. I have not signed it or been asked to sign it. I don’t know if I even read the whole thing. What I did read below I would agree with and could probably sign.
“Because the sanctity of human life, the dignity of marriage as a union of husband and wife, and the freedom of religion are foundational principles of justice and the common good, we affirm:
1. The profound, inherent, and equal dignity of every human life
2. Marriage as a union of one man and one woman
3. Religious liberty and the inherent freedom of human beings
As Orthodox, Catholic, and Evangelical Christians, we take seriously the Biblical admonition to respect and obey those in authority. Because we honor justice and the common good, we will fully and ungrudgingly render to Caesar what is Caesar’s. But under no circumstances will we render to Caesar what is God’s.”
Now of course I don’t believe that all these groups are made up of all true Christians. I don’t believe that about any group or any church. However, if someone thinks these issues merit a signature without having to agree with all the co-signers, that’s a decision that needs to be made. I don’t plan to sign it but I don’t write off as compromisers all who did. Again, do these disagreements merit separation? I think Fundamentalism often says “Yes” when there’s room for disagreement without separation.
Discussion