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
The first section simply attacks the motives of the neo-evangelicals as being all about pride, wanting to be accepted, and the like.
The idea that NEs were concerned about academic reputation is really indisputable, but I don’t think it was about the inability to get a degree in fundamental circles, as you seem to suggest. Have you read Promise Unfulfilled by Dr. McCune? He talks about the academic/intellectual issue on pp. 37-45 and then returns to it later I believe. That would be worth your to understand a bit more about this issue.
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.
You seem to be confusing academic writing with popular writing. But the battles over inerrancy (both then and now) aren’t really hidden. They are fairly well known.
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.
I wonder if you might bring some theological heft by pointing out where the NT prescribes some sort of social action by the church as the church? Again, isn’t Pickering’s point on this is rather indisputable, regardless of what might have bee behind his views or the views of others?
there is no other reasonable inference to Pickering’s words here than that he is objecting to Christians working to end Jim Crow.
Are you sure there is no other reasonable inference? I know quite a few today who agree with Pickering who think Jim Crow laws were wrong. It seems there are perhaps a few reasonable inferences that might be made.
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.
Can you cite the NT warrant for this “social gospel” (though I think you have misidentified it slightly here)? Can you tell us why Paul did not start an anti-slavery society and instead sent slaves back to their masters and told them to be good slaves?
In other words, I wonder if you might give a bit more substantive interaction with the issues you raise, particularly using the NT for a guide.
I was going to write a comment on the ditches the new evangelicals and fundamentalists (respectively) fell into after the 1950s. But, Kevin Bauder already wrote about that and did it better. Here it is:
On one side, the new evangelicalism tried to build bridges to non-conservative theologians and churchmen. Not surprisingly, people began to cross these bridges—almost always from evangelicalism into the broader ecumenical world. The problem is that they kept calling themselves evangelicals. The result was the so-called Evangelical Left, which began by denying inerrancy. It ended up denying a whole series of other doctrines that fundamentalists and moderate evangelicals would have considered essential to the gospel, to Christianity, and to Christian fellowship.
On the other side, some fundamentalists allowed themselves to become dominated by incidental concerns or idiosyncratic positions. Some gave themselves to uncontrolled suspicion or adopted a “warfare” ethic that allowed them to defend behavior that would normally have been censured as reprehensible. This variety of fundamentalism was often dominated by personality cults and strong-arm tactics.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
TylerR - 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.
Larry - Can you cite the NT warrant for this “social gospel” (though I think you have misidentified it slightly here)?
Um, wouldn’t Jesus’ command to love your neighbor as yourself (Matthew 22:39) apply?
"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
I didn’t write that, but I get your point!
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
Um, wouldn’t Jesus’ command to love your neighbor as yourself (Matthew 22:39) apply?
That’s not a command to the church as the church. it is a command to individuals.
I’d actually argue that the Bible believing church is, implicitly, an anti-slavery society. Moses tells us that man-stealing is a capital crime, and prescribed strict limits for the practice including immediate release if they were seriously injured. (cue image of Frederick Douglass’ back) No “brown sugar” or bed-wenches for slave owners without strict limits—a female slave who was desired by her owner that way had all the rights of a wife, and really a little more. No stripping women to whip them. Sending them out after a limited period of time with resources so they could make their own way.
Paul adds to that by commanding a degree of kindness by masters, and most significantly by telling them to leave off threatening. Now parse that one out for a bit; imagine trying to get unpaid laborers motivated without threats. Paul’s administering, more or less, a death blow to Roman-style slavery in the church, and it’s worth noting that even among the pagans, Caesar Augustus decreed that no slave under the age of 30 could be freed. Evidently Roman slave owners had figured out that free men work harder, too, and wanted to get rid of the hassles inherent with owning slaves. In the South, most owners hired overseers—paid thugs, really—to do the whipping for them.
As a result of all this, Bible-believing churches became anti-slavery societies that decreed that no man who owned slaves or otherwise profited from the trade could be members. You simply cannot reconcile the peculiar institution with Biblical limits on slavery.
So Pickering simply ignores history and Scripture, really, in service of his—and Bob Jones’—rather indefensible repudiation of the civil rights movement, which again, I can’t reconcile with Galatians 3:28 or James 2:2-3. And yes, Larry, in a world where the evening news was telling about Dr. King, Bull Connor, Rosa Parks and bus boycotts, and the like on a daily basis, and where my great uncle would soon compare Ole Miss to his experience as a war correspondent, the odds that either Pickering or his readers would not make the connection between “be a good slave” and the Civil Rights movement are infinitessimal.
Let’s not defend this nonsense, brothers. Let’s admit it, repent of it, and learn our lessons.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
I was in a church that took a strong separatist position including being involved in anything that approached what the leadership considered the social Gospel which to them involved being involved in showing love, mercy, and charity to those outside of our church. When our community was practically destroyed by a hurricane we were forbidden to participate in relief efforts such as handing out donated water with groups that involved other churches. We had 5 faculty families who lost their housing and they were forbidden from accepting any kind of assistance from groups that had churches involved. BTW, the church also did nothing for those families.
Sometimes it looks like some of us would refuse to carry an accident victim on a stretcher unless we had 3 others of our kind to help.
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
That’s not a command to the church as the church. it is a command to individuals.
Last I checked, the church is comprised of members. Individual members.
C’mon, man. You can do better than this. If someone handed out gospel tracts on a street corner, we would approve, and rightly so. If that same person helped his neighbor with some house work so that he had a chance to give the gospel, is that any less valuable?
"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
[Don Johnson]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.
There are some things said here that bear some clarification. First, I am not sure where you are sensing the “judgmentalism towards the previous generation of fundamentalists” in my posts. I read through my posts on this thread and thought I was pretty charitable to both Ashcroft and Pickering. My main contention is that many of his criticisms do not apply to the CE’s of today. I also pointed out my disagreement with his take on social issues, but also explained how I understood why he made those statements in his context. I very much appreciate the legacy of Pickering and Ashcroft.
Secondly, I am always wary to presume to know the motives and intentions that lay behind an individual’s actions. Unless they have made direct statements revealing their intentions, I am reticent to assume I know what they are. Your contention that Mohler acts the way he does for the sake of “influence” may be true but can you back that up with a direct statement of his that he makes these compromises for the sake of “influence.” (I know you mentioned an article that you can’t remember about Mohler’s assesment of the fundamentalists, but to paint a man’s motives with such a broad brush based on an article you can’t remember where it was sourced bears some consideration) It is also important to understand what is meant by “influence.” Do you mean that Mohler is looking for secular validation and prestige or that he is looking to influence the world for the kingdom? In other words, when we start questioning motives, we start down a path of assumptions that we can’t really ever know. Perhaps I am too optimistic in trying to not discern and then judge a person intentions, but that is just how I am wired I guess.
Finally, you made mention of “social gospel” “infecting men’s hearts” and, if I understand you correctly, you are applying this to Mohler’s cobelligerent work with Catholics and Muslims, etc. Now let me be clear, were I in Mohler’s position, I would not have done those things. That being said, I don’t think his heart has been infected by the social gospel. It is one thing to believe that the gospel has social implications. The social gospel is something entirely different. When a Christian engages in social work, it does not have to be at the expense of the gospel. I think the charge that Dr. Mohler is being influenced by the social gospel goes too far. He is very clear on the message of the gospel. While we can debate whether or not the church should be involved in social work (personally, I think it can, so long as it does not become the main thing a church is about), we must make sure we are talking about the same thing. Christians with social concerns are not necessarily buying into the social gospel.
Phil Golden
Last I checked, the church is comprised of members. Individual members.
Exactly. You hit the nail on the head. If you recall, I was speaking of the church as the church. Not the church as individual members. That is a key distinction in New Testament ecclesiology.
You can do better than this.
Perhaps, but what, in your mind, would be better than a historic argument on New Testament ecclesiology and the church’s mission? Remember, all I asked for was New Testament evidence on the mission and actions of the church as the church on these sorts of issues.
If someone handed out gospel tracts on a street corner, we would approve, and rightly so. If that same person helped his neighbor with some house work so that he had a chance to give the gospel, is that any less valuable?
I am not aware of anyone who would have objected to either these things. Are you?
Again my request was simply that we talk about what God has revealed about the nature of the mission of the New Testament Church.
I’d actually argue that the Bible believing church is, implicitly, an anti-slavery society.
Bert, should we take this as an admission that you don’t have any NT evidence that Pickering was wrong. Pickering is referring to a historic argument about ecclesiology and the NT church, so while there may be some holes in it, it is not without significant support and significant merit. There’s a reason why the social gospel movement of the late 1800s and the NE tilt towards social consciousness was such a change. Because it was a change.
Arguing that abolition or other social causes is not the mission of the church is not the same as saying that they are good institutions or that they are not sinful ones, nor is it the same as saying that Christians should not engage against these things. It is simply a discussion about what God has revealed about ecclesiology and whether or not the Scripture is sufficient on that matter. Again, as often you invoke sola Scriptura and not going beyond Scripture, you seem to demur a bit on it here.
You are correct that Paul condemns kidnapping or manstealing. It is also correct that the NT commands slaves to be good slaves for the sake of the gospel, and it commands masters to be good masters because they too have a master in heaven. But it does not forbid slavery. Why? Perhaps because slavery in NT era is, in many ways, a different entity in many respects than what most people think of. It was quite a bit different in many respects than you seem to acknowledge here. It was quite often not free labor. It was, for some, a preferred status. And it was the status of many highly skilled people. So let’s not ignore the complexity of it. It is not completely what is typically thought of in terms of slavery. We can’t have a good discussion on it until we
And yes, Larry, in a world where the evening news was telling about Dr. King, Bull Connor, Rosa Parks and bus boycotts, and the like on a daily basis, and where my great uncle(link is external) would soon compare Ole Miss to his experience as a war corresponde(link is external)nt, the odds that either Pickering or his readers would not make the connection between “be a good slave” and the Civil Rights movement are infinitessimal.
I don’t know how you can read the 60 year old thoughts of now dead people may top the list. Furthermore, there are a good number of people who have no use for these things you condemn and would condemn as much if not more than you would who would hold Pickering’s position regarding the mission of the church. So as you say,
Let’s not defend this nonsense, brothers. Let’s admit it, repent of it, and learn our lessons.
I don’t think anyone here is defending nonsense. But I do think we need to take to heart the Scriptures and what they actually say. Surely they are sufficient for these things, are they not?
I note several quotes above with regard to Pickering’s thoughts on neo-evangelicalism and academia. For example,
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 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
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.
All this from the same group that regularly criticize fundamentalism for its supposed lack of “scholarship.” Somehow, that irony is lost on the masses.
Furthermore, it’s easy for many of us to play armchair quarterback nearly 60 years after Pickering wrote what he did, too soon forgetting that the man undoubtedly had a first-hand understanding of the actions, motivations and relationships involved. Whose perspective on the metastatic cancer that is neo-evangelicalism is more accurate? I’m going with the man who had a front row seat.
I think we need to be careful using terminology of “social gospel” without mentioning Walter Rauschenbusch (the father of the “social gospel”) and Brian McLaren (the modern “social gospel” evangelist). The “Social Gospel” argues that Jesus is increasing his kingdom on earth through the social work of the church. Hence, missions is packing meals for Feed My Starving Children, or taking a trip to Honduras to dig latrines, or donating water filters to villages in Africa, or handing out sandwiches and blankets to the homeless. These are good things to do. I would dare say that these are even Christian things to do. But these are not the ministry of the gospel. Sometimes, an empty stomach will be a hindrance to the gospel - so you offer a meal with a gospel presentation. The risk in this is creating “rice Christians” (an older missions term).
Second, I think we need to be careful in discussing the concept of slavery (and I would add feminism and homosexuality to this) that we don’t end up arguing for William Webb’s Redemptive-Movement hermeneutic.
Schreiner on Webb: http://d3pi8hptl0qhh4.cloudfront.net/documents/sbjt/sbjt_2002spring4.pdf
I posted this on another thread, but it certainly deserves to be mentioned again here. Pastor Carlton Helgerson was once an influential player in Neo-Evangelicalism in its fledgling days and God delivered him from it. He provides a first-hand account in his booklet titled The Challenge of a New Religion and includes a thorough definition, description and exposé of its doctrine.
Some notable quotes:
Much has been written in opposition to the questionable practices of neo-evangelicalism. Books have also appeared in defense of such practices. Yet few seem to understand what this movement really is. Something needs to be said that will explain the nature of this movement, especially for the benefit of any who might assume that our aversion is limited to its methods.
As one who was deeply involved in the movement in its beginnings and who has since watched and studied its development, I can testify with knowledge.
Neo-evangelicalism is a slanted way of thinking which, like a virus, has infected many of us to some degree. I beseech my brethren to recognize the seriousness. To what extent has this virus entered our thinking? We should let judgment begin in our own hearts lest we criticize in others what we unwittingly nurture in our own minds.
Since both proponents and opponents recognize that mixture and compromise characterize the movement, it is not unreasonable to caption it as a new religion.
An obvious departure from Biblical fundamentalism is the assumption that some parts of the Bible are less important than others. This fallacy, which too many believers already take for granted, has done much damage in not a few Bible churches.
Neo-evangelicalism professes to be most anxious to propagate the gospel. It claims that the chief purpose of God is the salvation of man. This is an error.
Because of its ingrained philosophy and slanted theology, it employs unscriptural methods. It believes that the end justifies the means. Being wrong about God’s message, it follows that neo-evangelicalism will not pay attention to God’s method.
[Philip Golden Jr.]Don Johnson wrote:
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.
There are some things said here that bear some clarification. First, I am not sure where you are sensing the “judgmentalism towards the previous generation of fundamentalists” in my posts. I read through my posts on this thread and thought I was pretty charitable to both Ashcroft and Pickering. My main contention is that many of his criticisms do not apply to the CE’s of today. I also pointed out my disagreement with his take on social issues, but also explained how I understood why he made those statements in his context. I very much appreciate the legacy of Pickering and Ashcroft.
First, you mean Ashbrook, I am sure.
My comment “You all tend to look at the past from a very “presentist” perspective, hence the judgementalism towards the previous generation of fundamentalists.” was meant to refer broadly to the general tenor of posts here at SI, not to you speficifically. Perhaps if I had said, “Y’all” it would have been more clear?
I would say that your posts tend to be pretty even handed, though I think you are making unwise decisions about the ecclesiastical scene.
[Philip Golden Jr.]Secondly, I am always wary to presume to know the motives and intentions that lay behind an individual’s actions. Unless they have made direct statements revealing their intentions, I am reticent to assume I know what they are. Your contention that Mohler acts the way he does for the sake of “influence” may be true but can you back that up with a direct statement of his that he makes these compromises for the sake of “influence.” (I know you mentioned an article that you can’t remember about Mohler’s assesment of the fundamentalists, but to paint a man’s motives with such a broad brush based on an article you can’t remember where it was sourced bears some consideration) It is also important to understand what is meant by “influence.” Do you mean that Mohler is looking for secular validation and prestige or that he is looking to influence the world for the kingdom? In other words, when we start questioning motives, we start down a path of assumptions that we can’t really ever know. Perhaps I am too optimistic in trying to not discern and then judge a person intentions, but that is just how I am wired I guess.
I think the obsessive concern over judging motives is unfortunately a debate killing tactic. We all judge motives all the time. Sometimes we are right and sometimes we are not. But the charge is used as a trump card to shut debate down. It’s like the term “legalism.” What do you say after that?
As for Mohler, granted it is extremely unfortunate that I didn’t keep that podcast. Neverthess, he did say it. The influence he was talking about was Christian influence over secular society. He, along with many, remembers when Christians had a lot of influence over public morals. He thought fundamentalists in their practice of separation from the world lost that influence, but thought the evangelicals still had it to some degree. I personally have not noticed that evangelicals who pursue this influence are having any bang-up success to speak of, but perhaps they are???
[Philip Golden Jr.]Finally, you made mention of “social gospel” “infecting men’s hearts” and, if I understand you correctly, you are applying this to Mohler’s cobelligerent work with Catholics and Muslims, etc. Now let me be clear, were I in Mohler’s position, I would not have done those things. That being said, I don’t think his heart has been infected by the social gospel. It is one thing to believe that the gospel has social implications. The social gospel is something entirely different. When a Christian engages in social work, it does not have to be at the expense of the gospel. I think the charge that Dr. Mohler is being influenced by the social gospel goes too far. He is very clear on the message of the gospel. While we can debate whether or not the church should be involved in social work (personally, I think it can, so long as it does not become the main thing a church is about), we must make sure we are talking about the same thing. Christians with social concerns are not necessarily buying into the social gospel.
It isn’t the social gospelf of Rauschenbush to be sure, but I think Christianity has largely wasted a lot of energy, to no avail, in joining hands with unbelievers to reverse the tide of moral decay. This is exactly what the New Evangelicals were trying to do, its what Right to Life is trying to do, its what ECT is trying to do, its what the Manhattan Declaration is trying to do, its what Mohler’s cooperation with Mormons was trying to do. At best its a distraction from the gospel, but I think it is actually worse than that. It is a building of ties in cooperative efforts with people who aren’t brothers.
Ron Bean, I think, mentioned disaster relief in one of his posts. When an emergency situation happens, everyone needs to pitch in to help. He described a bad reaction from a local church. That’s too bad, almost incredible. But that’s not what I am talking about. Joining hands with unbelievers in attempting to mount a campaign for morality isn’t the mission of the church.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Discussion