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.
- 100 views
So I am getting the sense that most people would have attended the meeting I went to, so let me ask a follow up question. If I can cooperate with various “faith leaders” in a roundtable on restoring civility to our public discourse, how is that any different than Mohler speaking at BYU. Many of the qualifiers that “allowed” me to attend and participate would apply to Mohler’s cobelligerent work with Mormons and Catholics, the Manhattan Declaration being an exception of that which obviously had “ecclesiastical overtones.”
I don’t think anyone confused his speaking there as an “ecclesiastical meeting” but rather as an address on the dangers of progressive thought on marriage, family, and sexuality to religious liberty. Mohler even went to great lengths to state, at the beginning, that he and his hearers stood apart on theological issues, but that they had a common enemy in the moral revolution sweeping the nation. It was the leader of one academic organization giving an address to another academic organization. How is this different than my attendance and participation in a round table with Jewish and Liberal theologians who are all agreed that we need to restore civility to our public discourse? I am asking this question honestly as Mohler’s work with Mormons and Catholics in particular has been given as evidence of his ascribing to the basic philosophical tenants of New Evangelicalism.
Phil Golden
[Philip Golden Jr.]I don’t think anyone confused his speaking there as an “ecclesiastical meeting” but rather as an address on the dangers of progressive thought on marriage, family, and sexuality to religious liberty. Mohler even went to great lengths to state, at the beginning, that he and his hearers stood apart on theological issues, but that they had a common enemy in the moral revolution sweeping the nation. It was the leader of one academic organization giving an address to another academic organization. How is this different than my attendance and participation in a round table with Jewish and Liberal theologians who are all agreed that we need to restore civility to our public discourse? I am asking this question honestly as Mohler’s work with Mormons and Catholics in particular has been given as evidence of his ascribing to the basic philosophical tenants of New Evangelicalism.
Would he have made the same disclaimers speaking at a secular school? He sensed the awkwardness of his presence there himself and sought to justify it by his disclaimers.
If he was simply meeting with Mormon officials with a view to discussing things that can be done in the culture war, that would be one thing, but standing up and speaking for them is quite another. This isn’t hard to figure out.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
I was uneasy with the BYU thing because Mohler is something of a “trophy” for BYU to show off to unsuspecting people they want to make into Mormons. We might suggest a decision tree:
1. Ecclesiastical partnership with nonbelievers? No.
2. Non-ecclesiastical partnership with unbelievers? It depends on what the likely outcome is—if it would likely end up being a selling point for heresy, probably no. If it’s simply that we’re working together against abortion, OK.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
For many years, our church gladly cooperated with our local Right to Life organization. We announced the rallies to our church, and encouraged people to attend. I was invited to address one of the annual candle light vigils at the county courthouse before the two hundred or so in attendance circled the courthouse with lighted candles in a silent protest against Roe v Wade. We also attended the annual “life chain” with a couple of hundred people standing on either side of a busy street with signs opposing abortion and encouraging women to choose life. Our people usually comprised about 25% of the total attendance.
Slowly I realized that we could not continue. The year after I addressed the candle light vigil, a local Roman Catholic priest in his clerical regalia gave the address. As our people lined the busy street for the life chain, they were flanked by Roman Catholic nuns praying while fingering their Rosaries. Some of the signs said, “Jesus heals and forgives,” and the letters we received inviting us to these events stated that we were proclaiming the gospel to our community.
I appealed to our local Right to Life leadership to make these events strictly civic and moral, without the religious trappings, but to no avail. I had to explain to our people that we could not longer participate as we were giving the impression that we were united with Roman Catholics in representing the Gospel.
That’s my story. Every situation is different.
G. N. Barkman
Mohler even went to great lengths to state, at the beginning, that he and his hearers stood apart on theological issues, but that they had a common enemy in the moral revolution sweeping the nation. It was the leader of one academic organization giving an address to another academic organization. How is this different than my attendance and participation in a round table with Jewish and Liberal theologians who are all agreed that we need to restore civility to our public discourse? - Philip
Would he have made the same disclaimers speaking at a secular school? He sensed the awkwardness of his presence there himself and sought to justify it by his disclaimers. - Don
I was uneasy with the BYU thing because Mohler is something of a “trophy” for BYU to show off to unsuspecting people they want to make into Mormons. - Bert
That wasn’t my sense of Mohler’s remarks at all. Here’s what Mohler said, taken from his website:
I deeply appreciate your invitation to speak at Brigham Young University and to address the faculty at this greatly respected center of learning. I am so glad to be on this campus, filled with so many gracious people, such admirable students, and so many committed scholars on the faculty. To many people, shaped in their worldview by the modern age and its constant mandate to accommodate, it will seem very odd that a Baptist theologian and seminary president would be invited to speak at the central institution of intellectual life among the Latter-Day Saints.
But here I am, and I am thankful for the invitation. The wonderfully prophetic Catholic novelist Flannery O’Connor rightly warned that we must “push back against the age as hard as it is pressing you.” I have come to Brigham Young University because I intend with you to push back against the modernist notion that only the accommodated can converse. There are those who sincerely believe that meaningful and respectful conversation can take place only among those who believe the least—that only those who believe the least and thus may disagree the least can engage one another in the kind of conversation that matters. I reject that notion, and I reject it forcefully. To paraphrase Dorothy Parker, that is the kind of idea that must not be cast aside lightly, but thrown with full force.
I come as a Christian theologian to speak explicitly and respectfully as a Christian—a Christian who defines Christianity only within the historic creeds and confessions of the Christian church and who comes as one committed to the Gospel of Jesus Christ and to the ancient and eternal Trinitarian faith of the Christian church. I have not come as less, and you know whom you have invited. I come knowing who you are—to an institution that stands as the most powerful intellectual center of the Latter-Day Saints, the most visible academic institution of Mormonism. You know who I am and what I believe. I know who you are and what you believe. It has been my great privilege to know friendship and share conversation with leaders of the LDS church, such as Elder Tom Perry, Elder Quentin Cook, and Elder Todd Christofferson. I am thankful for the collegiality extended by President Cecil Samuelson at this great university. We do not enjoy such friendship and constructive conversation in spite of our theological differences, but in light of them. This does not eliminate the possibility of conversation. To the contrary, this kind of convictional difference at the deepest level makes for the most important kind of conversation. This is why I am so thankful for your gracious invitation.
…This is what brings me to Brigham Young University today. I am not here because I believe we are going to heaven together. I do not believe that. I believe that salvation comes only to those who believe and trust only in Christ and in his substitutionary atonement for salvation. I believe in justification by faith alone, in Christ alone. I love and respect you as friends, and as friends we would speak only what we believe to be true, especially on matters of eternal significance. We inhabit separate and irreconcilable theological worlds, made clear with respect to the doctrine of the Trinity. And yet here I am, and gladly so. We will speak to one another of what we most sincerely believe to be true, precisely because we love and respect one another.
I do not believe that we are going to heaven together, but I do believe we may go to jail together.
My sense what that Mohler was clearly marking out his boundaries - I’m a Christian, you are not. I believe the Bible, you add to it. Etc…but we do have one thing in common - that we are all opposed to the moral revolution sweeping the nation. I see your point about the LDS using Mohler as a selling point, but since when does that ever excuse us from preaching the gospel? Doesn’t that kind of thing happen all the time, where unbelievers use believers to ‘prove’ whatever agenda they have or for whatever gain?
So in that vein, I don’t see it as much of a different thing. Furthermore, Mohler bluntly stated that salvation is by faith alone through grace alone in his remarks (see above). So why not take that opportunity to a roomful of high-ranking LDS leaders?
John MacArthur stated once that he would go to the Vatican and preach to the Pope if afforded the opportunity. Why not take an opportunity to at least present the gospel to a group of LDS who are trusting in works for salvation?
Here’s a follow up question for you three, and I’m taking it out of the academic/corporate realm now. If I befriend a person who is living with a partner out of marriage, or who is cheating on their spouse with another woman, should the sum and substance of all our conversations be about believing in the gospel and that alone? Or is it possible to be their friend even though I know about their life and they know about my faith and we agree that we disagree on those things? I’d rather have honest relationships with people that know where I stand than have stilted relationships based on ‘you need to get saved’ and nothing else.
"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
It’s because Mohler was so clear that I had no problem with his appearance at BYU, when the issue came up at SI a few years back.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
My first reaction when I heard that Mohler spoke at BYU was negative. That changed when I heard what he said. He was clear in stating the Gospel and that there was a clear difference between him and BYU. Inn the aftermath I recall that the condemnations of Mohler’s appearance didn’t mention his proclamation of the truth to a group trapped by error.
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
I agree with all that Mohler made it very clear that he was not there for any ecclesiastical purpose or entanglement. He was there addressing a civic and moral issue that Mormons happened to agree with him on. So how is that any different from being involved with an interfaith roundtable on a civic or moral issue whether it be restoring civility to our public discourses or combating abortion or standing against the sexual revolution?
Don, you mentioned that Mohler was “standing up and speaking for them.” I don’t think he was speaking for them. He was speaking to them, addressing the common concerns they both had and could work together for. It wasn’t gospel work. It was standing to combat the moral slide in America.
All that said, I don’t think this episode is an indication of the basic philosophical roots of New Evangelicalism as being present in Mohler’s actions and so, to the bigger issue, this is why I would argue that he is not like the New Evangelical’s of Pickering’s day.
I do think that it is important that we make distinctions between ecclesiastical and civic endeavors and, when a civic endeavor begins to have an ecclesiastical flavor, we must separate (As Barkman’s situation illustrates). But when there are no ecclesiastical entanglements, then we can cooperate without compromising our separatist ideals. This is not new evangelical. This is just responsible engagement with culture as salt and light.
Phil Golden
[Philip Golden Jr.]Don, you mentioned that Mohler was “standing up and speaking for them.” I don’t think he was speaking for them. He was speaking to them, addressing the common concerns they both had and could work together for. It wasn’t gospel work. It was standing to combat the moral slide in America.
All that said, I don’t think this episode is an indication of the basic philosophical roots of New Evangelicalism as being present in Mohler’s actions and so, to the bigger issue, this is why I would argue that he is not like the New Evangelical’s of Pickering’s day.
I’m not arguing that today’s evangelicals and yesterday’s New Evangelicals are identical in application, but rather that they are identical in philosophy. Their philosophy leads them to do things that can (and does) confuse the gospel presentation and/or the average observer. If you are an average Christian (vague category, I know) and you hear that Mohler spoke at BYU and you know that Mormons are making “evangelical-ish” statements, what do you conclude? Does the average guy look into the specific details of Mohler’s speach? Probably not.
That is why platforms and cooperation and such matters so much. We have a duty to the flock, not to world opinion or even to successful co-belligerency on moral issues.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
(Tongue in cheek…sort of) I suppose someone would have questioned Paul about accepting an invitation to speak at a place dedicated to a pagan God regardless of what he said when he spoke there.
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
But I can think of some distinctions:
Paul was at Mars Hill to explain his new religion (motivation of the Areopagus crowd) and to preach the gospel with the aim of winning converts (motivation of Paul).
Mohler was at BYU to speak as a cobelligerent with Mormons in the morality war. I’ll leave you to guess at motivations, but this does seem profoundly different to me.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Discussion