"Every Southern Baptist conservative is a New Evangelical."

Over the years I’ve known people who use the term New Evangelical (NE) as a label that they assign to others for sometimes arbitrary reasons.

Do you want to help victims of a natural disaster? You’re an NE.
Do you like some of the new Christian music? You’re an NE.
Do you use Power point or an overhead projector? NE.
Have you read books by MacArthur, Dever, Mahaney? NE
Did you attend a wedding in a non-fundamental church? NE.
Does your pastor preach without a tie? NE.
Did you cancel your Sunday night service and add an additional service Sunday morning? NE.
Do you use hand held microphones? NE
Does your church allow facial hair? NE
Do you fellowship with non-Baptists? NE

That’s just 10 that came to mind.

Why don’t you just hush up, you HYPER-CALVINIST!

He’s kidding… for those who didn’t realize that ;)

Accidently put this one in another—very similar—thread. Probably fits better there…

[dcbii] To those of us “raised” on that sort of egalitarian model

I agree with what you meant there I think, but I wouldn’t personally call it egalitarian. What it is is a different approach to identifying ability and merit. Instead of someone getting heard because of credentials, he/she gets heard because he proves himself to be well informed and able to think and communicate clearly. So he is not equal to his peers (“egalitarian”=”equalitarian”). He simply manifests his inequality a different way.
I would not argue that it’s a better way, myself. It’s just a different way. They all have their place. I would not choose a doctor to operate on my heart based on personal observation of his previous work. I want to know he’s done the schooling… and also has done good work. So both approaches to credibility are involved in that case.

[RPittman] Greg, I think you are wrong in assuming that anyone sent out by Baptist Mid or Trinity is holding a separatists position. If you are arguing against vilifying Mr. Edmondson by association with Gordon-Conwell, then you cannot sanctify him by association with Baptist Mid and Trinity. There are Baptist Mid missionaries that I would not call separatists. I don’t know about Trinity.

This is a very telling post. We are talking about brothers in Christ. We do not need to “sanctify” them. They are worthy of our support until they prove otherwise, not vice versa!

[RPittman] David Cloud, like you, is preaching to his choir…

No, I’m preaching to you, Roland. :)

[RPittman]…who already agree with him and does not need proof. They share the same definition of Neo-evangelicalism whereas you apparently share Bauder’s. However, Cloud’s view and definition of Neo-evangelicalism is basically the same as Ashbrook and Woodbridge, whom I mentioned earlier in another post, as well as George Dollar. The earmark of the Neo-evangelical was lack of separation and a critical view of Fundamentalism. Then, he is correct that Bauder’s definition of Neo-evangelicalism has changed from the Fundamentalist view of the 1970’s. I just happened to have lived through this era and heard the aforementioned define, use, and apply the term Neo-evangelicalism much in the same way as David Cloud. Furthermore, what makes this more pertinent and interesting is that Dr. Dollar was Dean of the Seminary where Dr. Bauder is today. Persumbly, his views somehow correlated with the views of the seminary and Dr. Clearwaters, the President and Dollar’s friend. Any way you slice it, you’re avoiding the issue by refusing to interact with Cloud’s assertions. Either tell me that I’m wrong about Ashbrook, Woodbridge, and Dollar or admit that Cloud is arguing the traditional Fundamentalist view. If so, then Bauder has redefined Neo-evangelicalism.

Some random thoughts on this… I lived through this era as well (though I was in Jr.High in the late 70’s). Not sure that matters much either way. In any case, as for Dollar, I think his approach to the whole thing left much to be desired. I’m sure he meant well. I don’t know how representative his views are of everyone else in that era.

It might help, Roland if you could post brief definitions of “new evangelicalism” from Ashbrook, Woodbridge and Dollar. I apologize if you’ve already done that. Thread’s gotten a bit long… and I keep getting it mixed up with a couple of other threads on very similar topics. Maybe link me to them.
But probably the best place to go to define New Evangelicalism is the New Evangelicals themselves. They were not vague at all about how they saw things.
Bauder has frequently referred to Okenga & co.’s statements in defining NE. I have not noticed Mr. Cloud doing this. If he did, I suspect he has taken something out of context to end up with something as broad and vague as what he is working with.

Don… on my observation about those who were fans of Billy but not partnered with him, I did not mean to deny that many did partner with him. Rather, my point was that many who were fans did not. So being a fan of BG <> New Evangelical, exactly.
My premise here is that majority of evangelicals today never thought about separation much one way or the other and are therefore not new evangelicals. Whatever else we may say about the NE phenomenon, lack of thought has not been a distinguishing characteristic (more often, critics have characterized them as thinking too much).

But I think what you’ve already conceded about the definition of NE indicates that the conservative evangelicals are not NE’s. Though they do not share exactly the same understanding and practice of separation that fundamentalists do, they do not repudiate separation. And most of them are not even fans of Billy Graham’s doings, much less partners.

[Aaron Blumer]
I agree with what you meant there I think, but I wouldn’t personally call it egalitarian.
What it is is a different approach to identifying ability and merit. Instead of someone getting heard because of credentials, he/she gets heard because he proves himself to be well informed and able to think and communicate clearly. So he is not equal to his peers (“egalitarian”=”equalitarian”). He simply manifests his inequality a different way.

OK, I’ll agree it’s not strictly egalitarian in the long term, as inequalities obviously arise. However, the “price of entry” to those discussions is largely egalitarian [though it would not include crazies, or illiterate, etc.] , as pretty much anyone can take part. A new poster might not be listened to seriously right away, but unless what he posts is itself a problem, he won’t be told he doesn’t have the credentials to even enter the discussion. Much different than hearing “Who are you to even question me?,” which is something we’ve all heard in one context or another in real life.

I would not argue that it’s a better way, myself. It’s just a different way. They all have their place. I would not choose a doctor to operate on my heart based on personal observation of his previous work. I want to know he’s done the schooling… and also has done good work. So both approaches to credibility are involved in that case.

I’ll grant I wouldn’t have the experience to judge a heart surgeon, but I certainly hope that whoever gave him his practical final exam does. Schooling is one thing (and necessary), but the surgeon would have to demonstrate his expertise sufficiently to be in a position where he can practice it on the public. He might have a degree that says Harvard Medical School, but his work will have to be judged.

I agree though, that for something where life and death decisions are going to be made by the actions of a single person, the standards and methods of determination of expertise and skill will have to be more stringent.

On the other hand, when a doctor is recommending something to me, I’m still likely to go looking for lots of advice (much of which can and will come from other health professionals) on my own before blinding accepting it, especially since there is a quite a wide disparity in types of treatment, the current status of the field, etc. He can have lots of diplomas on the wall, but I can’t verify that information as easily as I can what he is actually saying to me.

[RPittman] Does David Cloud object to Bill Edmondson because he has a degree from Gordon-Conwell or did we assume this because Cloud happened to mention it? From a careful reading of what Cloud wrote, it’s not clear that his criticism is because of the degree or because of Dr. Edmondson’s views and ecclesiastical separation

Let me ask you, then- did you know anything about Edmondson before this mention by Cloud and subsequent discussion here? Even if you did, are you expecting that the majority of Cloud’s readers (much less Cloud himself) did, other than that he was “a graduate of the New Evangelical Gordon Conwell Seminary” (and they only knew that because Cloud mentioned it)?

Again, I bring up Bill’s associations with BMM and TBCNH because, at the very least, there are certain relationships that simply would not be permitted as long as he was associated with the agency and church. Any BMM missionary has to subscribe to the doctrinal statement, which states:

We believe that the local church, under Christ’s headship, is to be free from any external hierarchy and should not associate itself with any ecumenical endeavor, neo-orthodoxy, new-evangelicalism, or any such efforts to compromise the Truth.

It is simply bad reporting to only include the statement about being a G-C grad without presenting the whole picture (as Larry rightly stated earlier).

In the end, you can disagree with how things are parsed out, with Edmondson, Bauder, etc. But you cannot argue that they or the institutions/churches they serve in have engaged in anything even resembling ecumenical endeavors, much less formal dialogue. I will grant you that there are prominent issues in which there is no agreement between institutions like Central and men like David Cloud. But to use the label “new evangelical” in an attempt to delineate those differences is about as useful as employing the term “Nazi.” It isn’t useful in defining what the differences in beliefs are, and ultimately encourages and reinforces similar tactics amongst believers who are influenced by the things such men write and say.

[RPittman] Good point and well taken. David Cloud is identified with a strict independent Baptist Fundamentalism. Dave, you may be right in that David Cloud is not representative of mainstream Fundamentalism. My point is on target that Cloud is not far off using Woodbridge, Ashbrook, and Dollar’s definitions of Neo-evangelicalism. If so, I conclude that Bauder is redefining terms too.

I think the problem is that terms change easily over time, and the nature of language and communication is such that while definitions are close, they can still differ.

Take “Fundamentalism,” for example. You just qualified Cloud’s version of it by adding “strict independent Baptist” to it, since the original term obviously doesn’t describe him. From recent discussions, we’ve also heard that some of the original fundamentalists did not believe 6x24 creation either, which would certainly distinguish them from a good many in that camp today. That term simply means too many things to too many different people.

NE isn’t much different. What I have seen with those who have taken fundamentalism and attempted to move it to the right, is that their definition of what is NE has also moved to the right at the same time. Much as you may call it “Twaddle,” I have also heard people called NE from the pulpit because of some of what was listed in that post, and that certainly does not fit the original definition. Of course, it was mostly just grandstanding, but it does serve to weaken and confuse the meaning of the term for those listening. Done enough over time, the actual meaning of the term as used will change.

Given Don Johnson’s summary of Ockenga on the original definition of NE, I’m fairly comfortable that a number of today’s CEs would not fit that definition, especially on the point where “dialoguing” means accepting and incorporating liberal philosophy, even though they also don’t immediately denounce it either when discussing things with those who hold such philosophies. These are the “men in the middle,” I think are being described by Bauder. I don’t know how many of them there are, but I don’t believe that trying to define this category means a redefinition of NE.

Still though, I think it’s likely that almost no one using the term NE today uses it in the exact same way it was originally meant, any more than using the term fundamentalist today means what it did in the 1920’s.

[RPittman] Do you know anything about writing and the use of literary devices?

Nope. Never heard of that.

I have heard of an old tip from a highly successful debater, though. Maybe it was Cicero. “When you don’t have a counterargument for an assertion, just declare it to be twaddle.”

[Aaron Blumer]

[RPittman] Do you know anything about writing and the use of literary devices?

Nope. Never heard of that.

I have heard of an old tip from a highly successful debater, though. Maybe it was Cicero. “When you don’t have a counterargument for an assertion, just declare it to be twaddle.”

I believe that’s : Cum non habent argumenti pro assercione iustus esse declaramus twaddle!

As to Greg Linscott’s comment about me, he couldn’t help it. He was predestined to say it.

Roland, I had a somewhat ugly sarcastic moment there. Sorry about that.
I realize that what you were responding to was an opinion and our opinion was that it’s twaddle… no counterargument required.

As for my “that post was very telling” observation earlier, though, I explained how it was telling in the sentence after that one. My point was that though Greg pointed out Edmonson’s (do I have the name right?) relationship to BMM etc. to support his separatism, the truth is that a brother does not deserve to be suspect on the grounds of his alma mater nor does he need to be proven innocent just because someone has expressed suspicion. So the relationship w/BMM and Trinity is kind of sprinkles on the icing on the cake.
The man needs absolutely no defense.

[Ron Bean]
I believe that’s : Cum non habent argumenti pro assercione iustus esse declaramus twaddle!

Haha. This is to Latin what “All your base are belong to us” is to English.

[Aaron Blumer] Don… on my observation about those who were fans of Billy but not partnered with him, I did not mean to deny that many did partner with him. Rather, my point was that many who were fans did not. So being a fan of BG <> New Evangelical, exactly.

Aaron, are you trying to say that if a guy partnered with BG in a Crusade he was a New Evangelical, but if he just was a BG fan but didn’t partner with him, he wasn’t? Tell me you’re not saying that!

While there was a notable group of NEs led by Graham et al, it was their philosophy (or ‘mood’ as some call it) that seeped through the evangelical churches and turned them AWAY from the separatism that had previously characterized fundamentalism/evangelicalism. The two terms were virtually synonymous from the 1920s through the late 40s early 50s. Those who adopted this mood were not necessarily in any actual direct connection or fellowship with BG or the key leaders of New Evangelicalism.

[Aaron Blumer] My premise here is that majority of evangelicals today never thought about separation much one way or the other and are therefore not new evangelicals. Whatever else we may say about the NE phenomenon, lack of thought has not been a distinguishing characteristic (more often, critics have characterized them as thinking too much).

If you mean the average person in the pew when you say evangelicals today never thought about separation, I would agree. But I very much doubt that you could say that about most evangelical pastors and leaders who have any kind of seminary training. They take church history courses, too, you know. And I am certain that men like Dever and Mohler know the history very well and have thought about separation. They may not totally understand it and us, but I think they are much more aware of fundamentalism and its place in the overall scheme of things than you give them credit for.

[Aaron Blumer] But I think what you’ve already conceded about the definition of NE indicates that the conservative evangelicals are not NE’s. Though they do not share exactly the same understanding and practice of separation that fundamentalists do, they do not repudiate separation. And most of them are not even fans of Billy Graham’s doings, much less partners.

What I conceded was that the CEs seem to have backed off on dialogue to some extent, but they do seem enamored of scholarship to the extent that they will pursue advanced degrees at less than orthodox institutions. Dever went to the UK somewhere, didn’t he? Oxford? Cambridge? Can’t remember.

It is not that I am saying it is a sin to go to a less than orthodox institution, all I am conceding is that the current crop of evangelicals have come to see some of the errors the NEs made, but I believe they still embrace almost all the characteristics Ockenga described in the foreword to The Battle for the Bible. And they especially replicate the mood.

Roland… that did not appear (to me) to be your point. If you’re saying it doesn’t matter where Edmons (Edmonson?) went to school, we are indeed agreed.

[Don] Aaron, are you trying to say that if a guy partnered with BG in a Crusade he was a New Evangelical, but if he just was a BG fan but didn’t partner with him, he wasn’t? Tell me you’re not saying that!

Yes, that’s what I’m saying… sort of. I’d just insert “necessarily” after “wasn’t.” I’ve known so many BG fans who didn’t have the vaguest beginning of a clue as to why there would be any problems with his methods (if they were even aware of his methods). These are the ones I’m saying are not NEs.
You don’t become an NE by the absence of certain beliefs but by the intentional repudiation of certain beliefs (about separation, social involvement, education, etc.)

But to avoid losing the bigger point: I’m mainly challenging the idea that most evangelicals today are NEs. I don’t think’s that very supportable.

Have most pastors, etc., in broader evangelicalism had training on separation? Highly unlikely. Though I’m sure most of them get some history and touch on fundamentalism, I’d be extremely surprised to learn that the topic of separation gets more than an occasional passing reference in the context of fundamentalist excesses.

You mentioned Mohler and Dever. Yes, I do think these have given separation a good bit of thought and this is why they are even less NEs than your typical evangelical. They believe in separation!
They differ from us in some aspects of it and how to carry it out, but they do believe in separation from apostasy. (I can’t document that, but I’m sure others could.) I’m pretty sure they believe in sep. from disobedient brethren also under some circumstances—at least at the local church level.

So, to summarize, my perspective (today) is this. You can sort of classify people in 5 groups with respect to doctrine and practice of separation:

1. effective repudiation (NE)
   
2. non-belief/ignorance (most evangelicals)
   
3. belief & practice, with deficiencies (most CEs)
   
4. proper belief and practice (some (many?) fundamentalists and probably some CEs)
   
5. belief & practice with excesses (quite a few fundamentalists, esp. in the 70’s-80’s)
   
   I’ll readily concede that boundaries between these is often really murky, especially given the fact that even among fundamentalists there has never been total agreement about how “secondary” or “second degree” or even “disobedient brother” separation should work.

I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree on that point. I maintain that most evangelicals have embraced most of new evangelical philosophy as originally stated and have in fact become defacto new evangelicals.

[Aaron Blumer] You mentioned Mohler and Dever. Yes, I do think these have given separation a good bit of thought and this is why they are even less NEs than your typical evangelical. They believe in separation!
They differ from us in some aspects of it and how to carry it out, but they do believe in separation from apostasy. (I can’t document that, but I’m sure others could.) I’m pretty sure they believe in sep. from disobedient brethren also under some circumstances—at least at the local church level.

Yes, like they don’t enter into common cause with Catholics (and even Mormons) and sign documents that refer to them as Christians! That’s the New New Evangelicalism for you. Yessirree… get your separation right here folks, courtesy of Southern Seminary!