What in the World Is Evangelicalism, Anyway?

Dennis Walton, a contemporary critic, wrote:

One area in which the New Evangelicals are united is the willingness to compromise for the sake of fellowship. This spirit could possibly be identified as the genius of the movement. Allowing varying opinions in nearly every field of doctrine, they are united in a willingness to sacrifice conviction for fellowship. Evidence of this spirit is seen in a statement by E. J. Carnell, “Since love is higher than law, the organization is servant of the fellowship…Christ alone would rule the church. Laws are made for the unrighteous. Here is the final norm: Polity is good or bad to the degree that it promotes or hinders fellowship.” This statement obviously subordinates doctrine to love, or fellowship. (17)

Harold Ockenga, a leading figure in the new evangelical movement, observed:

New-evangelicalism was born in 1948 in connection with a convocation address which I gave in the Civic Auditorium in Pasadena. While reaffirming the theological view of fundamentalism, this address repudiated its ecclesiology and its social theory. It differed from fundamentalism in its repudiation of separatism and its determination to engage itself in the theological dialogue of the day. It had a new emphasis upon the application of the gospel to the sociological, political, and economic areas of life. (11)

Contemporary, critical cartoon by Donald Pfaffe (1959):

George Dollar remarked:

This new type of evangelical thought and attitude has many virtues—many of them having descended from historic Fundamentalism and others arising from an honest attempt to correct some glaring weaknesses within…The areas which it has sought to correct include those of academic integrity, social betterment, discussions with non-Fundamentalists, and journalistic excellence in order to attract the religious, the respectable, and the intellectuals whatever their doctrinal convictions. Another area of study has been that of cooperation with all existing religious bodies, denominations, and groups for the purposes of infiltration, not separation. In fact many prominent men in this movement openly advocate closer ties with those whom old-time Fundamentalism tagged apostates and Liberals. (21-22)

A new mood

During the first half of the twentieth century, “fundamentalist” and “evangelical” meant roughly the same things. People might use either name to describe those who preserved and practiced the revivalist heritage of soul winning and maintained a traditional insistence on orthodoxy. After the Fundamentalist-Modernist controversies, however, fundamentalism became increasingly prone to fracture. Pickering observes that evangelicalism was born with a particular “mood.” This particular mood was a marked dissatisfaction with a militant ministry philosophy. Pickering remarked that the militant excesses of some fundamentalists “disheartened younger men, and…propelled them toward a softer and broader position” (Tragedy 7-8).

The National Association of Evengelicals (NAE), founded in 1942, admits their organization was formed in response to a consensus that a new course must be charted, one that did not perpetuate the mistakes of excessive militantism:

Evangelical Christianity, while remaining outside the cultural mainstream, established a thriving subculture, centered around engaging personalities and independent institutions. The downside to this emerging popular movement was that many radio preachers, Christian college presidents, and pulpiteers tended to speak and act independently with seeming little regard for the big picture. Instead of acting like brothers, they acted like rivals, weakening the possibilities of meaningful Christian witness. (“History”)

The schism was never over doctrines of the so-called “fundamentals.” The clashes between fundamentalism and evangelicalism frequently centered around the biblical parameters of ecclesiastical and personal separation. Most self-proclaimed fundamentalists today could sign the NAE creed! (“Statement of Faith”). It is not about doctrine, it is about a particular philosophy of ministry.

Specific causes of schism

Rolland McCune (Promise 27-52) and Ernest Pickering (“Reviews” 7-11) have both outlined their own views of the cause of this split. There is considerable overlap in their analysis.

McCune

Pickering

Unity vs. Separation

Perception of excessive negativism in fundamentalism and a growing ecumenical spirit

Social Issue

Perception that Fundamentalism lacks vision for social action

Scholarship/Intellectualism Issue

Desire to be accepted by scholarly world

Ecumenical Evangelism

Influence of Training in Liberal Institutions

General Mindset and Spirit of the Age

There is simply no space to adequately cover all of these issues, but a brief survey of some of them will be attempted here.

Unity or separation?

There was a general impetus to present the fundamentals of the faith in a positive, not simply defensive, way (McCune, Promise 29). Evangelicals were more willing to forgive doctrinal differences for the sake of the Gospel. The NAE was formed in 1942, according to its formal history, “when a modest group of 147 people met in St. Louis with the hopes of reshaping the direction of evangelical Christianity in America.” Ockenga challenged Christians to put aside denominational differences for the sake of a more consolidated witness for Christ (NAE, “History”).

Well-known fundamentalist leaders such as John R. Rice and Bob Jones Sr. and Jr. initially supported the NAE, but eventually left over the organization’s different philosophy of separation. “These departures consolidated the leadership of the NAE in the hands of those with less restrictive convictions who wanted a softer stand and a far less militant direction” (McCune, Promise 31).

Fundamentalists could not bring themselves to endorse ecclesiastical unity to the same extent. The philosophy of evangelicalism seemed to be, “Be positive, not negative!” Pickering astutely observed, “while this statement has an emotional appeal to many, it is not a Biblical philosophy. Scripture is both positive and negative—it is for some things and against others” (Tragedy 8).

These men continued to reject and oppose liberalism, but dropped militancy as a primary aspect of their identity. George Marsden argued that, “aspiring to be a broad coalition of theologically conservative Protestants, they usually tolerated some other theological differences, including Pentecostalism. Evangelism, as epitomized by Billy Graham, remained their central activity, although the forms of presentation now sometimes avoided accentuation of the offensiveness of the Gospel,” (as cited in Pickering, Tragedy 11).

The social issue

Carl F. H. Henry penned a book in 1947, The Uneasy Conscience, in which he decried the lack of social involvement in fundamentalism.

If the Bible believing Christian is on the wrong side of social problems such as war, race, class, labor, liquor, imperialism, etc., it is time to get over the fence to the right side. The church needs a progressive Fundamentalist with a social message. (xx)

Fundamentalism is the modern priest and Levite, by-passing suffering and humanity…by and large, the Fundamentalist opposition to societal ills has been more vocal than actual. (2-3)

McCune argues that an anti-dispensational bias was at the root of this call for social consciousness (Promise 36). It would be over-reaching to suggest that dispensationalism was virtually synonymous with fundamentalism—it was not (McCune, Non-Issues 179-180). However, McCune argues that theology was the root of this renewed social activism; posttribulationism “emancipated them from dispensational pessimism and gave their societal activism biblical legitimacy,” (Promise 36-37, see especially footnote #42). Pickering agreed with McCune and tied evangelical theology directly to a repudiation of separation; “new evangelicals were not separatists and hence resisted the inevitable conclusions brought about by the acceptance of dispensational thought,” (Non-Issues 17).

In 1962, George Dollar argued for an altogether different philosophy of ministry;

It is true that Fundamentalists have never turned their pulpits into forums for discussion of racism, labor, and slum clearance. It is true that most Fundamentalists have not made startling pronouncements on how to have world peace, how to integrate the races, and how to promote brotherhood in the midst of discord. The Fundamentalist has directed his attention to the salvation and sanctification of the individual—and indirectly to the alleviation of societal injustices. (30)

This anti-dispensational bias converged with a general dissatisfaction with a militant philosophy—thus social activism came to typify evangelicalism as a movement.

Scholarship

Disenchanted fundamentalists also reacted against a perceived anti-intellectual bias among their brethren. “Narrow-mindedness” was repudiated. A contemporary critic, Douglas Walton, noted “the absence of intellectual respectability was a very sore spot…the result has been a striving to attain that status” (26).

Pickering, in a 1964 review of a work by Ronald Nash advocating new evangelicalism, took issue with Nash’s pursuit to “recapture a place of respectability in the modern religious and academic world.” Contemporary critics seem to be unanimous in decrying the new evangelical’s quest for scholarship and prestige. Dollar wrote, “it would seem that the major prerequisite for joining the evangelical elite is the number of degrees one can brandish, the impressive list of schools attended, and the staggering account of authors read and quoted” (26).

It is a profound mistake to suggest fundamentalism is anti-intellectual. Admittedly, there are some among us who espouse this view, and they are certainly wrong. It is also incorrect to impugn the motives of evangelicals who are scholars. The problem arises when Christian scholarship stops being about serving the Church and starts being about respectability and prestige in the eyes of men. The new evangelicalism explicitly sought this prestige and therefore drew swift condemnation from contemporary fundamentalists.

Bottom line

An article appeared in the magazine Christian Life in March, 1956. It was a collaboration between many prominent advocates of the new evangelicalism. Entitled “Is Evangelical Theology Changing?” it enumerated eight points about their new movement (Crum et al. 16-19):

  1. A friendly attitude toward science
  2. A re-evaluation of the work of the Holy Spirit
  3. A move away from dispensationalism
  4. A more tolerant attitude toward varying views on eschatology
  5. Renewed emphasis on scholarship
  6. Renewed emphasis on social responsibility
  7. Re-examination of Biblical inspiration
  8. Willingness to dialogue with liberal theologians

Above all, this groundbreaking article advocated an altogether different philosophy of ministry. There was, initially, broad agreement on essentials of the faith, but new evangelicalism was different. It was a negation of “embarrassing” militancy for the sake of evangelism. “That’s why to the man on the street fundamentalism got to be a joke. As an ignorant, head-in-the-sand, contentious approach to the Christian faith, it seemed as out-dated as high-button shoes” (16).

The roots of historic evangelicalism emphasized unity over separation and sought to engage in the theological dialogue of the day. It had a distinctly different “attitude” or “mood” than fundamentalism. Any thinking Christian simply must grasp this point—it is not doctrine which separates the two camps; it is a philosophy of ministry.

The next article in this series will examine the concept of secondary separation, surveying the views of a variety of fundamentalists on the issue.

Works cited

Crum, T.B., et al. “Is Evangelical Theology Changing?” Christian Life (March 1956).

Dollar, George W. “Dangers in New Evengelicalism.” Central Bible Quarterly, CNEQ 05:2 (Summer 1962).

Henry, Carl F. H. The Uneasy Conscience of Modern Fundamentalism. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1947.

McCune, Rolland. “Doctrinal Non-Issues in Historic Fundamentalism.” Detroit Baptist Theological Journal 1 (Fall 1996). Accessed 18 Apr 13.

___. Promise Unfulfilled: The Failed Strategy of Modern Evangelicalism. Greenville, SC: Ambassador, 2004.

National Association of Evangelicals. “History.” Accessed 15 Apr 13.

___. “Statement of Faith.” Accessed 15 Apr 13.

Ockenga, Harold J. Foreward, in Harold Lindsell, The Battle for the Bible. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976.

Pfaffe, Donald. “Views of New Evangelicalism.” Central Bible Quarterly, CNEQ 02:2 (Summer 1959).

Pickering, Ernest. “Book Reviews.” Central Bible Quarterly, CNEQ 07:2 (Summer 1964).

___. The Tragedy of Compromise: The Origin and Impact of the New Evengelicalism. Greenville, NC: BJU, 1994.

Walton, Dennis M. “An Identification of New Evangelicalism.” Central Bible Quarterly, CENQ 04:3 (Fall 1961).

Discussion

Tyler, in your mind, how would you envision that “cooperation” potentially manifesting itself?

Greg Linscott
Marshall, MN

I’m not sure if it is possible today without the charge of ecumenical heresy.

I see the roots of fundamentalism as being characterized by a spirit of inter-denominational cooperation in defense of orthodox Christianity. The Bible conferences of the late 18th century and especially publication of The Fundamentals are examples I can think of right off the bat. Don Johnson thinks I am perhaps overdrawing the degree of cooperation, but I think we’d both admit there was some amount of cooperation against the assault of modernism in Christianity.

I believe a similar approach is needed today, in light of the post-modern assault upon Biblical orthodoxy. I do confess, however, that I am uncertain how it should be done or if there is even a strong enough personality in fundamentalism right now to pull it off. The goal, however, should be defense of Biblical orthodoxy, not evangelism. The example of our brethren a century ago is a good one. It can and should be emulated to some extent. I am not sure if it is possible in our current climate; I am inclined to say we’re much more fractured now than we were back then.

Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.

I made mention of a 1991 interview, where D.A. Carson spoke with both Carl F.H. Henry and Kenneth Kantzer. I am 10 mins into this interview with two leading new evangelicals, and I can promise you it is worth watching. We don’t all have a lot of time on our hands, but watching a few mins will be instructive.

Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.

  • The Gideons? I’ve had some inquiries lately for them to come and present in one of our services?
  • Chaplaincy? Hospital, Jail, Military, Law Enforcement…
  • Ministerial Councils? Many small Minnesota towns (including ours) have them. I have not gone to one since I’ve gotten here, but they send me information anyway. I have met a few time with the Evangelical (as opposed to Roman Catholic and Mainline) for prayer time.
  • Education? We have several families in our church who are part of a cooperative board-run Christian day school, independent of any one church. My family and I belong to a local Christian home educators group (which at least goes so far as to distinguish from Roman Catholicism), where they get together for things like gym class, plays, and some cooperative teaching.

I have also been contemplating what my boundaries might be for getting something like http://project127.com/ started in Minnesota. Essentially, the idea is to recruit and train Christians in church settings to become state licensed foster parents. The initial inquiries I’ve made with the state DHS have been met with interest and receptivity.

Perhaps something more like you are envisioning, T, has been most recently seen in organizations like http://www.amcouncilcc.org/ (which is still active) or http://www.itib.org/ (looks like the last regional meeting gather in 2010, according to their site).

Greg Linscott
Marshall, MN

I have just joined the Gideons. We support them in our church as well.

My Pastor is a law enforcement chaplain and I am going back to active-duty as a Navy Chaplain once I get my MDiv.

It is precisely the out of the box things you mention, Greg, on a local level which, when duplicated many times over all around the world, can have such a profound impact.

I do think any large scale cooperative efforts in defense of orthodox Christianity, in these days of social media, may be easier to get off the ground. I just despair at how likely it is that it will happen. I am not sure how much of an impact the two organizations you mentioned have. I’d stumbled across them before, but will check them out more thoroughly now.

Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.

[TylerR]

Don Johnson thinks I am perhaps overdrawing the degree of cooperation, but I think we’d both admit there was some amount of cooperation against the assault of modernism in Christianity.

I believe a similar approach is needed today, in light of the post-modern assault upon Biblical orthodoxy. I do confess, however, that I am uncertain how it should be done or if there is even a strong enough personality in fundamentalism right now to pull it off.

When the early fundamentalists fought modernism, they were fighting men within their own denominations. They were fighting to regain control of their denominations and oust the modernists.

They were not fighting to silence or defeat liberals outside their own circles.

Today, post-modernism is a threat outside the circle of fundamentalism. I don’t know of any post-modernists teaching at any of the fundamentalist colleges. I would venture to say that there are very few post-modernists in most of the evangelical institutions, at least in the conservative ones.

So who would you fight? What would you hope to accomplish? How would you go about it?

It’s really a non-issue. The only way to fight post-modernism as a fundamentalist is to preach and teach about it, to disciple men and women so they can recognize the errors of post-modernism (or other ‘isms’) and encourage their commitment to the Lord and to truth.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

When the early fundamentalists fought modernism, they were fighting men within their own denominations. They were fighting to regain control of their denominations and oust the modernists.

They were not fighting to silence or defeat liberals outside their own circles.

I agree with this, by and large. I apologize if I gave the impression that I thought the entire movement was characterized by only inter-denominational fellowship, more so than local militancy in different spheres of influence.

I wonder, however, how much regional or even local cooperation there is among fundamentalists even today, within our respective circles. I have the feeling we’re far too insular, speaking strictly for the independent, fundamental Baptists. This is only my own, limited perspective talking, but I think it is a problem.

So who would you fight? What would you hope to accomplish? How would you go about it?

I’m not looking for a national-level, inter-fundamentalism group hug to promote orthodox Christianity. I’m wondering how the landscape looks on a local, state or regional level, specifically in the area of contending in the public square for orthodox Christian values in this post-modern age. Are the organizations meeting and preaching to one another about Biblical truth, or are they bringing this truth to the world at large? The fellowship our church associates with is, quite honestly, accomplishing little in this sphere.

Evangelicals, in keeping with their historic roots of unity for the Gospel above all else, can boast of organizations like T4G, etc. Can fundamentalists point to anything similar, on even a local, state or regional scale, which seeks to defend Biblical orthodoxy in the public square? Is there hope for such an endeavor? Are we minoring on side-bars while the world around us trashes Biblical orthodoxy? Groups such as the Council on Dispensational Hermeneutics are important. Many fundamentalists participate and attend. However, why aren’t fundamentalists rallying around a defense of Biblical truth in the public square, too? Why, so often, is there no fundamentalist organization explicitly promoting these values?

I see a pre-suppositional apologetic approach as an outstanding vehicle for driving this train forward. Debates can be held on college campuses, for example, focusing on dialog with free-thinker and atheist student bodies. Christian truth claims can be positively and Biblically presented to adults who may have never heard them before. Christian colleges can get involved and sponsor these endeavors. Fundamentalists, from one camp or perhaps even many, can stand together and defend Biblical inerrancy, the virgin birth, the resurrection, authenticity of miracles - and the Gospel can be presented at the same time. This endeavor is beyond the capacities of a single man, no matter how energetic he is. It takes the collective efforts of an organization to bring these ideas to fruition.

Can such an attempt, or a similar one, be marshaled today on a local, state or even regional level? Is fundamentalism too fractured to bring it off?

Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.

Can such an attempt, or a similar one, be marshaled today on a local, state or even regional level? Is fundamentalism too fractured to bring it off?

Imagine if you could even just get the different strains of Fundamentalist Baptists to cooperate on one level…

I think the concept is good in theory. In practice, I’ve yet to see anything resembling it get off the ground.

Greg Linscott
Marshall, MN

[TylerR]
Evangelicals, in keeping with their historic roots of unity for the Gospel above all else, can boast of organizations like T4G, etc. Can fundamentalists point to anything similar, on even a local, state or regional scale, which seeks to defend Biblical orthodoxy in the public square? Is there hope for such an endeavor?

Can such an attempt, or a similar one, be marshaled today on a local, state or even regional level? Is fundamentalism too fractured to bring it off?

Tyler,

Thank you for asking! One of the reasons for distinction between Evangelicalism / New Evangelicalism / Fundamentalism is the broad based work of many, many fundamentalists, who endeavored to 1) uphold the historic roots of Biblical Truth 2) rescue entire denominations from liberal theology 3) continue their own ministries 4) win the Lost around them 5) expand theological education 6) extend missionary outreach, etc. , etc.

The fundamentalists accomplished these goals and left scores of 1) newly planted churches! 2) Bible Institutes! 3) Bible Colleges! 4) Seminaries! 5) Fundamentalist groups! The “Evangelicals” were not, to my knowledge, a Church-Planting force during this entire era (20s through 70s). When the fundamentalists realized that their institutions were not to be rescued from the Liberals they went out and started new institutions. The YFs the may have missed / ignored / not been aware largess of the Fundamentalists in accomplishing these feats while maintaining their ministries and fighting the many theological battles that raged all the way up to and through the 70s.

The second round fights came, when the new institutions - built by the Fundamentalists, were taken over by the New-Evangelicals through all kinds of intrigue! So - some newer fundamentalist institutions were built as well.

Unfortunately, too much has been emphasized about the “Fighting Fundamentalists”, while ignoring the Building Fundamentalists!

You can’t blame the battle scarred fundamentalists for being skeptical, when younger conservatives look with a longing eye toward the evangelical left. The left is where the problems came from.

Myopia can prevent fundamentalists, conservatives, evangelicals - or any group from sorting emotions from truth.

Just my thoughts!

Joel Sandahl

While perusing a pamphlet by a separatist named Charles Woodbridge, entitled Biblical Separation (1970?), I came across this jolly quote about new evangelicalism:

Dr. Harold J. Ockenga of New England invented the term “The New Evangelicalism ” He is the father and arch-promoter of the movement. Insisting that the key-word in the furthering of the gospel is no longer Biblical separation from, but infiltration into apostate churches, he has brought into being a theological monster before which Gargantua would seem to be a mere pygmy!

I don’t think I’ve yet come across a more … interesting description than this one!

Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.