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.
- 133 views
Someone said:
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.
I think that we have been quick to draw a bright line between ‘social action’ (my term, and probably not the best one) and the Gospel, arguing that social action = social gospel. I also think that a lot of Christians today are pushing back against this idea as wrong. To be aware of social issues and injustices, like sex trafficking, and work to resolve those injustices, is part and parcel of ‘loving your neighbor as yourself’.
To say that the Gospel necessitates social action or social justice as a part of the Gospel is where many, many people go astray. I doubt anyone on this site believes that.
I have no qualms with the Nashville Statement as it currently reads and could affirm it without issue…but I will make any other comments on that thread.
"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
So based on the relatively few quotes out of a roughly 9400 word document - and without reading the rest of it - you’re discounting it because it lacks “scholarship”? This man was smack dab in the middle in the middle of the neo-evangelical movement with first-hand knowledge of the motivations, philosophy and theology and yet you claim to speak more authoritatively on the subject?
Sorry. Not buying it.
Pastor Helgerson, like Pickering and Lightner knew whereof they spoke.
Much criticism is deservedly directed at Fundamentalists due to the bombastic nature of the ad hominem and other attacks on specific people outside its realm. If Carlton Helgerson had provided specific names, specific leaders, specific schools, etc, he would have been roundly criticized on these threads for being one of “them fightin’ fundamentalists.”
In other words, he’s condemned if he does and condemned if he doesn’t.
If the message doesn’t fit the desired template, the offended will grasp at anything for criticism.
Jay, James 2:15-16 comes to mind when considering whether some action is optional or required. Certainly James is at least saying that inasmuch as we have the ability to help a starving brother in Christ, that so much is required. No?
Perhaps some Scriptural and historical examples of social action would be good. You’ve got Paul’s rebuke of the magistrate who flogged him without a trial, Paul’s appeal to Caesar, John’s command to the soldiers to be content with their pay, the Macedonian/Corinthian collection for Jerusalem, Nehemiah’s rebuke of rich Jews who had bought their brothers into slavery while building Jerusalem up again, etc.. In the early church era, you’ve got care for all during plagues (recorded by Eusebius), rejection of the Circus Maximums and other combat theaters (even when Christians were not being killed), and adoption of baby girls left out to die—that was their pro-life movement, really.
Now perhaps it would be true that they didn’t set up separate organizations with by-laws, budgets, and officers like we do today, and it certainly is true that there were huge differences between their versions of abominable practices like slavery and abortion and ours, but let’s be real here. If we’re going to say the church isn’t called to take action because the ancient church didn’t use modern methods to solve problems that didn’t exist in that form back then, I think we’re splitting hairs and falling on the wrong side of James 2:15-16.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
[KD Merrill]So based on the relatively few quotes out of a roughly 9400 word document - and without reading the rest of it - you’re discounting it because it lacks “scholarship”? This man was smack dab in the middle in the middle of the neo-evangelical movement with first-hand knowledge of the motivations, philosophy and theology and yet you claim to speak more authoritatively on the subject?
Sorry. Not buying it.
Pastor Helgerson, like Pickering and Lightner knew whereof they spoke.
That would be the appeal to authority fallacy, and an appeal to authority that ignores the fact that the academic discipline of “history” often manages to see events more clearly than did the participants because historians can see the testimony of more participants than could contemporaries.
Now the entire booklet does (after many paragraphs) actually manage to name some alleged theological problems with neo-evangelicalism, but he provides no actual evidence for his position besides his own testimony. Lots of attacks on neo-evangelicals, so it’s a great resource to teachers of informal logic on what not to do, but if you want to argue that Christians that wanted to enter the “arena of ideas” had a home in fundamentalism, Helgerson is working against you.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
[KD Merrill]Much criticism is deservedly directed at Fundamentalists due to the bombastic nature of the ad hominem and other attacks on specific people outside its realm. If Carlton Helgerson had provided specific names, specific leaders, specific schools, etc, he would have been roundly criticized on these threads for being one of “them fightin’ fundamentalists.”
In other words, he’s condemned if he does and condemned if he doesn’t.
If the message doesn’t fit the desired template, the offended will grasp at anything for criticism.
Not at all. All Helgerson had to do to make his booklet useful was to actually quote neo-evangelicals on issues like inerrancy and partnership with unbelievers, explain why he disagreed and why it’s an important issue to him, and let his readers make their decisions. The stereotype of the “Fighting Fundamentalist” isn’t just that someone stands up for what he believes is right. It’s that he uses abusive rhetoric and sometimes even physical violence in lieu of a real argument.
As I’ve said a lot of times before, fundamentalism has a lot to add to the equation if only we’ll learn to actually address the issues we think are important and stop attacking people personally. But sadly, it seems as if a lot of us may be having trouble envisioning discourse without this kind of genetic fallacies.
Which is, really, what a lot of neo-evangelicals were saying six decades ago. Maybe it’s time “our tribe” learned our lesson on this whether others have learned it or not.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Yes, you did confuse getting degrees with the desire to do real academic work.
Bert, you are incorrect and it’s incomprehensible to me as to how you read this supposed confusion into anything I have said. I am well aware of the difference, having done one (multiple times) and not the other in any significant way though I have authored two documents that show up on major academic resource websites.
My point was simple and easy: the new evangelical’s desire for respectability did not have to do with the inability to get a degree/do academic work in fundamental circles, as you seemed to suggest in the following comments regarding the inability to do real academic level work in fundamentalism.
Thurs, 11:20 a.m.: If they wanted to do real academic work, they weren’t going to be able to do it in fundamental institutions at that time. … They knew from experience that evangelicals couldn’t do academic work in the fundamental orbit.
Thurs, 3:27 p.m.: [Pickering] he knew from personal experience that there really wasn’t much of a place for academic level work in fundamentalism.
Fri, 1:02 p.m.: those endeavoring to do good academic work had no likely home in fundamentalism at the time. In other words, “our tribe” helped create the neo-evangelicals by shunning the tools of academic inquiry.
You went on to note that (1) Pickering’s degrees (and Clearwaters’ degrees) were from elsewhere and (2) he should have clued in to the fact that fundamentalism did not have the place or the tools to do academic inquiry. Whether you are right or not on #2 about the tools, I was expressly saying that the place they got their degrees was not related to their ability to do academic level work.
The problem was more foundational—that the academic/intellectual issue of the era often involved denying or compromising major biblical doctrines (inerrancy, deity, miracles, etc.) for the sake of acceptance by the academic community. There were many NE who wanted academic/intellectual respectability and that was a major component of NE. Real academic work is not less than a degree (with rare exceptions) and usually an institution or organization in which to do it. Apparently in your mind from reading your words, the fundamentalists did not provide that and thus were partially the cause of new evangelicalism by shunning those tools.
I think both words and history show that the issues didn’t have anything to do with where they got their degrees and did their work. The issue was what beliefs were required.
And yes, I’m saying McCune’s argument is a straw man for the simple reason that it confuses the desire of doing real academic level work—competing in the arena of ideas—and reduces it to a simple clamoring for respect.
First, that’s not a straw man argument because Dr. McCune didn’t set up a false construct and then refute it (which is what a straw man argument is). He gives plenty of evidence for the issue at hand complete with quotations and references to firsthand/primary sources.
Second, you should read Dr. McCune’s book (again, if you have already read it). If nothing else read pp. 37-45. He doesn’t reduce it to a “simple clamoring for respect.” It is much more than that, and Dr. McCune helpfully gives it is in the NE’s own words and gives the citations for where you can read it yourself. He shows how “real academic work” involved denying some basic fundamental doctrines. He is not, like some here, just shooting from the hip. He lived through part of it and has done the research.
You should also read Marsden’s Reforming Fundamentalism. It would help the understanding of the issues of the era. It’s a fascinating read. And no, that’s not an appeal to authority. It’s appeal to things that are firsthand research.
So I have a real life example to pose to you gentleman. My local congressman contacted me, and about every other “faith leader” in his district, about a round table discussion centering on restoring civility to our public discourse. I knew that there would be Catholics, Episcopalians, Anglicans, Ethnic Catholics (Ukrainian, Polish, etc- have to understand the great Pittsburgh area a bit for those nuances), etc. It was being held at one of the largest mainline Presbyterian churches in the area (a church known for liberal theology and politics).
The question for you all to ponder: would you go? If you would, knowing the diverse “faith traditions” that would be there, how would you counter the contention that you were being ecumenical. If you wouldn’t, what are your reasons for not going.
In full disclosure, I went, and was horrified at how far liberal “christianity” (which, as Machen correctly argues isn’t really Christianity at all) has come. There was also a Jewish rabbi there as well. There was no appeal to the scriptures in the words that were given. Much was said quoting liberal thinkers. I sat there and thought to myself I really have nothing in common with these men. There may have been some general sense in which we were united in wanting there to be civil conversations in our national situation, but, you had to dig through so much liberal thought to get there that I was even more convinced that nothing beyond an open and equal discussion like we were having would be profitable nor worth the energies of my church or congregation.
That being said, the gospel was clearly presented by one individual in attendance. He boldly proclaimed that the problem with our public discourse is found in the deceitful and desperately wicked hearts of men and that the only hope to return civility to our public discourse is for men’s hearts to be turned to Christ. It was a bold and unapologetic proclamation of the gospel. Who did it come from? The regional representative for BGEA! After the round table, I thanked him for his witness (which, was bolder than the statements I gave) and we talked as brothers in Christ for about 30 minutes. As we left, I hit him with the question about cooperative evangelism and I got, mostly, the answer I was expecting, with a few surprising details filled in that I was not aware of. I told him that while I was pretty I sure I did not agree with the strategy, I would be praying for him and that I’d like to get to know him better as he has opportunity, which he seemed to also welcome. And his passion for the gospel was irrefutable and unstained by his compromise. While I don’t agree with him, I pray that God still uses him for gospel advance for the sake of the kingdom.
Phil Golden
Phil, given what you said about it being about ‘restoring civility in public discourse’, I don’t have a problem with it and would have gone myself. It probably would open me up for all sorts of grief and ridicule, but the best way to restore civility is to remember several biblical principles like everyone is an imagebearer of God and that Jesus commands that we love all men. Those are points that can and should be communicated with unbelievers in the audience and platform.
It is because we have real, substantive answers to these kinds of sin issues - as opposed to the empty pablum of liberal theologians - that I feel like it’s even more appropriate to be involved and present. John MacArthur has done this sort of thing on many occasions with Larry King Live, and I’ve always felt it was the right approach to take.
I was talking with a friend yesterday and mentioned our role as Christ’s ambassadors (2 Cor. 5:20), and now I’m thinking a little more about the role of Christian as Ambassador. It’s something that I’ve known about but never anything that I’ve thought long and hard on, and it is probably time for me to do so as I navigate the world we live in.
But I understand that others here may not feel the same way.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
[Philip Golden Jr.]So I have a real life example to pose to you gentleman. My local congressman contacted me, and about every other “faith leader” in his district, about a round table discussion centering on restoring civility to our public discourse. I knew that there would be Catholics, Episcopalians, Anglicans, Ethnic Catholics (Ukrainian, Polish, etc- have to understand the great Pittsburgh area a bit for those nuances), etc. It was being held at one of the largest mainline Presbyterian churches in the area (a church known for liberal theology and politics).
The question for you all to ponder: would you go? If you would, knowing the diverse “faith traditions” that would be there, how would you counter the contention that you were being ecumenical. If you wouldn’t, what are your reasons for not going.
It’s not an ecclesiastical meeting, even though “ecclesiastical types” are present (and are the only ones invited other than the congressman and aides, I suspect). Since its not an ecclesiastical effort, you can’t be in partnership with the others that show up, you are there at the behest of the congressman to aid him in his understanding (perhaps). So, no problem if one chooses to attend.
Personally, I probably would not have bothered. I have been to enough gatherings like these that the general content of them is quite predictable and I don’t think my two cents would make much difference. So I would skip it.
But as I said, I don’t have a problem if someone decided to go.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
So can I get involved with the local Christian pregnancy center because it’s not an ecclesiastical effort? Honest, I’m serious. One church I’ve been in said yes and another said no.
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
[Ron Bean]So can I get involved with the local Christian pregnancy center because it’s not an ecclesiastical effort? Honest, I’m serious. One church I’ve been in said yes and another said no.
I don’t think you’ve given enough information for a good evaluation. The answer at this point would have to be, “It depends.” It depends on how it is organized and run and what entanglements are involved. Does it involve acknowledgement of everyone involved as Christian? Who runs it? And so on…
all of that is quite different from a one off information gathering meeting with a politician
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
The agency involved is staffed by Christians from a spectrum of Bible believing churches. They accept financial support from anyone except the government. They present the Gospel to clients and direct them to Bible believing churches for support. And they usually host an annual meeting for all supporters. Does that help?
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
Ron, if it’s a “Christian pregnancy center”, based on solely what you said in that first post, then I’d say it’s worth supporting. And any church that tried to ‘forbid’ you from helping is grossly out of line, IMHO.
I wouldn’t want to stand by while other Christians were busy fighting Moloch. But that’s me.
"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
The church has no business partnering with such organizations in any official capacity, but I think it is easy to confuse the separation that is demanded of churches with that which is the responsibility of individual Christians. Sometimes they overlap, but often they are distinct, imo.
Discussion