"Every Southern Baptist conservative is a New Evangelical."

Just a couple of quick things here that get to the heart of Cloud’s thesis (and apparently Sorenson’s):
- I’d like to see evidence of how Pickering and Clearwater’s definition of New Evangelical differs from Bauder’s
- When did the school you graduated from become a standard for whether you are unclean and may not be touched?

A key component of new evangelicalism is that Christians need to be “in them to win them.” The reality is that there are some conservative evangelicals who reject that mindset. It is not as simple as insisting that all conservative evangelicals are new evangelicals as Cloud would have his constituents to believe.

The WayofLife folks seem to be convinced that those guys are problems too. So, even if what he says is true on this issue, one still has to consider the source. At some point, guys like David Cloud have to come to grips with this little thing called “church history.” There is a good argument to be made for being wary of a lot of the leading conservative evangelicals, but it appears that so often the ones making it are just as problematic as the conservative evangelicals are. Can a case be made for separating from Christians who for whatever reason wholesale push aside so many things regarding theology and church history?

This is yet another marvel. I wonder how many people actually read and believe that David Cloud is credible to define anything. Too many sadly. Years ago on one of his smear, err, hit, I mean information pieces, I had to send him information to correct him. Thankfully he changed his story to reflect the truth. I have seen enough of his hit pieces to know it is a lost cause to do it anymore.

Southern Baptists are all new evangelicals? So a group not tied to the Fundy/Modernist controversy, not part of the New Fundamentalism that reacted to the NE, is actually part of that group? The world of David Cloud is surely too small.

Cloud’s money quote

To say that it was the position of “historic fundamentalism” is true, but that does not make it right.

So he admits exactly what Kevin and those who can see reality have been saying.

So who first changed fundamentalism? The new fundies such as Cloud, that is who.

Some of us want to return it to sanity.

I think that my Baptist history professor, Dr. David Beale, from bygone days should write a new chapter on the Southern Baptists. I would be keenly interested.

Having just received in the mail a Galatians commentary (2010) by Thomas R. Schreiner (HT: SI Review), I picked up on these words by the author:

“Do false brothers worm their way into our midst today? Clearly they do. The history of American universities testifies to such. So many of our great universities began as evangelical colleges, but they slowly became subverted. We thing of Harvard and Yale. And the story goes on and on. I am a Southern Baptist, and schools like Wake Forest, Stetson, Furman, and Mercer were once evangelical schools, but those days are over. False teachers came in and the gospel was lost.

“Naturally I am not saying that there are not any Christians at such schools! The point is that the schools themselves are no longer evangelical. And is that happening at our evangelical colleges and universities today? Indeed, it is. Once again some schools are drifting from the gospel while claiming to be faithful to it. The first step has been repeated over and over again. Pray for our evangelical schools. And if you send your children to such schools, find out what they really teach. This may take some effort, but it is well worth the time it will take. And if God has put you in a position to have an influence, be brave and take a stand. You will be vilified for being narrow minded, but ask God to give you the courage to please him rather than people. (pp. 132-133).

Is every Southern Baptist pastor uniform in their mood, attitude, posture to false teachers, the world, or blatantly sinning brothers? I have not seen this. Is every Southern Baptist pastor uniform in who they respect as leaders in American evangelicalism? I have not seen this either. But neither have I seen this among the Independent Baptist pastors in America. There are some Southern Baptist men whom I would feel comfortable fellowshipping with; others I could not. And it is the same with Independent Baptist pastors.

Why is Sorenson seeking to drag us back into the Civil War? From my perspective, the colors are not blue and grey in the I-15 Corridor. In Southeastern Idaho, it is much more important to me to know what a man believes in his heart (and what is his strong doctrinal conviction) than what color of pants he is wearing. I fight alongside of brothers who simply wear pants and are courageously taking a stand for God and His Gospel. But I speak as a Idahoan. And a fool.

______

And by the way, God’s Word is the final authority that trumps Mr. Cloud, Mr. Sorenson, Mr. Bauder, Mr. Mohler, and all of our SI postings. Hear it again from the Southern Baptist man himself, Thomas Schreiner:

“Our evangelical subculture (and larger culture as well!) tends to be dazzled by our religious superstars. How thankful we are for the ministries of pastors like John McArthur, John Piper, Mark Driscoll, and Tim Keller! And yet we must not venerate them. Some virtually become the disciples of these pastors (and others), and hence they fiercely and dogmatically defend every opinion of such men. Unfortunately, they buy into our celebrity culture and the word of famous pastors in effect becomes more important than the Word of God. We can unwittingly become incredibly secular even when we are talking about the Word of God. Paul warns us of the danger of venerating any human being. The gospel of Christ and the Word of God are our authority, and the pastors I named would agree that is not their word but the gospel that must be prized. May the Lord keep us from venerating evangelical superstars, so that our praise and adoration and wonder are directed to God in Christ alone” (p. 134).

I know Bill! To somehow put a question mark over him because he got a doctorate at Gordon-Conwell (hyphenated, please, when spelled correctly ;)) is simply absurd.
It is not worth a comment, but I thought I would speak in Bill’s defense.
(By the way, Bill’s name is also misspelled, but who is counting details??)
Now, if you were to express concern about Bill for his love of pizza or ice cream, that is another matter entirely… H:) H:) H:) H:) H:) H:)

A key premise in Cloud, et. al.’s thinking on this is that the central distinguishing feature of new evangelicalism is “repudiation of separation.” That in itself is debatable, but granting it for the sake of argument, is there no difference between repudiating separation and having a different belief about how to carry it out?
Many, many Southern Baptists believe in separation from apostasy but differ on how separation principles apply to fellow believers.

Speaking as though the difference between this and “repudiation” did not exist is either reckless sloppiness or dishonesty. I’ll opt for the more charitable analysis and recommend thinking things through more carefully.

I’m surprised the Southern Baptist comment generated such a reaction. At BJU, all Southern Baptist churches were uniformly prohibited. I heard plenty of talks growing up about the evil of the Southern Baptist Convention, and how no true separatist could be a member or work with them. Glad to see, though, that SI is a bit more perceptive.

Living in the South, I am surrounded by Southern Baptists…sometimes literally. They range from very conservative (you’d think they were classmates at BJU) to very liberal (churches that support homosexuality, female pastors, etc.). Because of this, it is nearly impossible to precisely define someone as being “Southern Baptist.” I don’t believe that most of the lay people within the SBC even know of some of the things going on in that denomination. Having read through most of the posts here and on similar threads I know that most of the people posting are not readily familiar with the SBC. Most of the people posting here (and yes, I’m mildly insinuating ignorance on their part) do not interact with the SBC very often. If you live in the North or far enough out West (or overseas) you probably know some Southern Baptists and you probably know the big-wigs in the movement and may even admire Mohler and Dever.

Yet are you aware of the colleges that the SBC still supports? Nearby, we have Campbell University. Campbell is still SBC though there are grumblings that they may be getting out. Campbell is not conservative. Their student body is not comprised of Christian students. Their faculty is scary. A Bible professor who teaches all incoming freshman has as his goal to rid these young people of their notion that the Bible is inspired and inerrant. In other words, he’s a liberal. He does not hold to our gospel at all. Many more on the Bible faculty there fit into this category. But I know first hand that good parents unwittingly send their children to Campbell thinking it is a Christian school. This IS a hallmark of New Evangelicalism.

Moreover, Daniel Akin, president at SEBTS in Wake Forest, does repudiate separation. In an email to me a few years ago he defended his invitation to Richard John Neuhaus, a Catholic theologian (since deceased), to speak at a conference their seminary was sponsoring for college students. The director of Great Commission studies for SEBTS was reported in the local paper as saying that those who attended the conference “had their faith strengthened.” This is another hallmark of New Evangelicalism.

While I greatly appreciate Dr. Bauder and Dr. Doran for their careful consideration on many of these issues, I think it is just as dangerous to broad brush the SBC as being conservative as it is to broad brush every member of the SBC as being New Evangelical. To be sure, there are New Evangelicals in the SBC, and if someone is a leader of that demonination as Mohler and Dever certainly are, I’d be much more cautious to embrace them than not. They know what I just wrote about here. I imagine know other situations that are much worse. While I’m sure they would not agree with the Bible faculty at Campbell or all the decisions of Daniel Akin, it is also true that they know of them and have not separated. In all fairness, to me that is a repudiation of the doctrine of separation.

Matt

Matt,
The things you mentioned, aren’t those hallmarks of liberalism, instead of hallmarks of new evangelicalism?

There is a group of Southern Baptist up here trying to do some church planting. They have a seminary here and the late Dr. Adrian Rogers and others were behind their labors up here. They would wholeheartedly reject the false teachings and the example of ecumenism you mentioned. They would explain in their teaching why these positions are wrong. They would not cooperate with these errors.

All I am trying to do is point out that it is not is simple as Cloud would like us to believe that it is.

Todd,
Thank you!

[Matt Walker] Living in the South, I am surrounded by Southern Baptists…sometimes literally. They range from very conservative (you’d think they were classmates at BJU) to very liberal (churches that support homosexuality, female pastors, etc.). Because of this, it is nearly impossible to precisely define someone as being “Southern Baptist.” I don’t believe that most of the lay people within the SBC even know of some of the things going on in that denomination.

As a former pastor, and as a current teaching elder, in churches that are SBC, let me clear something up. The SBC is NOT a denomination! It is a convention. If a church gives money to either or all of the local, state, or national funds, they may send representatives to the conventions.

If they have a female pastor, their representatives will not be recognized at the convention, so it is incorrect to state that SBC churches support female pastors. The cooperative association DOES ordain women and (I would guess) supports homosexuality. Our church does not have any practical fellowship with any other SBC church, so there is nothing we need to separate from in that regard. Autonomy of the local church is the big issue for churches that are affiliated with the convention, so it would not be surprising to see a broad spectrum of practices within those churches.

p.s. I have never heard of Campbell University, so don’t feel any need to separate from that school!

I think their are several problems with this article.

1) If I attend a school other than a fundamentalist institution I become a New Evangelical. Intresting to note that Bill’s other degrees are not mentioned. I guess I’m New Evangelical according to Cloud- Undergrad at PCC took grad courses at BJU, New Orleans Theological Seminary and finished with MDIV at Luther Rice University. All doing this by correspondence, and internet from Vermont. Also, I pastor Crossview Baptist Church and Independent Baptist Church in Concord NC. So i guess all independent baptist churches are New Evangelical. O Boy!

2) An intresting apologetic- Instead of wondering where all the young fundamentalist went? Is their an apologetic of convincing the New evangelical or conservative evangelical of the err and need to return or become one of us. Most of the time i find fundamentalists just wash their hands, and say or act with words that state “farewell and good riddance.” Or they are isolationists and do not have contact with Southern Baptists etc… And yet their are those that do communicate truth and try to communicate to New Evangelicals and Conservative Evangelicals to change. Bill Edmondson lives in Boston, Has a ministry house to Internationals and has planted a church. Could his apologetic be to teach the truth to those different from him, and to convince them of the need to separate? For the most part, I see it as a one way street: fundamentalists moving toward conservative evangelicalism or New Evangelicalism.

3) As to schools, The SBC undergrad schools are primarily liberal. Their philosophy of education is radically different from independent churches. They tend to see the majority of the students from the churches attend public university, enter the military or work force. As to the independent churches by in large it is work place, christian college, or military; public university is frowned upon as an option. A positive to their philosophy is that they have many students that attend public universities. This gives them a great place to influence our culture with the gospel. Whereas those that attend fundamentalist schools are surrounded by christians. Yes, they are being trained but they are not in contact with the lost. The negative to their philosophy is that they can become entangled with this world. I believe it is the responsibility of the parent and church to ground their family in faith. We need more Daniel’s at Babylonian U.

It is intresting this article has come out at this time. I was just speaking to two individuals this past week about the different perspectives on defining of a New Evangelical. Most independent baptists would define the SBC at New Evangelical. Whereas most Southern Baptists would define themselves as evangelical. They would see some in their movement as New Evangelical but as a whole they would be evangelical. Look forward to more discussion on this topic.

[Aaron Blumer] A key premise in Cloud, et. al.’s thinking on this is that the central distinguishing feature of new evangelicalism is “repudiation of separation.” That in itself is debatable, but granting it for the sake of argument, is there no difference between repudiating separation and having a different belief about how to carry it out?
Many, many Southern Baptists believe in separation from apostasy but differ on how separation principles apply to fellow believers.

Aaron, even Christianity Today can come to a position where they will call for separation. But be that as it may, Harold Ockenga clearly established the repudiation of separation as one of the planks of New Evangelical philosophy.

And with respect to the SBC, Dave Doran cites the fact that Mark Dever’s Capitol Hill Baptist Church is SBC as the sole or primary reason why he refused an invitation to speak there. (He doesn’t see Dever’s heavy involvement in the SBC as sufficient reason to refuse to appear on a platform with him, but his ‘separation’ from the church is because it is SBC.)

FWIW

To JohnBrian,

Forgive me for not being more precise. I appreciate your cleaning up some of my mistakes there. However, what you described doesn’t change the perception and that IS part of this equation. Campbell University is “Southern Baptist.” You are a professed “Southern Baptist.” While you understand the distinctions that should be made, others cannot. In fact, most people cannot. And that’s the problem. So when a fundamentalist does something boneheaded, I’m associated with them, I’m held to account for it. There are reams of arguments on this blog holding fundamentalists to account for every boneheaded thing ever done in the name of fundamentalism. My point is…that’s fair. There are some who will, because of my position here, associate me with Cloud and Sorenson, something I am not entirely happy about. Yet this is a two edged argument and swings both ways. You are associated with Campbell University regardless as to whether you know it or not because those who know you to be Southern Baptist also know them to be as well. Their perception is that you are together one and the same. BTW: The fact that you haven’t heard of Campbell isn’t really the issue for me. My point is the Mohler and Dever certainly do. They are the ones who should be separating themselves from it.

To Pastor Roof,

I think we might be using a different set of definitions. As is often the case on forums like these, if we are not in agreement on what a New Evangelical is, then there’s no point in discussing what they do. My definition of a New Evangelical was forged in the classes I took from Dr. Beale at BJU…for better or worse, my working definition is the one I learned there. What I said is that there are liberals at Campbell. That they are allowed to remain and teach IS a hallmark of New Evangelicalism.