FUNDAMENTALISM, MODERNISM, AND NEW-EVANGELICALISM
soulw...@vvm.com
PART I
January 20, 1997 (David W. Cloud, Fundamental Baptist News Service, 1701
Harns Rd., Oak Harbor, WA 98277) - The following
is part one of a three-part article entitled Fundamentalism, Modernism, and
New-Evangelicalism by David W. Cloud, copyright
1995. It was first printed in O Timothy magazine, Volume 12, Issue 1,
1995 --
"The New Evangelicalism is a theological and moral compromise of the
deadliest sort. It is an insidious
attack upon the Word of God." --Dr. Charles Woodridge
NEW EVANGELICALISM: ITS HISTORY
I am convinced that few errors are as destructive to Fundamental,
Bible-believing churches as New Evangelicalism. When people
leave our churches, where do they go? Do they join the Roman Catholic
church? Do they join a modernistic Protestant church,
such as the United Methodist or the Presbyterian Church U.S.A. or the United
Church of Canada? Do they join a cult? Very
seldom. No, most people who leave Fundamental, Bible-believing churches join
the easy-going New Evangelical church down the
street or across town.
Few false philosophies more directly pull at members of Fundamental Baptist
churches than New Evangelicalism. Church
members are confronted with it on every hand--through popular radio and
television preachers, at the local ecumenical bookstore,
through members of Evangelical churches, through evangelistic crusades,
through political activity.
It is therefore crucial that we understand the nature of New Evangelicalism.
We are concerned that a great many of the members of good churches do not
have a clear understanding of exactly what New
Evangelicalism is, nor of the history of the doctrinal battles which have
been fought to preserve the Truth in the past 100 years.
To be ignorant of the insidious nature of New Evangelicalism is to be
unprepared to identify and resist it. In this first section of we
define New Evangelicalism in the context of the Fundamentalist-Modernist
controversies of the first half of this century.
THE FUNDAMENTALIST-MODERNIST CONTROVERSIES
The term "Fundamentalism" has come to mean any number of things and is
commonly used in a derogatory and slanderous way by
those who do not believe the Scriptures. It is used to describe all sorts of
extremism--terrorist Muslims, snake-handlers, the
demonically-possessed Jim Jones who caused the mass suicide of his
followers, the racist Ayrian Nations.
In a historical Christian context, Fundamentalism arose out of the doctrinal
controversies which embroiled American churches at
the turn of the century when modernism began to take root in seminaries and
Bible colleges and in leadership positions in the
denominations. According to historian D.O. Beale, "The editor of the Baptist
periodical Watchman-Examiner coined the term
Fundamentalist in 1920 to describe a group of concerned Baptists who had
just met at the Delaware Avenue Baptist Church in
Buffalo, New York, to discuss the problem of Modernism in the Northern
Baptist Convention" (Beale, S.B.C. House on the
Sand?, p. 195).
Though Fundamentalism is a North American church phenomena, it arose because
of theological problems which originated in
Europe.
Modernism (or Liberalism) had its origin in Europe, particularly in Germany,
in the 19th century and was merely the rationalistic
thinking of that time applied to Christianity. It was the dawn of the
"scientific era"; many men felt they were on the verge of
discovering the secrets of the universe and solving the problems of mankind.
Anti-Christian thinkers such as Darwin, Hegel, and
Marx led the movement to dethrone God and place Man in His place.
Unregenerate "Christian" professors in European Bible
seminaries had already rejected the Word of God, so they gladly accepted the
humanistic thinking of the day and set out to apply
evolutionary philosophies to the Bible and Christianity. The result was
tragic: The Bible was considered simply another human
book, inspired only in the sense that Shakespeare's writings were
"inspired." Jesus Christ was considered a mere man--good and
influential--but a mere man nonetheless.
Modernists taught that the Bible did not come to us by direct revelation
from God through the Holy Spirit's ministry to holy men of
old, but came, rather, as a purely human evolutionary process. Supposedly,
as men's ideas about God became more sophisticated,
the writers of the Bible drew an increasingly more sophisticated picture of
God, until we come to the supposed higher theological
ideas of the New Testament. Modernists do not believe the Bible's historical
accounts are accurate and do not believe the
miracles actually happened. They do not believe there actually was an Adam
and an Eve, a Garden of Eden, a worldwide Flood,
nor do they believe the miracles recorded in Exodus and other parts of the
O.T. happened as recorded, but believe these are
religious myths much like the Hindu stories. According to Modernism, the
first five books of the Bible were not written by the
historical Moses as He received it as Revelation from the hand of God, but
were not assembled together in their present state until
the time of Israel's kings. Many Modernists do not believe in that Christ
was virgin-born, nor that He is truly God, nor that He
actually rose from the dead, etc. They do not believe that the Gospel
accounts of His life are factual, and they assume that we do
not have an accurate idea of what Jesus Christ was truly like.
A key platform of Modernism is the historical-critical approach to Bible
interpretation. According to this theory, the Pentateuch did
not come from the hand of God through the prophet Moses, but evolved
gradually over the centuries.
An example of Modernism is found in the writings of the men who translated
the Revised Standard Version of 1951. This
corrupted version was produced by apostates. Consider a few excerpts from
their books:
"Revelation has sometimes been understood to consist in a holy book.
... Even on Christian soil it has sometimes
been held that the books of the Bible were practically dictated to the
writers through the Holy Spirit. ... I DO NOT
THINK THAT THIS IS THE DISTINCTIVELY CHRISTIAN POSITION. If God once
wrote His revelation in
an inerrant book, He certainly failed to provide any means by which
this could be passed on without contamination
through human fallibility. ... The true Christian position is the Bible
CONTAINS the record of revelation" (Clarence
T. Craig, The Beginning of Christianity).
"The mere fact that a tomb was found empty was CAPABLE OF MANY
EXPLANATIONS. THE VERY LAST
ONE THAT WOULD BE CREDIBLE TO A MODERN MAN WOULD BE THE EXPLANATION OF
A
PHYSICAL RESURRECTION OF THE BODY" (Ibid., Craig).
"The dates and figures found in the first five books of the Bible turn
out to be altogether unreliable" (Julius Brewer,
The Literature of the Old Testament).
"The writers of the New Testament made mistakes in interpreting some of
the Old Testament prophecies" (James
Moffatt, The Approach to the New Testament).
"One cannot of course place John on the same level with the synoptic
Gospels [Matthew, Mark, Luke] as A
HISTORICAL SOURCE" (William Albright, From the Stone Age to
Christianity).
"He [Jesus Christ] was given to overstatements, in his case, not a
personal idiosyncrasy, but a characteristic of the
oriental world" (Henry F. Cadbury, Jesus, What Manner of Man?).
"As to the miraculous, one can hardly doubt that time and tradition
would heighten this element in the story of Jesus"
(Ibid., Cadbury).
"A psychology of God, IF that is what Jesus was, is not available"
(Ibid., Cadbury).
"According to the ENTHUSIASTIC TRADITIONS which had come down through
the FOLKLORE of the people
of Israel, Methuselah lived 969 years" (Walter Russell Bowie, Great Men
of the Bible).
"The story of Abraham comes down from ancient times; and how much of it
is fact and how much of it is LEGEND,
no one can positively tell" (Ibid., Bowie).
"WE DO NOT PRESS THAT GOSPEL [JOHN] FOR TOO GREAT VERBAL ACCURACY IN
ITS RECORD
OF THE SAYINGS OF JESUS" (Willard L. Sperry, Rebuilding Our World).
"This phrase [`Thus saith the Lord'] is an almost unfailing mark of
SPURIOUSNESS" (William A. Irwin, The
Problem of Ezekiel).
"Only bigotry could bring us to deny an EQUAL VALIDITY WITH THE
PROPHETS OF ISRAEL in the religious
vision of men such as Zoraster or Ikhnaton or, on a lower level, the
unnamed thinkers of ancient Babylonia" (Ibid.,
Irwin).
"The narrative of calling down fire from heaven upon the soldiers sent
to arrest him is PLAINLY LEGENDARY"
(Fleming James, The Beginnings of Our Religion).
"What REALLY happened at the Red Sea WE CAN NO LONGER KNOW" (Ibid.,
James).
"We cannot take the Bible as a whole and in every part as stating with
divine authority what we must believe and
do" (Millar Burrows, Outline of Biblical Theology).
A more recent illustration of Modernism comes from the pen of John Shelby
Spong, a bishop in the Episcopal Church in America:
"Am I suggesting that these stories of the virgin birth are not
literally true? The answer is a simple and direct `Yes.'
Of course these narratives are not literally true. Stars do not wander,
angels do not sing, virgins do not give birth,
magi do not travel to a distant land to present gifts to a baby, and
shepherds do not go in search of a newborn savior.
... To talk of a Father God who has a divine-human son by a virgin
woman is a mythology that our generation would
never have created, and obviously, could not use. To speak of a Father
God so enraged by human evil that he
requires propitiation for our sins that we cannot pay and thus demands
the death of the divine-human son as a guilt
offering is a ludicrous idea to our century. The sacrificial concept
that focuses on the saving blood of Jesus that
somehow washes me clean, so popular in Evangelical and Fundamentalist
circles, is by and large repugnant to us
today" (John Spong, Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism: A Bishop
Rethinks the Meaning of Scripture,
Harper, 1991, pp. 215,234).
It is shocking to see how these supposed Christian scholars deny the Holy
Scriptures. Modernism flies under many flags, and not
all Modernists are as bold and plain speaking as Bishop Spong, but all deny
the perfect inspiration of Holy Scripture and question
the miraculous.
It is important to remember that all of this was prophesied by the Holy
Spirit. The Lord's Apostles warned that many unregenerate
false teachers would creep into the churches and would deceive many, and in
fact, such false teachers were already active during
the times of the Apostles. See Ma. 7:15-23; 24:5,24; Ac. 20:28-30; Ro.
16:17-28; 2 Co. 11:1-20; Ga. 2:4; Ph. 3:1,2; 3:18-19; Co.
2:4-8; 1 Ti. 1:19-20; 4:1-3; 6:20-21; 2 Ti. 2:14- 21; 3:1-13; 4:1-4; Tit.
1:10-16; 3:9-11; 2 Pe. 2:1-22: 3:1- 18; 1 Jo. 2:18- 19; 4:1-6; 2
Jo. 7-11; Ju. 3-19; Re. 2:2,6, Re. 2:14-15; Re. 2:20-23; Re. 3:15-17; Re.
17.
Modernism quickly increased in popularity, especially from the middle to the
end of the 19th century, and by the early 1900s had
became the predominant theology among Christian leaders in Germany and most
other parts of Europe and had been introduced to
American denominations through men who studied in prestigious (though
apostate) European seminaries and through European
professors who visited American schools and churches.
Though there were some who resisted Modernism in Europe, it more easily
spread there than in America because of the fact that
the majority of Christianity in Europe was already apostate when Modernism
arose. Apart from Roman Catholicism, Protestant
state churches were the predominant forms of Christianity in Europe, and
since most of these groups taught infant baptism and
were very ritualistic, they had become filled with unregenerate members and
spiritual death long before the end of the 19th
century. They had no power to resist Modernism, and the comparatively few
independent churches in Europe were not influential
enough to cause much of an uproar against the Modernistic teaching.
FUNDAMENTALISM
The situation was different in America. There were no state-controlled and
affiliated denominations in the U.S., and America had
been blessed with some powerful revival movements in the 1800s and the early
1900s.
Christianity in the U.S. was therefore much livelier than in Europe. As
Modernism began gaining adherents in U.S. denominations,
Christian leaders who were saved and who believed the Bible began to take a
stand against it. The battle that followed was called
The Fundamentalist/Modernist controversy.
The name "Fundamentalist" was popularized by a series of books which were
written by Bible-believing men for the purpose of
expounding the Fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith, of the Bible.
Published over a five-year period from 1910-1915, the
series, titled The Fundamentals, was composed of 90 articles written by 64
authors. With the financial backing of a wealthy
Christian businessman, hundreds of thousands of copies of The Fundamentals
were distributed to Christian workers in the United
States and 21 foreign countries. The articles defended the perfect
inspiration of the Bible, justification by faith, the new birth, the
deity, virgin birth, miracles, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and other
Bible truths. They dealt not only with the heresy of
Modernism, but of Romanism, Socialism, and the Cults.
Some have attempted define Fundamentalism as is only a concern for "the five
fundamentals of the faith." G. Archer Weniger
shows the falicy of this view:
"The five fundamentals have only to do with the Presbyterian aspect of
the struggle with modernism. ... The bulk of
Fundamentalism, especially the Baptists of every stripe who composed
the majority by far, never accepted the five
fundamentals alone. The World's Christian Fundamentals Association,
founded in 1919, had at least a dozen main
doctrines highlighted. The same was true of the Fundamental Baptist
Fellowship, which originated in 1920. A true
Fundamentalist would under no circumstances restrict his doctrinal
position to five fundamentals. Even Dr. Carl F.H.
Henry, a New Evangelical theologian, listed at least several dozen
doctrines essential to the Faith. The only
advantage of reducing the Faith down to five is to make possible a
wider inclusion of religionists, who might be way
off in heresy on other specific doctrines. It is much easier to have
large numbers of adherents with the lowest
common denominator in doctrine" (G. Archer Weniger, quoted in Calvary
Contender, Apr. 15, 1994).
An accurate definition of Fundamentalism was given by the World Congresses
of Fundamentalists:
A Fundamentalist is a born-again believer in the Lord Jesus Christ who--
1. Maintains an immovable allegiance to the inerrant, infallible, and
verbally inspired Bible.
2. Believes that whatever the Bible says is so.
3. Judges all things by the Bible and is judged only by the Bible.
4. Affirms the foundational truths of the historic Christian Faith: The
doctrine of the Trinity; the incarnation, virgin
birth, substitutionary atonement, bodily resurrection and glorious
ascension, and Second Coming of the Lord Jesus
Christ; the new birth through regeneration by the Holy Spirit; the
resurrection of the saints to life eternal; the
resurrection of the ungodly to final judgment and eternal death; the
fellowship of the saints, who are the body of
Christ.
5. Practices fidelity to that Faith and endeavors to preach it to every
creature.
6. Exposes and separates from all ecclesiastical denial of that Faith,
compromise with error, and apostasy from the
Truth.
7. Earnestly contends for the Faith once delivered.
Many varying definitions of Fundamentalism have been given through the
years, and the truth of the matter is that Fundamentalism
has taken a great variety of forms. As a movement it has been largely
interdenominational, yet many independent, separatist
churches, such as independent Baptists and independent Bible churches, have
accepted the label. Regardless of this variety,
though, one of the chief hallmarks of Fundamentalism--its very essence, if
you will--has always been a MILITANCY for the Faith
of the Word of God. Anyone who is not truly militant in standing for the
Truth has no title to biblical Fundamentalism.
The battle grew hotter as the years passed and as Modernistic thinking
increased in popularity in American denominations,
theological schools, and Christian organizations. Many Bible-believers,
realizing that liberalism, having become rooted, could not be
effectively resisted (1 Cor. 5:6; Gal. 5:9), separated themselves from those
groups which were giving Modernism a home. They
formed new churches, denominations, and organizations.
FUNDAMENTALISM, MODERNISM, AND NEW-EVANGELICALISM
PART II
By David W. Cloud
January 20, 1997 (Fundamental Baptist News Service, 1701 Harns Rd., Oak
Harbor, WA 98277) - The following is a continuation
of a three-part article entitled "Fundamentalism, Modernism, and New
Evangelicalism," by David W. Cloud, copyright 1995 --
EVANGELICALISM
Evangelicalism of the 1990s is a different creature from that of the 1940s
and earlier. Fifty years ago the term "Evangelical" was a
word which referred to Bible-believing Christianity. Though the term
"Evangelical," like Fundamentalism, has never had an
established definition, as a rule it had traditionally described Protestants
who were stridently anti-Roman Catholic and who
preached the new birth. For the most part, the Evangelicals of Europe and
North America a generation ago were stalwart soldiers
for Christ.
Some trace the term "Evangelical" to the English revivals of the Wesleys and
Whitefield. Others trace it back further to the
earliest days of the Protestant Reformation. In either case, we can see that
Evangelicalism of old was dogmatic and militant. It
was old fashioned Protestanism. Luther was excommunicated by the Pope; John
Wesley was barred from Anglican churches.
Anyone familiar with the old Lutheran and Methodist creeds can understand
why this was the case. Those men, though we
Baptists don't see eye to eye with them on many important points, definitely
stood militantly for what they believed to be the truth.
Not only did these Evangelical Protestants define what they believed the
Bible taught, but they defined it in contradiction to error.
This is exactly what the New Evangelical refuses to do.
Consider examples of this from the Methodist Articles of Religion:
"Transubstantiation, or the change of the substance of bread and wine
in the Supper of our Lord, cannot be proved
by Holy Writ, but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture,
overthroweth the nature of the ordinance, and hath
given occasion to many superstitions. ... The Lord's Supper was not by
Christ's ordinance reserved, carried about,
lifted up, or worshiped."
"...the sacrifice of masses in the which it is commonly said that the
priest doth offer Christ for the quick and the
dead, to have remission of pain or guilt, is a blasphemous fable, and
dangerous deceit."
David Otis Fuller, speaking of these Evangelical soldiers of bygone days,
said, "Each man possessed the same fierce conviction--
that all truth is absolute, never relative. For these men, truth was never a
nose of wax to be twisted to suit their system of
dialectics or deceptive casuistry. Two times two made four. In mathematics,
their supreme authority was the multiplication table;
in theology, their absolute authority was the Bible" (D.O. Fuller, Preface,
Valiant for the Truth, New York: McGraw-Hill Book
Company, 1961, pp. ix,x).
Baptist C.H. Spurgeon is another example of what "Evangelical" meant in
generations past. Charles Haddon Spurgeon's ministry
was characterized by faithfulness to the truth, holiness of life, a pure
gospel of grace, and unhesitating exposure of error. Though
slandered, hated, and misunderstood, Spurgeon did not draw back from
separating from the Baptist Union of Britain because of
the false doctrine which was being countenanced. He also stood
unhesitatingly against Roman Catholicism. Consider this excerpt
from one of Spurgeon's sermons:
"It is impossible but that the Church of Rome must spread, when we who
are the watchdogs of the fold are silent,
and others are gently and smoothly turfing the road, and making it as
soft and smooth as possible, that converts may
travel down to the nethermost hell of Popery. We want John Knox back
again. Do not talk to me of mild and gentle
men, of soft manners and squeamish words, we want the fiery Knox, and
even though his vehemence should `ding
our pulpits into blads,' it were well if he did but rouse our hearts to
action" (Sermons, Vol. 10, pgs. 322-3).
When was the last time you read something like that in Christianity Today!
Old Spurgeon hit the nail on the head. Sadly, today's Evangelicalism is
indeed in the business of turfing the road of Romanism to
make it smooth for those traveling thereon to Hell.
Many other examples could be given to show that Evangelicalism of past
generations involved contending for the faith. Evangelical
warriors of a bygone age did not fail to label Rome "that old harlot, drunk
with the blood of the martyrs" and would have
considered it unthinkable to have fellowship with Romanism or Modernism or
with any other form of apostasy.
THE NEW EVANGELICALISM
It was at this point that there came yet another division--that of New
Evangelicalism. When godly men began to separate
completely from Modernism and to refuse to have anything to do with those
churches and institutions which were protecting the
Modernists, there were many who claimed to be Evangelical Bible believers
yet did not agree with the principle of separation.
Until that time the term "Evangelical" generally referred to those who
preached the necessity of the new birth through faith in the
Blood of Jesus Christ and who stood firmly for the pure doctrine of the
Scriptures. Evangelical had referred, in other words, to
obedient, Bible-believing Christians. Now there arose those who claimed the
title "Evangelical" but who refused to obey some of
the teachings of Scripture. These began to be called "New Evangelical."
Sadly, therefore, Evangelicalism is no longer a term for the stalwart
defense of the Word of God. A generation of Evangelicals has
arisen that, though rich in all manner of worldly benefits, has abandoned
the spiritual zeal of their forefathers. Blindly following
their compromised leaders, Evangelicals of this generation have removed the
landmarks and knocked down the fences which were
carefully set up by their wise forebears. With the rise to prominence of
Billy Graham, another kind of Evangelicalism emerged.
The term "New Evangelicalism" was coined by the late Harold Ockenga to
define a new type of Evangelicalism and to distinguish
it from those who had heretofore bore that label. Ockenga has had a
phenomenal influence upon today's Evangelicalism. He was
the founder of the National Association of Evangelicals, co-founder and
one-time president of Fuller Theological Seminary, first
president of the World Evangelical Fellowship, a director of the Billy
Graham Evangelistic Association, and chairman of the board
and one-time editor of Christianity Today. In the foreword to Dr. Harold
Lindsell's book The Battle for the Bible, Ockenga
stated the position of New Evangelicalism:
"Neo-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. The ringing call for a repudiation
of separatism and the summons to social
involvement received a hearty response from many Evangelicals. -- 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."
Ockenga and the new generation of Evangelicals, Billy Graham figuring most
prominently, determined to abandon a militant Bible
stance.
Ockenga contended that Evangelicals should practice infiltration rather than
separation, meaning they should stay in the apostate
denominations and organizations and try to change them from within rather
than separate from them and serve God in pure
churches and organizations. He contended that Evangelicals should practice
dialogue rather than exhortation, that they should not
be negative in their message by rebuking and warning false teachers
publicly, but should attempt to change the false teachers
through dialogue. He taught that Evangelicals should reexamine their idea of
worldliness and not be as strict about separating from
worldly evils as Bible-believing Christians had been in earlier days.
Ockenga decided that Evangelicals should consider the possibility that
modern science was right in some areas where it disagreed
with the Bible.
The prime example of this was in the origin of the world. Ockenga did not
think Christians should so easily ignore the teaching of
evolution as separatists were accustomed to do. He taught that there could
be a synthesis between modern science and the Bible,
and it is this New Evangelical principle that led to such strange ideas as
theistic evolution.
Ockenga also believed that Christians should aim to meet Modernists and the
men of the world on their own scholastic level and
therefore contended that Christian leaders should be as well educated in the
social sciences and liberal arts as unregenerate
scholars and as well-versed in Bible criticism as the Modernists. The idea
was that the Christian leader should seek to influence
men through human wisdom and scholarship rather than purely though the power
of the Holy Spirit and the preaching of the Word
of God as we see in the ministries of the Apostles.
God says, "Walk ye in the old paths," but the New Evangelical reassesses the
old paths. God says, "Remove not the ancient
landmarks which thy fathers have set" but the New Evangelical has removed
them one by one. God says, "Have no fellowship
with the unfruitful works of darkness," but the New Evangelical reasons that
such fellowship is necessary. God says, "A little
leaven leaventh the whole lump," but the New Evangelical thinks he can
reform the already leavened lump. God says "evil
communications corrupt good manners," but the New Evangelical thinks good
manners can uplift evil communications. God says,
"I resist the proud but give grace to the humble," but the New Evangelical
thinks the way to reach the world is by meeting them on
their own proud territory, matching them scholarly degree with degree.
The result of this new thinking has been dramatic. Within a mere fifty
years, Evangelicalism has lost all semblance of its past
purity, power, and glory. New Evangelicalism is blind and naked, but is not
aware of it. In fact, New Evangelicalism glories in its
new-found acceptance by the world and apostate Christendom, its vast
material wealth, its satellites and transmitters, its
worldwide television and radio networks, its vast publishing enterprises,
its massive conferences.
It is God who has commanded that His people separate from error and from
those who teach and practice it; it is God who has
commanded that His people "earnestly contend for the faith once delivered to
the saints." And when these and other aspects of
old-time Evangelicalism were rejected, the power and blessing of God was
removed just as it was from Samson of old when he
broke his Nazarite vow.
Even key Evangelical leaders have noted the spiritual decline of their
movement. Harold Lindsell, former editor of Christianity
Today, made this amazing statement at the 27th annual conention of the
National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) in Apr. 1969:
"Evangelical Christianity is in spiritual jeopardy right now. Complacent,
affluent, self-satisfied, we are lacking of great spiritual
dynamic" (D.A. Waite, What's Wrong with the N.A.E. - 1969?). By 1985,
Lindsell had become even more forceful about the
decline of Evangelicalism: "Evangelicalism today is in a sad state of
disarray. ... It is clear that Evangelicalism is now broader and
shallower, and is becoming more so. Evangelicalism's children are in the
process of forsaking the faith of their fathers" (Christian
News, Dec. 2, 1985).
At the 1976 convention of the NAE in Washington D.C., Francis Schaeffer
spoke on "The Watershed of the Evangelical World,"
which is the perfect inspiration of Holy Scripture. Schaeffer observed:
"What is the use of Evangelicalism seeming to get larger
and larger in number if significant numbers of those under the name of
`Evangelical' no longer hold to that which makes
Evangelicalism evangelical?" (D.A. Waite, What's Wrong with the N.A.E. -
1976?).
The Evangelical world has ignored the concerns of those who have lifted a
voice of warning.
New Evangelical thought has been adopted by such well-known Christian
leaders as Billy Graham, Bill Bright, Harold Lindsell,
John R.W. Stott, Luis Palau, E.V. Hill, Leighton Ford, Charles Stanley, Bill
Hybels, Warren Wiersbe, Chuck Colson, Donald
McGavran, Tony Campolo, Arthur Glasser, D. James Kennedy, David Hocking,
Charles Swindoll, and a multitude of other men.
Through publications such as Christianity Today and Moody Monthly, and
through publishing houses such as InterVarsity Press,
Zondervan, Tyndale House Publishers, Moody Press, and Thomas Nelson--to name
but a few--New Evangelical thinking was
broadcast across the world. In addition to the powerful influence of the
printed page, compromised New Evangelical teaching was
promoted by institutions such as Fuller Theological Seminary, Moody Bible
Institute, Wheaton College, BIOLA, the Lausanne
Conference for World Evangelism (LCWE), the National Association of
Evangelicals, the World Evangelical Fellowship, National
Religious Broadcasters, Radio Bible Class, Youth for Christ, Back to the
Bible, Campus Crusade for Christ, Inter-Varsity
Christian Fellowship, World Vision, Operation Mobilization, and the Billy
Graham Evangelistic Association. There have also been
countless conferences which have been organized with the main purpose of
promoting New Evangelical thought. Two of the
largest and most influential were Amsterdam '83 and Amsterdam '86 which were
sponsored by Billy Graham Ministries and were
attended by thousands of preachers from across the world.
Because of the tremendous influence of these men and organizations, New
Evangelical thought has swept the world. Today it is
no exaggeration to say that almost without exception those who call
themselves Evangelicals are New Evangelicals; the terms
have become synonymous. Old-line Evangelicals, except for rare exceptions,
have either aligned with the Fundamental movement
or have adopted New Evangelicalism.
Independent Baptists have historically been separatists and have therefore
identified with Fundamentalism--though most
Fundamental Baptists reject the interdenominationalism and nonchalantness
toward ecclesiology of the Fundamentalist movement
as a whole. Today, sadly, there is growing sympathy on the part of many
supposed Fundamental Baptists with New
Evangelicalism.
Beware of New Evangelicalism. To join hands with New Evangelicalism is to
join hands with apostasy and is to turn one's back on
biblical Christianity.
FUNDAMENTALISM, MODERNISM, AND NEW-EVANGELICALISM
PART III
By David W. Cloud
January 20, 1997 (Fundamental Baptist News Service, 1701 Harns Rd., Oak
Harbor, WA 98277) - The following is part three of a
three-part article entitled "Fundamentalism, Modernism, and New
Evangelicalism," by David W. Cloud, copyright 1995 --
NEW EVANGELICALISM: ITS HEART
In the previous section we traced the history of New Evangelicalism and gave
the classic, historic definition thereof. In this section
I want to detail what I believe to be the very heart and soul of New
Evangelicalism.
I want to give a practical definition of New Evangelicalism which can be
understood and used by the members of independent
Baptist and other Fundamental, Bible-believing congregations.
PRACTICAL EXPERIENCE
The following definition comes from many years of dealing with and studying
New Evangelicalism. When we arrived in South
Asia in 1979 to begin our missionary work, I was very ignorant of the nature
of New Evangelicalism.
Little did I know that I was soon to have a crash course in the subject. In
my ignorance and inexperience, I was under the
impression that New Evangelicalism was merely a United States phenomenon and
that believers in other parts of the world,
though they might be aligned with New Evangelical type organizations, would
not necessarily be infected with compromise and
error. How wrong I was!
During our first year in Nepal, I was invited by the national Campus Crusade
for Christ people to preach at an underground
evangelistic meeting, which I did. (Gospel work was illegal at that time in
Nepal.) Using the book of Romans as an outline, I
preached the Gospel, beginning with man's sin and God's holiness and
judgment, and ending with God's love and grace through
Jesus Christ. I started where Paul started and ended where he ended. After
the service, the leaders took me aside and told me
that my preaching was "too negative." This was to be expected, I suppose,
considering the fact that Campus Crusade's Four
Spiritual Laws starts on a positive note with "God loves you and has a
wonderful plan for your life." This was the first time, though,
I had direct dealings with those who had consciously rejected the negatives
of biblical Christianity and who strived always to put a
positive spin on everything, and I was shocked at their blatant disregard
for Scripture. We discussed the fact that the Apostles
approached men in a very negative manner, dealing first with man's sin and
God's holiness before speaking of God's love and
mercy, but they were unmoved in their philosophy that it is "too negative"
to preach like this today. Nothing I could show them
from the Word of God seemed to have any impact whatsoever upon them.
After a few months I was invited by the leaders of the Nepal Christian
Fellowship (the head of which, at that time, was also the
head of Campus Crusade for Christ in Nepal) to speak at some home Bible
studies. I chose the topic of biblical separation, and it
turned out to be a hot item!
Knowing that the Jesuits had a strong foothold in that area and that some of
the non-Catholic believers had close fellowship with
them, I detailed the apostasy of Roman Catholicism and explained what the
Bible says about separation from error. The response
was quick and severe! When I closed my Bible, a female missionary who was
working with an ecumenical organization called
United Mission to Nepal and who taught in a girl's school, stood and loudly
proclaimed, "You're not going to tell me I can't
fellowship with my Roman Catholic friends! I attend mass with them and they
attend church with me and I don't see anything
wrong with it!" Though I was scheduled to teach at a series of Bible
studies, that first one became my last.
After this I was invited by the same Fellowship to speak to a group of
Nepali pastors. I was told that they had no Bible education
and needed any help I could give them. They came to the capitol city from
various parts of Nepal for these meetings, and I
decided to use the book of Titus as an outline, dealing with some of the
practical matters of church life. It seemed to be an ideal
place to start. Titus was instructed by the Apostle in how to "set in order
the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every
city" (Titus 1:5). This was precisely what was needed in Nepal. There were a
number of small, struggling house churches which
did not have proper organization or instruction. I started where Paul
started in chapter one, with God's standards for church
leaders and with how to deal with heretics (verses 6-16). My "negative"
preaching proved, once again, to be a hot topic!
One of the men who had attended the meeting was from eastern Nepal, and was
considered the chief pastor among a number of
house churches scattered across that entire region. He was one of the most
enthusiastic in telling me that my teaching was just
wonderful. After each session he would approach me and shake my hand
cheerfully and tell me what a help these meetings were
to him. I was encouraged. My ministry was appreciated! My gifts were
recognized! I was getting through!
How deceived I was! I soon learned that this man, this very man, was living
in total disobedience to the things we were looking at
from God's Word. He had three wives. Not two, but three! He was living with
the youngest one (what a coincidence, huh?) at his
main church compound in a town near the Indian border, and the two older
wives were living with their children on two other
farms he owned in that region. He visited them from time to time.
He also, I learned, had a poor testimony in regard to certain matters having
to do with money and properties.
When I confronted him with this matter and warned him that he was not
qualified to be a pastor, he was very discouraged. The
next session he stood and addressed the group of men, detailing a vision he
had from God, supposedly, in which God commanded
him to "preach to my sheep." I explained that he could preach and serve the
Lord in certain ways, but that he was not qualified to
be a pastor and that God would not contradict His Word by a vision. He
refused to listen, and the Campus Crusade leader and
others encouraged the man NOT to quit the pastorate! They stayed up with him
much of that night speaking to him and
encouraging him NOT to obey the clear teaching of the Word of God.
I was not again invited to speak at Evangelical meetings in Nepal. I had
only been there a year or so and already my career as a
popular ecumenical speaker was finished. Praise the Lord for His mercy and
kindness to an ignorant young missionary! I learned
that if you stand strictly upon the Word of God you will be "too negative"
for the New Evangelical crowd.
A REPUDIATION OF THE NEGATIVE ASPECTS OF BIBLICAL CHRISTIANITY
Since that time I have studied New Evangelicalism intensely. I learned that
it is the predominant form of Christianity today apart
from Romanism, Modernism, and the Cults, and I have wanted to understand it.
I have found that the heart of New Evangelicalism is this: It is a
repudiation of the negative aspects of biblical Christianity.
This is what confuses so many people. They hear a Chuck Colson or a Chuck
Swindoll or a Billy Graham or a Luis Palau or a
Jack Van Impe, and they proclaim, "Everything he said was good; I didn't
hear anything unscriptural." That is often correct. The
chief problem with New Evangelicalism is not so much what it preaches that
is wrong but what it refuses to preach that is right!
The New Evangelical will NOT preach plainly against sin. He will NOT
practice separation. He will NOT identify and expose
false teachers. He has repudiated this type of negativism, in spite of the
fact that it is plainly a part of the whole counsel of God.
Consider some examples of this. We will begin with statements by Billy
Graham, one of the fathers of New Evangelicalism:
"I am far more tolerant of other kinds of Christians than I once was. My
contact with Catholic, Lutheran and other leaders--people
far removed from my own Southern Baptist tradition--has helped me,
hopefully, to move in the right direction" (Billy Graham, "I
Can't Play God Any More," McCall's magazine, Jan. 1978).
Note the word "tolerant." This is a keynote of New Evangelicalism. My
friends, it is utterly impossible to be tolerant in the sense
that Graham is speaking and be faithful to the Word of God. God is not
tolerant of sin or error. How can His preachers think they
can be tolerant of such and be pleasing to Him? It is confusion.
"Q. In your book you speak of `false prophets.' You say it is the
`full- time effort of many intellectuals to circumvent
God's plan' and you make a quotation from Paul Tillich. Do you consider
Paul Tillich a false prophet?"
"A. I have made it a practice not to pass judgment on other clergymen."
"Q. Do you think that churches such as The United Church of Canada and
the great liberal churches of the United
States that are active in the ecumenical movement ... are `apostate'?"
"A. I could not possibly pass this type of judgment on individual
churches and clergymen within The United Church
of Canada ... Our Evangelistic Association is not concerned to pass
judgment--favorable or adverse--on any
particular denomination" ("Billy Graham Answers 26 Provocative
Questions," United Church Observer, July 1,
1966).
In this interview we note another standard New Evangelical characteristic.
The New Evangelical will warn of false teaching in a
very general sense, but he refuses to identify false teachers plainly. The
New Evangelical's hearers therefore are not protected in
any specific manner from error. They are not told exactly what the error is
or who teaches it. Further, the New Evangelical will
fellowship with and quote false teachers indiscriminately and thereby send
signals that the false teachers are genuine brethren in
Christ.
"Quite frankly, my Brother, I wish some of the brethren would take off
their boxing gloves and pick up a towel.
Perhaps if people began to wash one another's feet, there might be more
love and unity" (Warren Wiersbe, letter to
D.W. Cloud, May 23, 1986).
I had written to Dr. Wiersbe and asked him why he was associated with
Christianity Today (he was an associate editor at the
time) and other New Evangelical organizations, why he refused to speak
plainly against such things as Romanism and Modernism.
He replied with the above comment. Of course, we do need to remove our
boxing gloves if we are fighting merely for self interest
or for some pet peeve that is not a part of the Word of God, or if we are
striving merely out of a carnal love for quarreling, if we
are merely a problem maker wherever we go. But Wiersbe's advice was given in
the context of contending for the faith, and if
ever there were a day in which God's men need to put on the gloves and
earnestly contend for the faith once delivered to the
saints it is today!
"That's the wrong spirit--AVOID the liberal! I love to be with
liberals, especially if they are willing to be taught,
much more than with hard- boiled Fundamentalists who have all the
answers. ... Evangelicals should seek to build
bridges" (Stephen Olford, cited by Dennis Costella, "Amsterdam '86:
Using Evangelism to Promote Ecumenism,"
Foundation, July-August 1986).
Dennis Costella of the Fundamental Evangelistic Association attended the
Billy Graham Amsterdam '86 conference with press
credentials and heard Stephen Olford speak. Costella noted that Olford
delivered a strong message on the authority of Scripture
and had mentioned the danger of Modernism and had warned the preachers in a
general way to beware of it. Later, when
Costella had opportunity to interview Olford, he asked this question, "You
emphasized in your message the dangers of liberalism
and how it could ruin the evangelist and his ministry. What is this
conference doing to instruct the evangelist as to how to identify
liberalism and the liberal so that upon his return home, he will be able to
avoid the same?" Olford replied with the comment in the
previous paragraph. Again we see the New Evangelical trait of refusing to be
specific about error. They will warn of false
teaching in general but will refuse to deal with false teaching according to
the Word of God. The truth is that the New Evangelical
is far more concerned about Fundamentalism than he is about Modernism or
Romanism or any other form of apostasy.
"At Fuller we are characterized by balance in that we are an
institution of `both-and' rather than `either-or.' We seek
to be both Evangelical and ecumenical ..." (David Allan Hubbard,
President, Fuller Theological Seminary
(Christianity Today, Feb. 3, 1989, p. 71).
What doublespeak! A "both-and" Christianity is as unscriptural as it
possibly can be, yet this is what the New Evangelical strives
for and glories in.
Bill Hybels [pastor of the 12,000-member Willow Creek Community Church near
Chicago] took a survey and found that people
always left church feeling guilty (the Christian message was too negative
with `sin,' etc.). Hybels' solution was to `program our
Sunday morning service to non-believers ... By this means, Hybels hoped the
newcomers would `feel welcome, unthreatened, and
entertained' (The BDM Letter, Oct. 1992).
This is the New Evangelical positive approach at your service. Many New
Evangelicals will not go as far as Hybels does in giving
the unsaved what they want, but the philosophy behind this is definitely New
Evangelical. Hybels is VERY popular in Evangelical
circles.
"I'm not a charismatic. However, I don't feel it's my calling to shoot
great volleys of theological artillery at my
charismatic brothers and sisters. ... More than ever we need
grace-awakened ministers who free rather than bind:
Life beyond the letter of Scripture ... absence of dogmatic
Bible-bashing" (Charles Swindoll, The Grace
Awakening, pp. 188,233).
The dogmatic Bible-bashing so despised by Charles Swindoll is exactly the
ministry of the Word of God exercised and enjoined by
the Apostles.
Consider Peter's message in 2 Peter 2. It would be difficult to use language
harsher or plainer than this to describe false teachers.
A "grace-awakened" minister by Swindoll's definition is one who is tolerant
of error and who emphasizes the positive in every
situation. This is not how Paul acted. In the Pastoral Epistles alone he
identifies false teachers and compromisers 10 times (1 Tim.
1:20; 2 Tim. 1:15; 2:17; 3:8; 4:10,14).
The Apostles were NOT New Evangelicals. Regarding false teachers, they gave
the following instruction: (1) Mark and avoid
them (Rom. 16:17,18). (2) Come out from among them (2 Cor. 6:14-18). (3)
Shun their babblings (2 Tim. 2:16,17). (4) Turn away
from them (2 Tim. 3:5). (5) Reject them (Tit. 3:10). (6) Do not receive them
nor bid them God speed (2 Jn. 10-11).
"LUIS PALAU'S form of worship presents such a broad Christian message
that it appeals to Protestants and
Catholics alike ... [Palau] carefully avoids the controversial
differences between Catholics and Protestants" (The
Arizona Republic, Oct. 31, 1992).
This is a good description of New Evangelicalism. It presents a "broad"
Christian message and carefully avoids controversial
matters. It is interesting that this discerning description is given by the
secular press.
"MALIBU - ... it was a week in which Christianity came with top-notch
food served by waiters, bikini-clad girls,
water skiing, immaculate facilities, games galore, rock music, new
friends, affection and some of the most glorious
scenery in Creation.
"One hundred miles north of Vancouver ... the Malibu Club brings in
about 4,000 teenagers each summer.
"Malibu teaches the teens that Christianity can be a blast.
"'It's just they make God, like, really fun,' said Crystal Primrose,
15, from North Vancouver.
"A casually dressed club director, John McNichol, led the final night's
session in which he asked kids to make a
commitment to Jesus. He told the teens they have doubts about whether
they'd still have fun if they became
Christian and about what their friends might think if they converted.
`But don't worry. God is like the king of fun,'
said McNichol, who earlier in the day dressed up as James Bond for a
comedy skit" (Report on YOUNG LIFE'S
Malabu, The Spectator, Hamilton, Ontario, Sat., Oct. 1, 1994).
Fun Christianity. That is New Evangelicalism. The New Evangelical's God is
not the awesomely holy God of Scripture, the God
who requires repentance, the God who is to be served in "reverence and godly
fear," the God who requires the crucified life; he is
the king of fun. If someone protests that this is not the case, I challenge
that one to observe any New Evangelical youth ministry.
You will quickly see that we know whereof we speak.
"Wagner makes negative assessments about nobody. He has made a career
out of finding what is good in growing
churches, and affirming it without asking many critical questions" (Tim
Stafford, "Testing the Wine from John
Wimber's Vineyard," Christianity Today, August 8, 1986, p. 18).
Fuller Seminary professor C. Peter Wagner is a popular church growth
proponent in Evangelical circles. This description of his
ministry illustrates what we are saying about New Evangelicalism. It has a
conscious goal of being positive, even to the degree of
ignoring or downplaying error.
Thus we see that the foremost trait of New Evangelicalism is its repudiation
of the negative aspects of biblical Christianity. If the
preacher you listen to avoids such things as Hell, Judgment, and Separation;
if he never pointedly identifies apostasy, speaking of
error on in the most general terms; if he studiously avoids being
controversial; if he speaks more of self-esteem than self-denial,
you are probably listening to a New Evangelical preacher.
A MOOD OF NEUTRALISM
Another way of identifying New Evangelicalism is its mood of neutralism.
New Evangelicalism is a philosophy, but it is also a mood. In his discerning
book on Evangelicalism, subtitled The New Neutralism,
John Ashbrook notes: "[New Evangelicalism] might more properly be labeled
The New Neutralism. It seeks neutral ground, being
neither fish nor fowl, neither right nor left, neither for nor against--it
stands between!" (p. 2).
New Evangelicalism can be identified by the following terms: Soft, cautious,
hesitant, tolerant, pragmatic, accommodating, flexible,
non- controversial, non-offensive, non-passionate, non-dogmatic.
Whenever you encounter churches and preachers who are characterized by these
terms, you have encountered New
Evangelicalism.
Contrast Bible Christianity, which is characterized by other terms: Strong,
bold, fearless, dogmatic, plain, intolerant and
unaccommodating (of sin and error), inflexible (in regard to the truth),
controversial, offensive (to those who are disobedient to
God), passionate.
While the battle between Truth and Error rages, New Evangelicalism tries to
sit on the sidelines.
Beware of New Evangelicalism. It is a great error, and to adopt it is to
enter a downward path which often leads to increasing
blindness. Behold Billy Graham, who, in the early days of his ministry
preached against Romanism, Communism, and Modernism,
today sees no great problem with any of these, today calls the pope a great
evangelist and a friend of the saints.
Behold Jack Van Impe, who only two decades ago preached in Fundamental
circles, today holds forth the pope of Rome as a
defender of the faith!
Behold James Robison, who only a few years ago lifted his voice boldly
against apostasy, today thinks the pope is a saved man
and a great example of morality.
"The New Evangelical advocates toleration of error. It is following the
downward path of accommodation to error,
cooperation with error, contamination by error, and ultimate
capitulation to error" (Charles Woodbridge).
"Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners" (1 Cor.
15:33).
"But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more
ungodliness" (2 Tim. 2:16).
"The truth is being lost in our churches, not by those who teach
errors, but by the men who don't care. They sit
indifferently as though they weren't involved, as though they could be
noble gentlemen by being above all such
struggling. They don't realize that all we need to do to lose the truth
is nothing. Then there are those who throw the
dirt of slander at the finest fighters. They'll have to face God for
that" (Christian News, June 22, 1992).
"Those who defend heretics, even if they do not believe in their
teachings, are guilty of lending credibility to their
heresies, and will be held accountable to God for the souls that are
destroyed as a result." --Al Dager
"From the Liberality which says that everybody is right; from the
Charity which forbids to say that anybody is wrong;
from the Peace which is bought at the expense of Truth; may the good
Lord deliver us." --J.C. Ryle
"On all hands we hear cries for unity in this and unity in that; but in
our mind the main need of this age is not
compromise but conscientiousness. `First pure, then peaceable...' It is
easy to cry, `A confederacy,' but that union
that is not based on the truth of God is rather a conspiracy than a
communion. Charity by all means: but honesty also.
Love of course, but love to God as well as love to men, and love of
truth as well as love of union. It is exceedingly
difficult in these times to preserve one's fidelity before God and
one's fraternity among men. Should not the former
be preferred to the latter if both cannot be maintained? We think
so." --C.H. Spurgeon
"To seek unity with false prophets without challenging their errors
leaves one's own beliefs open to questions. Those
who defend heretics, even if they do not believe in their teachings,
are guilty of lending credibility to their heresies,
and will be held accountable to God for the souls that are destroyed as
a result. It's up to those that know the truth to
defend the church against false teachers whatever the cost to unity or
to personal benefit." --Al Dager
Rogier Bos
Hi,
It's just hard to believe
that we follow the same Lord and Savior - I am not sure that we really
do! The Saviour I follow was condemned by the pharisees of his days for
the alliances he had with sinners, and it seems to me that the pharisees
of our day are guilty of making the same accusation.
It's not that there is never
a need for separation, but if you cannot balance the apostolic command
to separate from those in rebellion, with Jesus' heart-cry for unity, how
much have you really understood?
In peace, Rogier
http://www.next-wave.org
NEXT WAVE is a web magazine
for those in Christian leadership about ministry and church in the postmodern
era. Visit this month's issue at http://www.next-wave.org/jan99/
Dave Oldridge
<soulw...@vvm.com> wrote:
[long diatribe deleted]
OK, so we know what you are against, but you've given no clear creed
here so that we can see what you're FOR. I get a sort of underlying
sense that maybe you're one of these "magical bible" people who think
that God literally dictated every word and that it must be read in the
most literal sense possible. Am I wrong?
I mean, if that's the case, it's sort of like the leopard complaining
about the lion's diet.
Dave Oldridge
Sysop, Coastal Watch BBS
telnet://bbs.coastalw.com
ICQ 1800667
dold...@ocean.coastalw.com