BJU and the NAE

I love this history stuff!

If we are splitting hairs like this with BJU and the Jones, remember that Riley's life legacy was one of attempting reformation from within rather than separation (even though I believe he expressed regret for his inaction later in life).

Many of Fundamentalism's leaders had ties to both sides during the birthing of the "New Evangelicalism." David Otis Fuller, leader in the GARBC and pastor of Wealthy Street Baptist Church in Grand Rapids, Michigan- without argument historically fundamental separatist BAPTIST organizations- attended Princeton Seminary, had J. Gresham Machen in his wedding, and held Sunday School contests with M.R. Dehaan's Calvary Church. Fuller was a long-time member of the Board of Directors at Wheaton College, before he finally left- not over New Evangelicalism's infiltration, but over their adoption of modern versions (not trying to open a can of worms there- leave it for the Version Threads).

 

Jones Jr was at one time a vice president of the NAE and John R Rice was also involved. They tried to steer the NAE is a good direction but ultimately lost the battle and withdrew. There is no question about whether BJU would have been the first neo-evangelical school. It most assuredly would not have. Jones Jr along with some others tried to shape the NAE towards a more orthodox, separatist position.

One of the faults of the NAE was that there was no "enforcement" method for their doctrine. All you had to do was sign the statement to be a member. They could not kick you out if you really didn't believe the doctrine. As a result the usefulness of the NAE was short lived.

 

Andy,

That is really neat. See your PM...

 

If my memory serves me, the term "new-evangelical" was not coined until Carl F.H. Henry used it and defined it. I think he did that in an article in 1956. Prior to that, the National Association of Evangelicals COULD NOT have been "new evangelical" because there was no such thing! Therefore, BJU's membership in the NAE in the fifties does not mean that they were "new-evangelical" nor "new-e" sympathizers.

All fundamentalists struggled with how far to go before separating from first, liberals, and second, new-evangelicals. Different fundamentalists separated at different times and for different incidents. The fact that they did separate is what, at least in part, marks them as fundamentalists.

 

Marsden (Reforming Fundamentalism) attributes the term to Ockenga, who coined it in the 50s. He was the president of Fuller at that time.

What is interesting is that they coined it about themselves. They declared that they wanted to be a "new kind of evangelical." It was an acknowledgement that the fundamentalists were the original evangelicals, and they wanted to be a new kind of evangelical to distinguish themselves from the old kind.

The NAE started in 1942 and teh battles that the Jones' and Rice and other fought over separatism was in that era. Jones, Jr was very active in it in the 40s and was one of hte two vice-presidents in 1950. Sometime in the early 50s, they withdrew over the separatism issue.

 

We sometimes forget it was originally the self-proclaimed New Evangelicals who distanced themselves from Fundamentalism, not the other way around. History shows that it was not the parting was not over doctrinal matters, but methodological ideology. I was just reading a quote from Edward Carnell, one of the early leaders of the New Evangelical movement and prof. at Fuller. He refers to fundamentalism as "cultic orthodoxy," with disdain for those who separate over matters of truth.

While the focus of this thread began with BJU, also note that men like Bob Ketcham of the GARBC also had early ties with some of the same people. McIntire and the ACCC have been mentioned- as I understand, the GARB men were not always comfortable with him either.

There is a good article called "The Evangelical Drift" here (http://www.faith.edu/seminary/faithpulpit/1987/december1987.htm) that contrasts some of the tendencies of the New Evangelicalism with Historic Fundamentalsim. Although it is a few years old (1987), the words still ring true today.

 

Again, history documents that it was the self-proclaimed "New Evangelicals" that disdained the Fundamentalist moniker. While my generation of Fundamentalists are drifting from our roots, this is not a generally positive thing, IMHO. We should seek to discover the truth through careful study, but we should not be so quick to reject the application of personal holiness in living, for example. Corruption can be so insipid, but it is a real threat that we must be on guard against. We must have balanced ministries, but within that balance of ministry to the saints and evangelizing the lost we must not leave out the also important mandate to earnestly contend for the faith.