Neo-evangelicalism

[HankD]

Can someone define Neo-Evangelicalism (New Evangelicalism) For me.

In my younger days When I was a member of Cornerstone Baptist Church In Cambridge Massachusetts (and later became the assistant pastor), Harold Ockenga was the self proclaimed father of New Evangelicalism. Cornerstone Baptist was KJVO (still is) and a strong Fundamentalist Church.

Anything associated with Ockenga was verboten.

For the benefit of others, New Evangelicalism in my day was considered any movement of fundamental evangelical churches toward ecumenism no matter how slight or any compromise of gospel truth no matter how slight in an attempt to make the gospel and/or the Word of God More palatable to others of not quite so conservative fundamental position and yet retain the "evangelical" label.

Am I all wet?
Has this changed?

Thanks
HankD

 

[TCassidy]

Can someone define Neo-Evangelicalism (New Evangelicalism) For me.

Let's allow Harold Ockenga speak for himself. He did a pretty good describing the Neo-Evangelical movement he started.

“Neo-evangelicalism was born ... 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. The name caught on and spokesmen such as Drs. Harold Lindsell, Carl F.H. Henry, Edward Carnell, and Gleason Archer supported this viewpoint. We had no intention of launching a movement, but found that the emphasis attracted widespread support and exercised great influence. Neo-evangelicalism... different 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. Neo-evangelicals emphasized the restatement of Christian theology in accordance with the need of the times, the reengagement in the theological debate, the recapture of denominational leadership, and the reexamination of theological problems such as the antiquity of man, the universality of the flood, God's method of creation, and others” (Ockenga, foreword to Harold Lindsell’s book The Battle for the Bible).

So, true Neo-Evangelicalism is a repudiation of separation, a move toward the social gospel, and the reexamination of "theological problems" such as the antiquity of man (is Genesis true?), the universality of the flood (was the flood of Noah a myth?), God's method of creation (is evolution true?), and other so-called "problems" in the bible.

 

[HankD]

Let's allow Harold Ockenga speak for himself. He did a pretty good describing the Neo-Evangelical movement he started.

“Neo-evangelicalism was born ... 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. The name caught on and spokesmen such as Drs. Harold Lindsell, Carl F.H. Henry, Edward Carnell, and Gleason Archer supported this viewpoint. We had no intention of launching a movement, but found that the emphasis attracted widespread support and exercised great influence. Neo-evangelicalism... different 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. Neo-evangelicals emphasized the restatement of Christian theology in accordance with the need of the times, the reengagement in the theological debate, the recapture of denominational leadership, and the reexamination of theological problems such as the antiquity of man, the universality of the flood, God's method of creation, and others” (Ockenga, foreword to Harold Lindsell’s book The Battle for the Bible).

So, true Neo-Evangelicalism is a repudiation of separation, a move toward the social gospel, and the reexamination of "theological problems" such as the antiquity of man (is Genesis true?), the universality of the flood (was the flood of Noah a myth?), God's method of creation (is evolution true?), and other so-called "problems" in the bible.

Thanks, Yes, that is what I remember along with the Neo-Evangelical ecumenical dialogue which was an especial anathema (as well it should be) at Cornerstone.

HankD

 

[Yeshua1]

Can someone define Neo-Evangelicalism (New Evangelicalism) For me.

In my younger days When I was a member of Cornerstone Baptist Church In Cambridge Massachusetts (and later became the assistant pastor), Harold Ockenga was the self proclaimed father of New Evangelicalism. Cornerstone Baptist was KJVO (still is) and a strong Fundamentalist Church.

Anything associated with Ockenga was verboten.

For the benefit of others, New Evangelicalism in my day was considered any movement of fundamental evangelical churches toward ecumenism no matter how slight or any compromise of gospel truth no matter how slight in an attempt to make the gospel and/or the Word of God More palatable to others of not quite so conservative fundamental position and yet retain the "evangelical" label.

Am I all wet?
Has this changed?

Thanks
HankD

Think that it was basically Evangelical in theology, but was not into being separated from culture, and was not staying away from current theological viewpoints, so would be those who held to essential Christian doctrines, but also were mixing in with current cultural and theologically threads.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

"It had a new emphasis upon the application of the gospel to the sociological, political, and economic areas of life. Neo-evangelicals emphasized the restatement of Christian theology in accordance with the need of the times, the reengagement in the theological debate, the recapture of denominational leadership, and the reexamination of theological problems such as the antiquity of man, the universality of the flood, God's method of creation, and others” (Ockenga, foreword to Harold Lindsell’s book The Battle for the Bible).

Yep! That's it. Total disaster. That's how the Church got into the mess it's in today.

 

[HankD]

I believe we can have dialogue within the venue of "Christendom" , but under the leadership of fundamental evangelical Christianity, not neo-evangelical leadership and certainly not under the guidance of the Church of Rome.

But of course few would be willing to come.

HankD

 

[John of Japan]

TC's quote of Ockenga was spot on, but I have to give my own definition.

New Evangelicalism (also called Neo-evangelicalism) is the position that opposes both personal and ecclesiastical separation, raises social action to a level equal with the Gospel, and embraces cooperative evangelism (which includes liberals in mass evangelism efforts).

 

[Yeshua1]

TC's quote of Ockenga was spot on, but I have to give my own definition.

New Evangelicalism (also called Neo-evangelicalism) is the position that opposes both personal and ecclesiastical separation, raises social action to a level equal with the Gospel, and embraces cooperative evangelism (which includes liberals in mass evangelism efforts).

I thought that it was mainly those who decided to not separate from other Christians, and who also decided to use at times critical understandings of the scriptures, and consider modern viewpoints regarding bible, salvation etc?

 

[John of Japan]

I thought that it was mainly those who decided to not separate from other Christians, and who also decided to use at times critical understandings of the scriptures, and consider modern viewpoints regarding bible, salvation etc?

First of all, it depends on what you mean by "Christian." If by that you include theological liberals (no virgin birth, no deity of Christ, etc.), then yeah, New Evangelicals decided not to separate from them. Instead, their position is "infiltration," meaning, "If we make nice with liberals, we can win them to Christ." Of course, that never happens.

At any rate, the original fundamentalists did not separate from other evangelicals, but did from liberals. On the other hand, new evangelicals were known to separate from Bible believing fundamentalists. Billy Graham and his father-in-law, L. Nelson Bell (and the whole team, actually) did so, as did the Zondervan brothers and many others in 1957.

The idea that the new evangelicals began considering modern ideas about the Bible, including various types of liberal criticism (higher criticism and the like), that was linked to their desire to make nice with the liberals. It was kind of, "If we show that we respect liberal scholarship, maybe they'll start respecting our scholarship in turn." Once again, never happened.

 

[John of Japan]

Lest anyone doubt my previous two posts about the new evangelicals (Graham & Bell especially) wanting to make nice with the liberals, here is a quote from a Bell letter to John R. Rice on April 16, 1956 (from the John R. Rice Papers, Box 1 Folder 16):

"It is my own personal feeling that Fundamentalism is losing its witness because it, only too often, has degenerated into 'attacking' and 'fighting' individuals and personalities in the name of 'defending the faith'. There has been too little positive presentation of the truth; too much anti-intellectualism; and a tragic lack of Christian love displayed.

"I believe that Billy is on the road to winning a great victory for our Lord by winning many liberals and modernists back to the evangelical faith."

Of course, this was a pipe dream and never happened. On the other hand, Bell himself became very nasty in personal letters when writing against John R. Rice, Bob Jones and others in 1957. So much for Christian love.

 

[Yeshua1]

Lest anyone doubt my previous two posts about the new evangelicals (Graham & Bell especially) wanting to make nice with the liberals, here is a quote from a Bell letter to John R. Rice on April 16, 1956 (from the John R. Rice Papers, Box 1 Folder 16):

"It is my own personal feeling that Fundamentalism is losing its witness because it, only too often, has degenerated into 'attacking' and 'fighting' individuals and personalities in the name of 'defending the faith'. There has been too little positive presentation of the truth; too much anti-intellectualism; and a tragic lack of Christian love displayed.

"I believe that Billy is on the road to winning a great victory for our Lord by winning many liberals and modernists back to the evangelical faith."

Of course, this was a pipe dream and never happened. On the other hand, Bell himself became very nasty in personal letters when writing against John R. Rice, Bob Jones and others in 1957. So much for Christian love.

I respect Dr Graham for staying faithful to Christ and to his wife, but really disliked how he met with and made the church of rome out to be saying same Gospel as he was all of the time...

 

[John of Japan]

I respect Dr Graham for staying faithful to Christ and to his wife, but really disliked how he met with and made the church of rome out to be saying same Gospel as he was all of the time...

Even his fundamentalist critics admit to his faithfulness and his financial purity. But that thing about the Catholics.... Years ago in 1970 none other than Ian Paisey wrote a book about that, Billy Graham and the Church of Rome.

 

[Yeshua1]

Even his fundamentalist critics admit to his faithfulness and his financial purity. But that thing about the Catholics.... Years ago in 1970 none other than Ian Paisey wrote a book about that, Billy Graham and the Church of Rome.

I really wonder what happened to him, for if you watch his crusades/messages from the 50's/60's. he seemed to be thundering like a john the Baptist, and was not bellying up to Rome!

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Speaking of "pipe dreams", I view both Billy Graham and the NEs as attempts to return to a perceived "golden era."

• Billy Graham sought to return to the great pre-WW1 evangelistic meetings of Moody and Company.
• The NEs looked to the days before Presbyterians booted Machen out. When "orthodox" Believers could easily study and teach at the mainline seminaries in good conscience.

 

[HankD]

I really wonder what happened to him, for if you watch his crusades/messages from the 50's/60's. he seemed to be thundering like a john the Baptist, and was not bellying up to Rome!

Underline your words "seemed to".

In those years you mention he was not well liked in the circles I traveled precisely because he sent those who came forward in his crusades back to the Catholic Church if that was their affiliation.

Billy Graham is/was a dilemma to many folks.

HankD

 

[TCassidy]

I praise the Lord for every soul saved through a Billy Graham crusade.

But just preaching the Gospel is only 1/3 of the Great Commission.

BG should have directed those new coverts into bible believing churches where they could be baptized and taught scriptural truth. That is what discipleship is all about!

But BG sent them right back into their spiritually dead denominational churches where they had never even heard the Gospel, and where they will not be discipled.

Let's do a little speculative math. Suppose a person gets saved at a BG crusade and, instead of being directed back to his dead church, he is directed to a bible believing church where he is scripturally baptized, and taught the bible including the Great Commandment and the Great Commission.

Let's say he was 25 years old when he was saved and discipled. For the next 50 years he witnessed for Christ and won on average one soul per year to Christ. In 50 years that is 50 souls.

But the convert sent back to the dead church wins none. So, the BG crusade is 50 souls in the hole already! And if each of those 50 wins 50 that is 2500. And if each of them wins 50 that is 125,000. And if each of those wins 50 that is 6,250,000. And if each of those win 50 it is 312,500,000. But suppose each only wins 10 in 50 years. A half million souls is still a lot of souls.

As the Great Commission is three fold, preach then to Christ, baptize them into a bible believing church, teach them what they need to know.

If BG only does 1/3 of that his grade is 33%

Even if he does 2/3 the grade is only 66%

Those grades are both failing in every school I have ever attended.

To get a grade of 100% and received the "well done thou good and faithful servant" you have to do all 3.

The best way is God's way!

 

[John of Japan]

I really wonder what happened to him, for if you watch his crusades/messages from the 50's/60's. he seemed to be thundering like a john the Baptist, and was not bellying up to Rome!

The following information is from Ian Paisley, Billy Graham and the Church of Rome.

1. In 1957 he was already sending converts back to the Catholics (testimony on p. 20). This practice apparently began as early as 1955 (p. 17).
2. In 1963, the local Catholic bishop stood beside Graham and blessed the converts as they came forward in Sao Paulo, Brazil.
3. In 1967, Graham was given an honorary doctorate from Belmont Abbey College.

I could list a lot more compromises in this area, but this is a start.

 

[HankD]

"When the camel's nose enters the tent, can the rest of the camel be far behind?" - Bedouin Proverb

Beware the Church of Rome.

HankD

 

[John of Japan]

"When the camel's nose enters the tent, can the rest of the camel be far behind?" - Bedouin Proverb

Beware the Church of Rome.

HankD

Yeah, they have a huge nose!

 

[Yeshua1]

I praise the Lord for every soul saved through a Billy Graham crusade.

But just preaching the Gospel is only 1/3 of the Great Commission.

BG should have directed those new coverts into bible believing churches where they could be baptized and taught scriptural truth. That is what discipleship is all about!

But BG sent them right back into their spiritually dead denominational churches where they had never even heard the Gospel, and where they will not be discipled.

Let's do a little speculative math. Suppose a person gets saved at a BG crusade and, instead of being directed back to his dead church, he is directed to a bible believing church where he is scripturally baptized, and taught the bible including the Great Commandment and the Great Commission.

Let's say he was 25 years old when he was saved and discipled. For the next 50 years he witnessed for Christ and won on average one soul per year to Christ. In 50 years that is 50 souls.

But the convert sent back to the dead church wins none. So, the BG crusade is 50 souls in the hole already! And if each of those 50 wins 50 that is 2500. And if each of them wins 50 that is 125,000. And if each of those wins 50 that is 6,250,000. And if each of those win 50 it is 312,500,000. But suppose each only wins 10 in 50 years. A half million souls is still a lot of souls.

As the Great Commission is three fold, preach then to Christ, baptize them into a bible believing church, teach them what they need to know.

If BG only does 1/3 of that his grade is 33%

Even if he does 2/3 the grade is only 66%

Those grades are both failing in every school I have ever attended.

To get a grade of 100% and received the "well done thou good and faithful servant" you have to do all 3.

The best way is God's way!

Another thing that he did was to break down the barriers down south between whites and blacks, as he demanded that there be no ropes separating the two groups at his crusade!@