1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

New Evangelicalism in Perspective

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by Dr. Bob, Aug 14, 2004.

  1. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,487
    Ratings:
    +90
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I've been saved about as long as New (neo) Evangelicalism has been around. But the word (and negative epithets) has been thrown around this forum of late.

    Rather than me spout off from my lecture notes :rolleyes: I am looking for what YOU see as (1) Definition of New Evangelicalism and (2) your Position on New Evangelicalism.

    The floor is open. I will jump in (or on the pile) in time to come, dv.
     
  2. donnA

    donnA New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2000
    Messages:
    23,354
    Ratings:
    +0
    Ah, wish I'd seen this thread first, I just asked in the other one what new evangelical is.
    Sorry
     
  3. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Ratings:
    +0
    "New evangelicalism" describes a mindset or a philosophy that came into being in the mid to late 40s and early 50s. It originally arose because some of "Evangelicalism" (what today are called "Fundamentalism") thought that evangelicalism was too negative and separatistic, too uninvolved in social issues, and too academically unrespected. So a group of evangelicals set out to become a "new kind of evangelical" or a "new evangelical." The dividing line between the evangelicals/fundamentalists and the new evangelicals was essentially their response to false teachinr (or at the very least differing perspectives). While both the evangelicals and new evangelicals professed virtually identical belief in the essential doctrines of Christianity, the evangelicals were willing to expose and separate from false doctrine; the new evangelicals were not (that is simplistic, I know, but you get the general picture). Over the early years, some of the doctrines of new evangelicals began to suffer (most notably the doctrine of Scripture; cf. Fuller Seminary and Black Saturday, Marsden's Reforming Fundamentalism, Lindsell's Battle for the Bible, etc.).

    I am not a new evangelical. I consider myself a historic fundamentalist, in the old style, as much as one can be today. The new evangelicals of yesterday are not considered evangelicals. The evangelicals of yesterday are now called simply fundamentalists (although not all who are called fundamentalists are truly the evangelicals of yesterday).
     
  4. Greg Linscott

    Greg Linscott <img src =/7963.jpg>

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2004
    Messages:
    521
    Ratings:
    +0
    Actually, Dr. Bob, I wouldn't mind seeing your lecture notes... :D Not sure I could afford the extra tuition burden right now, though.

    Spouting off from my college professor Dr. George's (Houghton) lecture notes- but it's good stuff- he identfies it as more of a softening of Fundamentalism, and lists its specific attitudes. Incldued are:
    </font>
    • Disdain toward fundamentalist heritage</font>
    • Optimism about reaching and winning the religious non-conservative.</font>
    • Softer and less precise view of doctrine, emphasizing love over doctrine.</font>
    • A willingness to use the world's methods to reach the unsaved.</font>
    • A lack of personal separation standards.</font>
    • A friendliness toward contemporary scientific views.</font>
    • A willingness to accept charismatic views and/or practices.</font>
    • Tolerance toward various eschatological positions.</font>
    • A reaction against Scofield Bible dispensationalism.</font>
    • An enchantment with contemporary scholarship and intellectualism.</font>
    • A softness toward non-conservative views of the Bible.</font>
    • A stress upon the need for social concern.</font>
    • A desire to cooperate and work with non-evangelicals in religious matters.</font>
     
  5. Bob Colgan

    Bob Colgan New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2004
    Messages:
    136
    Ratings:
    +0
    Greg,
    Sounds like your professor hit it on the head.
    Is this thinking good or bad? It sure is popular in many church's today many popular preachers IMO fall into that
    catogory.ChuckSwindoll/Dallas Seminary, Charles Coloson, Rick Warren/Willow Creek, Billy Graham ect...


    Bob C
     
  6. WallyGator

    WallyGator New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2003
    Messages:
    4,180
    Ratings:
    +0
    Greg,
    Thanks for the refresher statement. Need to be reminded from time to time.
    WallyGator [​IMG]
     
  7. Matt Black

    Matt Black Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    9,147
    Ratings:
    +2
    Following your paragraphs, which weren't numbered by you but will be by me because I'm dim that way ;) , here's my $.02 on whether I agree or disagree with the stated stance:-

    1.Disagree
    2.Hmmm...
    3.Disagree
    4.Agree with reservations
    5.Up to a point
    6.Disagree
    7.Agree provided not abused
    8.Agree
    9.Agree
    10.Disagree
    11.Disagree
    12.Agree
    13.Disagree

    Yours in Christ

    Matt
     
  8. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,487
    Ratings:
    +90
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Matt - you can disagree but these ARE pretty much agreed upon characteristics of a New (neo) Evangelical.

    Now if YOU don't agree with them, it's good indication that YOU are NOT a neo.

    But I've heard things about you . . . :eek: :eek:
     
  9. Hal Parker

    Hal Parker New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2001
    Messages:
    126
    Ratings:
    +0
    Is there any group or individual today that claims to be "neo-evengelical"?

    If there isn't. Then the term is worthless.

    The only way that I have heard the term used is as a dirty name to call someone who draws a different line concerning standards.
     
  10. StefanM

    StefanM Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    7,024
    Ratings:
    +408
    If one were to use a pejorative against me, I'd take neo-evangelical over liberal any day!!
     
  11. aefting

    aefting New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2002
    Messages:
    874
    Ratings:
    +0
    New (or neo) evangelicals actually coined the term themselves to distinguish themselves from fundamentalism.


    Andy
     
  12. Matt Black

    Matt Black Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    9,147
    Ratings:
    +2
    What I meant was whether I agreed with the doctrinal statements, not whether I thought they were indicative of neo-evangelicalism. What you heard may be true after all... :eek: ("Run, Forrest, run") :D

    Yours in Christ

    Matt
     
  13. Siegfried

    Siegfried Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    689
    Ratings:
    +0
    I'm not following how tolerance towards various eschatological positions and a reaction against Scofield Bible dispensationalism is are bad things.

    Did historic fundamentalists not tolerate a great deal of eschatological diversity?
    Did not the original Scofield Bible not teach different methods of salvation in the OT and the NT? I thought revising the classical dispensationalism of Chafer, Scofield et al was one of the reasons for Ryrie's Dispensationalism Today/Dispensationalism (revised edition of DT).
     
  14. Hal Parker

    Hal Parker New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2001
    Messages:
    126
    Ratings:
    +0
    Andy wrote:
    "New(or neo) evangelicals actually coined the term themselves to distinguish themselves from fundamentalism."

    That is true. But, do they call themselves neoevangelicals today. If no group claims to be neoevangelical, then we should drop the term.
     
  15. PackerBacker

    PackerBacker New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2001
    Messages:
    253
    Ratings:
    +0
    How many of these attitudes must one display to not be a Fundamentalist?
     
  16. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,487
    Ratings:
    +90
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Agreed. 99% now use the term "Evangelical" to describe themselves; they are no longer (50+ years later) "new"

    They have for all intent and purpose replaced the OLD evangelicalism completely.

    p.s. Very few WANT to be called "fundamentalist"
     
  17. StefanM

    StefanM Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    7,024
    Ratings:
    +408
    How true!
     
  18. aefting

    aefting New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2002
    Messages:
    874
    Ratings:
    +0
    How true!</font>[/QUOTE]I disagree. Just look at the passion involved in these fundamentalist threads. People know deep in their hearts that "fundamentalist" in an honorable term. They want to be fundamentalists -- they just don't like how the term has been hijacked or redefined by others.

    Andy
     
  19. StefanM

    StefanM Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    7,024
    Ratings:
    +408
    How true!</font>[/QUOTE]I disagree. Just look at the passion involved in these fundamentalist threads. People know deep in their hearts that "fundamentalist" in an honorable term. They want to be fundamentalists -- they just don't like how the term has been hijacked or redefined by others.

    Andy
    </font>[/QUOTE]I think that BB has a disproportionately high number of IFBs, so the threads on the board don't really determine mainstream thought.

    Personally, I do not want to be called fundamentalist. I'll accept evangelical or conservative but not fundamentalist. The connotations of terrorism (Islamic fundamentalists), hellfire and brimstone preachers, and a scornful attitude toward education make me RUN, not walk, away from the "fundamentalist" label.
     
Loading...