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.
New Evangelicalism in Perspective
Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by Dr. Bob, Aug 14, 2004.
-
-
Ah, wish I'd seen this thread first, I just asked in the other one what new evangelical is.
Sorry -
"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). -
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>
-
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 -
Greg,
Thanks for the refresher statement. Need to be reminded from time to time.
WallyGator -
Matt Black Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
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 -
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: -
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. -
If one were to use a pejorative against me, I'd take neo-evangelical over liberal any day!!
-
Andy -
Matt Black Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Yours in Christ
Matt -
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). -
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. -
-
They have for all intent and purpose replaced the OLD evangelicalism completely.
p.s. Very few WANT to be called "fundamentalist" -
-
Andy -
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.