The Ohio Independent Baptist, February 1964

The background of the new Evangelical Movement A. Its Na,ne Thi heading will deal with WHEN thi movement began (The DATE) and WHY this movement began (The DISSATISFACTION). In an article entitled, "W/1at's lvrong with New-Evangelicalism," by Robert Lightner, he pointed out that the phrase "New-Evangelicalism" was coined first by Dr. Harold John Ockenga in 1948 at a convocation addres at Fuller Theological Semin– ary. Mr. Lightner went on ·to say: "New-Evangelicalism is an out– growth from Fundamentali m ince it leaders are former Fundamental– i~t who become dissatisfied. , Dr. Harold John Ockenga in an article entitled, "The New Evangeli– calist11" a.ppearing in the Park Street Spire, February, 1958 page 4 and 5 said: ' 'The ew-Evangelicali m break with three movements. 1. Neo-Ortho– dox. 2. Modernism. 3. Fundamental– ism." The rea on for the break with Fundamentalism was that he charged the Fundamentalis,t with not applying Bible doctrine to the social scene. Mr. Robert Lightner in his book, "N ew-Evangelicalis,n'' stated on p. 15: "It must be clearly understood that the real issue is not the name one chooses, but the determinative be– liefs and valid implication which that name conveys. This is not to say that a name is not important. ames are important. What it does reveal is the importance and need for clarification of what 011e believes." B. Sonze of the leadi11g lights of this 111ovenzent. 1. Dr. Harold John Ockenga - Founding Father - Pa tor of the Jlark Street hurch, Boston, Ma . 2. Dr. dward John arnell J>ast pre5ident and present profe or at uller Theological Seminary. 3. Dr. arl . Henry - Profes~or at Fuller heological eminary and ~itor of hristianity 1"oday. 4. Dr. Verno11 Grounds dent of tl1e Denver Bapti t cal .. e111inary. Presi– heologi- 5. 1)1 Billy 1rahan1 - Evangelist a11d l~a(ling pokes111an of tl1c New J.~,,angelicril . We 111ust ever rcn1e111bcr as it l1as lleer1 JJOi11ted ot1l, that tl1c JJrese11t Jeader of c:,w l~va11gelicalis111 as 11 tee) al)ove were estab]i l1cd i11 tl1e tt1e log,, of "L111da111ent1t1li 111 , l)ttl 1J1eir di ciJ)lf.; nd stt1cle11t are 1101. 11e of tl1 greate t da11g r of w J var1geJicali 111 i tl1at th!> ne ~l gener- TH OHIO INDEP NDENT BAPTIST ation of them will go beyond the point of no return. C. So111e of tl1e prese11t da)' reactio11 to tl1is 111ove1nent. No Chri tian can afford to take the ostrich approach toward the New Evangelicalism. It must be faced realistically, ,tudied, evaluated and re– futed where necessary. Dr. G. C. Berkower has stated the problem that face the Christian worker. He said: "The average pa tor has too busy a chedule and too limited leisure to keep up with the theological evolu– tion these day . I there not a danger that the ,certaintie of 1he simple Go pel which we preach on Sunday may be undetermined and even de- troyed by the complications of modern theology? Some Reaction Let us take the ,time to look at some reaction to thi New Evangeli– cal movement. l Dr. Charles Woodbridge said thi about it at Bob Jones Univer iity: "Neo-Ev,angelicalism is the worst menace that has confronted the church since the time of Luther." 2. Dr. Bob Jone , Jr. said: '. . . New-Evaingelicalism as a movement is the most subtle, the most persuasive, and the mo t influential in bringing Bible believers into com– promise." 3. Dr. Earnest Pickering said: "Perhaps we are living in a day when the false .friend of the go pel are more dangerous th·an it open enemie ... the New Evangelicali m i cohering into a definite theological movemen,t. It already can lay claim to it own leader , it own chool , and it magazine . It ha become a force which cannot be ignored in Prote tanti m today. " 4. Dr. Edward J. Young of Wet– mini ter Theological Seminary aid in an article in the Presb) 1 teria11 G i1t1rtl- 1an (May-July 1959). ' 'Jt i~ when we con1c to the qt1c ,_ t1on of attitude ·, that ,thi , writer be– lieve\ tl1e New va11gcl1cal1\111 to be weak. For one thing it leaders ftre outspok.c11 oppone11ts of the lcon1c OLttCr\' group ... tho c who left tl1c organ11ation k.nown a tl1e Uniteel J>re 'lJy tcr1ar1 ( 'hurch 111 the "A ditl so, 11ot bccaL1~c they we, c c1>aratist -– ,ll he,u·t, but bccau e tl1ey Jcc1)l)' be– licvetl i11 tl1c t111it) 1 <>f the ti tie cl1t11 <.11 ancl were cc>11cernccl for tl1c ,l>L111t) of it s doctri11t;. Witl1 tl1is il llitt1clt; to– ~'ard tJ1e cl1t1rcl1 tl1c C\.\' l:., 1 ,111gclical– is111 l1a. littl or 110 S) 1 111patll)'. 111- cle LI, it \.V t1J1tl r ta11ll it ·irigl1t , it sc 111 Jitllf.; 11c r11 li a ll 11 ,v 111a11 obeys his ordination vows . . . Per– haps it is not incorrect to 5ay that the New Ev·angelicali m would like to build up the church without any re– ference to the church. It stresses ~vangelism and does not always <;how itself discriminate with respect to tho e whom it invites to upport it. It tres es scholarship and education . In fact, it stre se just everything ex– cept the all-important doctrine of the church, . and the need for vigorous contending for the faith. . . I ,then the New Evangelic·ali m the answer to the present day ituation? For our part we ay emphatically, No! Here is a temporary ,phenomenon, and the sooner it passes, the better for the church... There i much in Funda– mentalism that i admirable, and if we were compelled to choo e between FL1ndamentali m and New Evangeli– cali m, we should choo. e Funda– mental wi,thot1t he itation.'' Protest fundamentalism The background for the birth of thi New Evangeliali m movement lie in it di sati faction of Funda– mentali m-while variously expre ed they all ay e entially the ame thing about fundamenitali m. In tead of eeking to correc•t that which they felt was wrong, they in tead eparated from Fundamentali m and have car– ried on a vigorou prote t again t Fund·amentali m. They peak n1uch about its peril , but never abot1t it virtue . New Evangelicali n1 ought to thank. the Lord that omeone tood for the faith in the face of liberal theolog) and unbelief. be fault of Funda- n1entali m are tre ed ot1t of all proportion to 1t fai thft1lnc\ to God and Hi \.\'Ord. The i tie toda\ anll at the Jt1dg111ent eat of Chr1 t \\ 111 neither be. ha Funda111c11tal1 111 or ew Evangel1cali ·n1 111ade ortho<lo \ re pee table? Nor, have "'c corrcctt!J ,111 the ocial 111 \ of the \\ or Id. ['he i~\tte now 1s a11J ,, 1 ill thc11 l1c l1a\ c \\ c been ta1thtt1l to Ll1e \Vl)f(i t>f •L)J? c~l 11011tl1 - t1c beliefs of tl1e •• t..: w 1~, 1 a11gelicals . • * * 1\11 n llc~s task ll l>c tl1 ,vec:kl) ,,asl1. l) irt, gri111t: , 11(1 ~t i11s tt1r11 l1rigl1l 11e,, ·I )tl1es i11t 1 ~ 11 t111- sigl1tl) 11 nJ) a 11 \\ t•k . Ot1r i11s i11 tl1c sigt11 ol ; cl ar lo dirt l111e11. 111 lllJ \ a tll Sf >l )t Slll fill ll I) r111an 11t) re111 , c<l I tl1r ugl1 a - c I ti11g ( l1ri t a, i Llr. IPt ge 5, FIEBRUARY 1964