You are here: Home / Archives for Issues / Fundamentalism
by on 4.10.08

new evangelicalism – course and consequences

I’ve been blogging my old Church History class notes [minus the doodles] for a little while now. The next two sections concern new evangelicalism:

The Course of Neo-Evangelicalism

  1. Sellout of schools: Fuller Theological Seminary and Wheaton College [as examples]
  2. Emergence of honoured leaders:
    Harold Ockenga
    Carl Henry
    Edward Carnell
    Donald Ray Barnhouse
    Vernon Grounds
    Bernard Ramm
    Alan Redpath
  3. Emergence of Propaganda Vehicles
    Christianity Today (an answer to the liberal Christian Century)
    Christian Life
    Eternity

As I think about this section, I must not have fully understood the lecture, or else ‘sellout’ is my term. Fuller was created for the purpose of advancing the neo-evangelical cause. It has always been committed to a course of compromise, whereas Wheaton turned away from a more militant beginning to the position it holds today.

[Read more…]

Filed Under: Church History, Fundamentalism, New Evangelicalism, Separation
by on 4.9.08

what does a neo-evangelical look like?

I am reading a bit from an interesting book called Inspiration and Canonicity of the Bible by R. Laird Harris.

The book is out of print, but if the rest of the book is like the first chapter, I’d say it is well worth having if you can find it. Harris wrote in 1957, although my edition was published in 1969.

Harris writes a lucid style, and his scholarship is excellent. The first chapter is an introduction to his topic. In it he lays out the argument he is confronting, that of attacking the inerrancy of the Scriptures. For the most part he is very strong in his rebuttals (although he concedes too much by being willing to allow for a more than 24 hour day during the creation week). Here is a comment where he emphasizes the need for strong rebuttal of error.

But how about the Church itself? Surely the leaders of our great Protestant denominations have resisted the “acids of modernity,” Unfortunately, it is not so. Painful it is to have to relate how our church leaders have for the most part felt that they could neutralize these acids simply by diluting them slightly. The effort has been not to meet the attack head on but to appease the gathering unbelief at every point and meanwhile to try to salvage some shreds of faith from the general ruin. The result has been a preaching without conviction, a religion without authority, a Christ of human proportions. And in a world sick unto death the Church has turned to the panacea of ecumenicalism to present to the world a united front – united in unbelief. [p. 37]

He sounds almost like a fundamentalist, but, alas, he isn’t one. He is thoroughly a new evangelical as you will see by his brief bio on wikipedia, linked above.

The reason this quote is so striking to me is that it is strong language from a man who took the new evangelical side of the debate in the 1950s. Many of the men who made the wrong choice at that time were fearless preachers of truth in their day.

There is a group of men today who make bold statements, who seem to hold the truth unflinchingly, but who also have serious issues in their choices of association and affiliation as have been documented time and time again (lately with great surprise among some ‘young fundie’ admirers). We are told that this new crowd of conservatives are different, that there aren’t any neo-evangelicals anymore, etc. To which I can only say:

Really?

don_sig

Filed Under: Fundamentalism, New Evangelicalism, Quotables
by on 4.2.08

abpnews takes a turn at defining fundamentalism

The Associated Baptist Press attempts to define the allegedly undefinable! Read all about it in “Fundamentalism & militancy: Defining ‘fundamentalism’“

“They were trying to find the boundaries of authentic Christianity,”

says one commentator.

[Read more…]

Filed Under: Church History, Fundamentalism, Quotables
by on 3.25.08

vocab of compromise in use

In light of my post ‘the vocabulary of compromise’, it was interesting to see one of the words show up on a fundamentalist blog recently.

This is the post, the word shows up in the comments. I will tell you which word it is after the ‘more’ tag … can you pick it up before you look?

[Read more…]

Filed Under: Blogosphere, Church History, Fundamentalism
by on 3.22.08

the vocabulary of compromise

Speaking of my education, I have long thought it might be interesting to reproduce some of my notes from Church History class while in seminary. The area of interest is my notes on fundamentalism and the new evangelical compromise. My professor for this class was Dr. Panosian, but my notes should be no reflection on him! Some of them are direct quotations, but I take full responsibility for any errors.

Dr. P was famous for lists. The first lecture notes I’ll blog for you is called ‘The Vocabulary of Compromise/Infidelity’. You’ll no doubt recognize some of these terms. My sub-header says “words that must be clearly defined for our own use”.

Here we go:

[Read more…]

Filed Under: Church History, Fundamentalism, New Evangelicalism, Separation
by on 3.22.08

are you a ‘born fundamentalist’?

I recently had a conversation with a friend of mine. We were in school together. We sat in many of the same Bible classes. We learned ‘the second heavenly language’ [Greek] from the same teachers and know the same mnemonic devices for keeping our linguistic facts straight.

But we don’t remember everything the same way. He says that we were not systematically taught the fundamentalist philosophy in our classes and were less prepared to put our philosophy in practice than we should have been. I am surprised by his assertion, for it was in those same classes I learned my fundamentalist philosophy. I have never been intimidated by the need to justify (even to myself) why I take the positions I do.

On hearing this, I wondered why we who shared so much have such a different perception of our training.

[Read more…]

Filed Under: Fundamentalism
by on 3.19.08

an encouraging sign

We concluded our annual Northwest FBF fellowship this evening with another fine message by Chuck Phelps, president of Maranatha Baptist Bible College.

Chuck preached / taught us on five occasions through two days here. His ministry to us was a real blessing. But more than that, personal conversation with him was a great encouragement to me for the future of fundamentalism.

Chuck became the president of Maranatha just this last summer. MBBC is one of the key institutions for Baptist fundamentalism. His ministry there will make a real mark (for the good) on future generations of young men coming out of that institution. He almost makes me want to go back to school again!

[Read more…]

Filed Under: Education, Fundamentalism, Pastoral Theology
by on 3.18.08

blessed fellowship, fearful responsibility

I am enjoying the fellowship of a group of friends at the Northwest regional Fundamental Baptist Fellowship meeting. Our featured speaker is Dr. Chuck Phelps, president of Maranatha Baptist Bible College. Chuck has been great, we had him going three times today. [He was delayed by the airlines who thought there was a blizzard out here yesterday … there are lots of flakes around, but they all walk on two legs.]

But my thought for you today is from Pastor Tom Nieman, longtime pastor of Galilee Baptist Church in Kent, WA, now retired and serving in pulpit supply and Bible conference ministry. He was rejoicing in the meeting tonight about the joy of fellowship with so many pastors from five states and two provinces. He reminded us of the days when he led his church out of a denominational association because of compromises he couldn’t countenance. Some of his people were reluctant because they would have no one to fellowship with.

Dr. Nieman said, ‘You know, they were right. If we left, there was no one else to fellowship with in those days.’ His joy tonight was in the wide fellowship that God has given as other men followed his lead and still others have moved into the area to pastor or plant and pastor like-minded churches.

Galilee Baptist withdrew from its association with a 94% vote. It cost them friends.

Here is what anyone who is willing to take a separatistic stance must realize. Separation means you will lose friends. It might mean you will have to rebuke friends.

[Read more…]

Filed Under: Fundamentalism
by on 3.16.08

why are we surprised?

Bob Bixby thinks he is disappointed with John MacArthur, but he hopes not. Why?

Because John MacArthur is going to preach at the Billy Graham Pastors Institute at the Cove in North Carolina. Bob is surprised, disappointed, but holds out some hope…

Will MacArthur’s visit be affirming to the BGEA? Of course. Unless, of course, John gets prophetic as he is sometimes known to do.

If God has written Ichabod over the door of a house, John, why enter it unless you’re going there to preach in such a way that you will be absolutely sure that you are never invited again?

If possible, I’ll order the recording just to see.

Don’t bother, Bob, if you’ll check the rest of the schedule, you’ll see your hopes are unlikely.

[Read more…]

Filed Under: Fundamentalism, MacArthur, Separation
by on 3.12.08

conflict is not the same as chaos

So says Walter Russell Mead in a column today found at ChristianityToday.com. Entitled “Why Culture War May Never End“, the article argues that there is liberty and safety in humanity when there is freedom for conflict. Here is the concluding paragraph:

Conflict is not the same as chaos. It may be that in a fallen world, we need the excesses of each party to be held in check by the other parties. The idea that the imposition of a single perfect program on the state and on government, on the country, is the way to perfect happiness for mankind is an old and constant dream in the world. Given that human beings are fallen and that our reasoning processes can be skewed, our understandings of justice distorted, it may be that this kind of open society, which is one of competition and contestation, may over time be the best way for human beings.

Conflict isn’t easy. For those not directly involved in the conflict, it is often seen as unnecessary. Those most stridently involved are often seen as the culprits in the exchange, even if they are reacting to real error.

Mead is making his point about the benefits of conflict in an open society especially for the cause of individual liberty and freedom. I would like to make an application to the world of Christendom.

Consider, for example, the Fundamentalist/Modernist controversies of the 1920s.

[Read more…]

Filed Under: Culture, Fundamentalism
« Previous Page
Next Page »