Having already expressed my disappointment in the spirit of this thread, I want to move on to better things. This thread ought not be about David Cloud personally but about the ideas he believes and advocates. A few, to their credit, have tried to address the ideas but their posts were outstripped by the vitriolic outbursts of the embittered.
Cloud’s basic thesis seems to be that Southern Seminary and Al Mohler are New Evanglical or have New Evangelical influences. Immediately, SBC’ers bristle at such a suggestion. I do not find Cloud suggesting that the present SBC, Southern Seminary, or Al Mohler are Modernists or Liberals. He is simply arguing that they do not practice strong separatism. This is true. On the other hand, there is no question that they are orthodox Christians. However, Southern Seminary and other SBC schools were heavily influenced or dominated by Liberals in the past. Even Cloud admits that great strides have been made in the conservative resurgence. His article in no way negates these accomplishments.
Cloud defines New Evangelicalism as tolerance for liberalism or a lack of separation from liberalism. He goes further include tolerance for those who tolerate and associate with liberalism. This closely follows the definitions put forth in the two seminal Fundamentalist works on New Evangelicalism by Charles Woodbridge and John Ashbrook. From a Fundamentalist perspective,
Cloud is correct in his thesis, although some points were trivial and weak, if you allow him this definition. Southern Seminary and Al Mohler are not separatist; just observe their associations including Graham,
et. al.
Fundamentalists are separatists as defined by the movement in the mid-1900’s and afterwards. Fundamentalism was born in the Fundementalist-Modernist-Liberal controversy of the late 1800’s and early 1900’s. However, the SBC has never been a part of this historic Fundamentalism because they maintained their orthodoxy as a denomination decades longer than the northern denominations. Because they were so large and had their own schools, they did not fall to the German rationalism easily. Also, such men as Broadus, Manly, Boyce,
et. al. stood face-to-face against liberalism and won—they fired their protégé, Crawford Toy. The SBC didn’t pussyfoot around like the Presbyterians at Princeton. However, the liberalism crept into the SBC schools decades after the Fundementalist-Modernist-Liberal controversy in the north. Therefore, the SBC was not a part of the historic Fundamentalism because they were still orthodox during the birth of Fundamentalism out of the mainline northern denominations. Hence, I cannot see why SBC’ers want to defend the Fundamentalist label for the SBC.
Furthermore, the SBC, even with its conservative resurgence, is not part of modern Fundamentalism because it has not chosen separatism. Their approach has been more of purification—a Puritan approach. So, if you allow Cloud his definition, he is correct that Southern Seminary is Neo-evangelical or has Neo-evangelical tendencies. Neo-evanglicalism is
not liberalism or unbelief. It is toleration or refusing to separate. Is Neo-evanglicalism good or bad? You can choose either side and debate it.
Cloud’s main point is that softness in toleration or lack of separation (i.e. Neo-evangelicalism) will ultimately lead to compromise that may negate the gains made by the conservatives. This is a point worth considering whether you agree or not. If you disagree, then you are free and open to refute, not castigate the man.
Here are the questions that this thread ought to have addressed and didn’t:
1. Is Cloud’s definition of New Evangelicalism correct?
2. Is New Evangelicalism a negative label or a bad thing? Carl Henry and others proudly assumed this label. (I still want to know why SBC’ers want to be called Fundamentalists. Even Machen, who separated from Princeton, would not accept the Fundamentalist label. Why can’t they say, “We’re not separatist Fundamentalists but we are orthodox Puritans seeking to reclaim our denomination.” Perhaps I’ll post my opinion later.)
3. Is Cloud correct in his facts and do they (some are obviously trite and inane) point to his conclusion.
4. Is Cloud correct in his conclusion that tolerance leads to eventual compromise?
One can learn and be warned even from those with whom they disagree.
