• 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

Dr. Bob

Administrator
Administrator
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.
 

donnA

Active Member
Ah, wish I'd seen this thread first, I just asked in the other one what new evangelical is.
Sorry
 

Pastor Larry

<b>Moderator</b>
Site Supporter
"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).
 

Greg Linscott

<img src =/7963.jpg>
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>
 

Bob Colgan

New Member
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
 

WallyGator

New Member
Greg,
Thanks for the refresher statement. Need to be reminded from time to time.
WallyGator
thumbs.gif
 

Matt Black

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Originally posted by Greg Linscott:
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>
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
 

Dr. Bob

Administrator
Administrator
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:
 

Hal Parker

New Member
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.
 

StefanM

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
If one were to use a pejorative against me, I'd take neo-evangelical over liberal any day!!
 

aefting

New Member
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.
New (or neo) evangelicals actually coined the term themselves to distinguish themselves from fundamentalism.


Andy
 

Matt Black

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Originally posted by Dr. Bob:
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:
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
 

Siegfried

Member
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).
 

Hal Parker

New Member
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.
 

PackerBacker

New Member
Originally posted by Greg Linscott:


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>
How many of these attitudes must one display to not be a Fundamentalist?
 

Dr. Bob

Administrator
Administrator
Originally posted by Hal Parker:
If no group claims to be neoevangelical, then we should drop the term.
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"
 

aefting

New Member
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />p.s. Very few WANT to be called "fundamentalist"
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
 

StefanM

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Originally posted by aefting:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />p.s. Very few WANT to be called "fundamentalist"
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.
 
Top