The Nature of Fundamentalism

It is not correct. The "New Evangelicalism" is not a denial of "secondary separation" it is a repudiation of seperation entirely. "An up-to-date strategy for the evangelical cause must be based upon the principle of infiltration." (Ockenga). New Evangelicalism repudiates the ecclesiology of fundamentalism. (Also Ockenga).

"While reaffirming the theological view of fundamentalism, this address repudiated its ecclesiology and its social theory. The ringing call for a repudiation of separatism and the summons to social involvement received a hearty response from many evangelicals." (Ockenga, Foreword to The Battle for the Bible by Harold Lindsell, page 11).

 

So, how would you put it, Dr. C?

The thought that comes to my mind is

 

</font>[/QUOTE]William Ashbrook's small book "Evangelicalism: The New Neutralism" says roughly the same thing.

He says that the New Evangelicalism was:

1. Born in Compromise.
2. Nurtured in pride of intellect.
3. Growing by appeasement of evil.
and
4. Doomed by the judgment of the Word.

 

Paul33, I think you may have missed my point. I contend that those you call "New Evangelicals" don't fit the description given by the man who coined the phrase so they are not, technically New Evangelical.

They are Fundamentalist in doctrine while being moderate in practice.

I believe the average fundamentalist today paints with a brush much too broad and labels anyone who disagrees with him as "New Evangelical" having little or no understanding of what that term actually means.

In fact most of the writers of "The Fundamentals" would be labeled "New Evangelical" by most so-called "Fundamental Baptists" of today.

 

I tend to agree with one caveat. The "separation" of the 1940s and 50s was, as you say below, over "secondary" separation rather than separation from apostasy, theological liberalism, and modernism. That separation took place in the 1920s and 30s starting with the blowup on the floor of the Northern Baptist Convention at the 1920 convocation.

Exactly.

Well, I was coming at it from the other direction. As Harold Ockenga is the one who coined the term "New Evangelical" it is his right to define it any way he pleases, so, by his definition the CBA, BGC, and even in the early years the NEA, were not "New Evangelical" but rather moderate fundamentalists who reject the splintering effects of so-called "secondary separation."

Agreed, which is why I consider them to be fundamental, not as militant as some, but fundamental just the same.

But isn't a "conservative evangelical" what an "historic fundamentalist" was when fundamentalism was originally created and defined?

I would rather define "New Evangelicalism" as Ockenga did, including those who were willing to, as Ockenga stated in the forward to "The Battle For The Bible," restate Christian theology in accordance with the need of the times, . . . reexamination of theological "problems" such as the antiquity of man, the universality of the flood, God's method of creation, and others.

The rest, who believe the fundamentals of the faith as stated by the BIOLA articles, I would call fundamentalists, but assign to them the discriminative categories of "Militant," "Moderate," and "Modified" Fundamentalists as Dr. George W. Dollar (a student of Ockenga) did in his book "A History of Fundamentalism in America."

I believe that presents a more reality based scenario. The only thing it doesn't encompass would be the pseudo-fundamentalistic radicals who think that anybody who doesn't agree with them 100% is an apostate. But, in my opinion, they are irrelevant anyway.

 

I refer to myself as an Historic Fundamentalist.

 

Well, I don't allow it. I correct it every time I hear it. And, I am a Militant Fundamentalist in the Historic Fundamentalist tradition. The pseudo-fundamentalists who label all those they disagree with as "neos" are neither historic nor militant fundamentalists. They are just ignorant whackos!