The Heart Of New Evangelicalism
David W. Cloud
[The following material is from O Timothy magazine, Volume 12, Issue
2, 1995. Permission is given for free distribution of this material, but not for
resale or for use in fundraising. All rights are reserved by the author. O
Timothy is a monthly magazine. Annual subscription is US$20 FOR THE UNITED
STATES. Send to Way of Life Literature, P.O.
Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061. 866-295-4143. The phone number is
(360) 675-8311. FOR CANADA the subscription is $20 Canadian. Send to Bethel Baptist
Church, P.O. Box 9075, London, Ontario N6E 1V0.]
INTRODUCTION
PRACTICAL EXPERIENCE
A REPUDIATION OF THE NEGATIVE ASPECTS OF BIBLICAL
CHRISTIANITY
A MOOD OF NEUTRALISM
In the last issue of O Timothy we featured an article on the history and nature of New
Evangelicalism. I am convinced that few errors are as destructive to Fundamental,
Bible-believing churches as this one. When people leave our churches, where do they go? Do
they join the Roman Catholic church? Do they join a modernistic Protestant church, such as
the United Methodist or the Presbyterian Church U.S.A. or the United Church of Canada? Do
they join a cult? Very seldom. No, most people who leave Fundamental, Bible-believing
churches join the easy-going New Evangelical church down the street or across town.
It is therefore crucial that we understand the nature of New Evangelicalism. Last month
we traced the history of New Evangelicalism and gave the classic, historic definition
thereof. In this issue I want to detail what I believe to be the very heart and soul of
New Evangelicalism. I want to give a practical definition of New Evangelicalism which can
be understood and used by the members of independent Baptist and other Fundamental,
Bible-believing congregations.
The following definition comes from many years of dealing with and studying New
Evangelicalism. When we arrived in South Asia in 1979 to begin our missionary work, I was
very ignorant of the nature of New Evangelicalism. Little did I know that I was soon to
have a crash course in the subject. In my ignorance and inexperience, I was under the
impression that New Evangelicalism was merely a United States phenomenon and that
believers in other parts of the world, though they might be aligned with New Evangelical
type organizations, would not necessarily be infected with compromise and error. How wrong
I was!
During our first year in Nepal, I was invited by the national Campus Crusade for Christ
people to preach at an underground evangelistic meeting, which I did. (Gospel work was
illegal at that time in Nepal.) Using the book of Romans as an outline, I preached the
Gospel, beginning with man's sin and God's holiness and judgment, and ending with God's
love and grace through Jesus Christ. I started where Paul started and ended where he
ended. After the service, the leaders took me aside and told me that my preaching was
"too negative." This was to be expected, I suppose, considering the fact that
Campus Crusade's Four Spiritual Laws starts on a positive note with "God loves you
and has a wonderful plan for your life." This was the first time, though, I had
direct dealings with those who had consciously rejected the negatives of biblical
Christianity and who strived always to put a positive spin on everything, and I was
shocked at their blatant disregard for Scripture. We discussed the fact that the Apostles
approached men in a very negative manner, dealing first with man's sin and God's holiness
before speaking of God's love and mercy, but they were unmoved in their philosophy that it
is "too negative" to preach like this today. Nothing I could show them from the
Word of God seemed to have any impact whatsoever upon them.
After a few months I was invited by the leaders of the Nepal Christian Fellowship (the
head of which, at that time, was also the head of Campus Crusade for Christ in Nepal) to
speak at some home Bible studies. I chose the topic of biblical separation, and it turned
out to be a hot item! Knowing that the Jesuits had a strong foothold in that area and that
some of the non-Catholic believers had close fellowship with them, I detailed the apostasy
of Roman Catholicism and explained what the Bible says about separation from error. The
response was quick and severe! When I closed my Bible, a female missionary who was working
with an ecumenical organization called United Mission to Nepal and who taught in a girl's
school, stood and loudly proclaimed, "You're not going to tell me I can't fellowship
with my Roman Catholic friends! I attend mass with them and they attend church with me and
I don't see anything wrong with it!" Though I was scheduled to teach at a series of
Bible studies, that first one became my last.
After this I was invited by the same Fellowship to speak to a group of Nepali pastors.
I was told that they had no Bible education and needed any help I could give them. They
came to the capitol city from various parts of Nepal for these meetings, and I decided to
use the book of Titus as an outline, dealing with some of the practical matters of church
life. It seemed to be an ideal place to start. Titus was instructed by the Apostle in how
to "set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city" (Titus
1:5). This was precisely what was needed in Nepal. There were a number of small,
struggling house churches which did not have proper organization or instruction. I started
where Paul started in chapter one, with God's standards for church leaders and with how to
deal with heretics (verses 6-16). My "negative" preaching proved, once again, to
be a hot topic!
One of the men who had attended the meeting was from eastern Nepal, and was considered
the chief pastor among a number of house churches scattered across that entire region. He
was one of the most enthusiastic in telling me that my teaching was just wonderful. After
each session he would approach me and shake my hand cheerfully and tell me what a help
these meetings were to him. I was encouraged. My ministry was appreciated! My gifts were
recognized! I was getting through!
How deceived I was! I soon learned that this man, this very man, was living in total
disobedience to the things we were looking at from God's Word. He had three wives. Not
two, but three! He was living with the youngest one (what a coincidence, huh?) at his main
church compound in a town near the Indian border, and the two older wives were living with
their children on two other farms he owned in that region. He visited them from time to
time. He also, I learned, had a poor testimony in regard to certain matters having to do
with money and properties.
When I confronted him with this matter and warned him that he was not qualified to be a
pastor, he was very discouraged. The next session he stood and addressed the group of men,
detailing a vision he had from God, supposedly, in which God commanded him to "preach
to my sheep." I explained that he could preach and serve the Lord in certain ways,
but that he was not qualified to be a pastor and that God would not contradict His Word by
a vision. He refused to listen, and the Campus Crusade leader and others encouraged the
man NOT to quit the pastorate! They stayed up with him much of that night speaking to him
and encouraging him NOT to obey the clear teaching of the Word of God.
I was not again invited to speak at Evangelical meetings in Nepal. I had only been
there a year or so and already my career as a popular ecumenical speaker was finished.
Praise the Lord for His mercy and kindness to an ignorant young missionary! I learned that
if you stand strictly upon the Word of God you will be "too negative" for the
New Evangelical crowd.
A REPUDIATION OF
THE NEGATIVE ASPECTS OF BIBLICAL CHRISTIANITY
Since that time I have studied New Evangelicalism intensely. I learned that it is the
predominant form of Christianity today apart from Romanism, Modernism, and the Cults, and
I have wanted to understand it.
I have found that the heart of New Evangelicalism is this: It is a repudiation of the
negative aspects of biblical Christianity.
This is what confuses so many people. They hear a Chuck Colson or a Chuck Swindoll or a
Billy Graham or a Luis Palau or a Jack Van Impe, and they proclaim, "Everything he
said was good; I didn't hear anything unscriptural." That is often correct. The chief
problem with New Evangelicalism is not so much what it preaches that is wrong but what it
refuses to preach that is right!
The New Evangelical will NOT preach plainly against sin. He will NOT practice
separation. He will NOT identify and expose false teachers. He has repudiated this type of
negativism, in spite of the fact that it is plainly a part of the whole counsel of God.
Consider some examples of this. We will begin with statements by Billy Graham, one of the
fathers of New Evangelicalism:
"I am far more tolerant of other kinds of Christians than I once was. My contact
with Catholic, Lutheran and other leaders--people far removed from my own Southern Baptist
tradition--has helped me, hopefully, to move in the right direction" (Billy Graham,
"I Can't Play God Any More," McCall's magazine, Jan. 1978).
Note the word "tolerant." This is a keynote of New Evangelicalism. My
friends, it is utterly impossible to be tolerant in the sense that Graham is speaking and
be faithful to the Word of God. God is not tolerant of sin or error. How can His preachers
think they can be tolerant of such and be pleasing to Him? It is confusion.
"Q. In your book you speak of `false prophets.' You say it is the `full-time
effort of many intellectuals to circumvent God's plan' and you make a quotation from Paul
Tillich. Do you consider Paul Tillich a false prophet?"
"A. I have made it a practice not to pass judgment on other clergymen."
"Q. Do you think that churches such as The United Church of Canada and the great
liberal churches of the United States that are active in the ecumenical movement ... are
`apostate'?"
"A. I could not possibly pass this type of judgment on individual churches and
clergymen within The United Church of Canada ... Our Evangelistic Association is not
concerned to pass judgment--favorable or adverse--on any particular denomination"
("Billy Graham Answers 26 Provocative Questions," United Church Observer, July
1, 1966).
In this interview we note another standard New Evangelical characteristic. The New
Evangelical will warn of false teaching in a very general sense, but he refuses to
identify false teachers plainly. The New Evangelical's hearers therefore are not protected
in any specific manner from error. They are not told exactly what the error is or who
teaches it. Further, the New Evangelical will fellowship with and quote false teachers
indiscriminately and thereby send signals that the false teachers are genuine brethren in
Christ.
"Quite frankly, my Brother, I wish some of the brethren would take off their
boxing gloves and pick up a towel. Perhaps if people began to wash one another's feet,
there might be more love and unity" (Warren Wiersbe, letter to D.W. Cloud, May 23,
1986).
I had written to Dr. Wiersbe and asked him why he was associated with Christianity
Today (he was an associate editor at the time) and other New Evangelical organizations,
why he refused to speak plainly against such things as Romanism and Modernism. He replied
with the above comment. Of course, we do need to remove our boxing gloves if we are
fighting merely for self interest or for some pet peeve that is not a part of the Word of
God, or if we are striving merely out of a carnal love for quarreling, if we are merely a
problem maker wherever we go. But Wiersbe's advice was given in the context of contending
for the faith, and if ever there were a day in which God's men need to put on the gloves
and earnestly contend for the faith once delivered to the saints it is today!
"That's the wrong spirit--AVOID the liberal! I love to be with liberals,
especially if they are willing to be taught, much more than with hard-boiled
Fundamentalists who have all the answers. ... Evangelicals should seek to build
bridges" (Stephen Olford, cited by Dennis Costella, "Amsterdam '86: Using
Evangelism to Promote Ecumenism," Foundation, July-August 1986).
Dennis Costella of the Fundamental Evangelistic Association attended the Billy Graham
Amsterdam '86 conference with press credentials and heard Stephen Olford speak. Costella
noted that Olford delivered a strong message on the authority of Scripture and had
mentioned the danger of Modernism and had warned the preachers in a general way to beware
of it. Later, when Costella had opportunity to interview Olford, he asked this question,
"You emphasized in your message the dangers of liberalism and how it could ruin the
evangelist and his ministry. What is this conference doing to instruct the evangelist as
to how to identify liberalism and the liberal so that upon his return home, he will be
able to avoid the same?" Olford replied with the comment in the previous paragraph.
Again we see the New Evangelical trait of refusing to be specific about error. They will
warn of false teaching in general but will refuse to deal with false teaching according to
the Word of God. The truth is that the New Evangelical is far more concerned about
Fundamentalism than he is about Modernism or Romanism or any other form of apostasy.
"At Fuller we are characterized by balance in that we are an institution of
`both-and' rather than `either-or.' We seek to be both Evangelical and ecumenical
..." (David Allan Hubbard, President, Fuller Theological Seminary (Christianity
Today, Feb. 3, 1989, p. 71).
What doublespeak! A "both-and" Christianity is as unscriptural as it possibly
can be, yet this is what the New Evangelical strives for and glories in.
"Bill Hybels [pastor of the 12,000-member Willow Creek Community Church near
Chicago] took a survey and found that people always left church feeling guilty (the
Christian message was too negative with `sin,' etc.). Hybels' solution was to `program our
Sunday morning service to non- believers ... By this means, Hybels hoped the newcomers
would `feel welcome, unthreatened, and entertained'" (The BDM Letter, Oct. 1992).
This is the New Evangelical positive approach at your service. Many New Evangelicals
will not go as far as Hybels does in giving the unsaved what they want, but the philosophy
behind this is definitely New Evangelical.
Hybels is VERY popular in Evangelical circles.
"I'm not a charismatic. However, I don't feel it's my calling to shoot great
volleys of theological artillery at my charismatic brothers and sisters. ... More than
ever we need grace-awakened ministers who free rather than bind: Life beyond the letter of
Scripture ... absence of dogmatic Bible-bashing" (Charles Swindoll, The Grace
Awakening, pp. 188,233).
The dogmatic Bible-bashing so despised by Charles Swindoll is exactly the ministry of
the Word of God exercised and enjoined by the Apostles. Consider Peter's message in
2
Peter 2. It would be difficult to use language harsher or plainer than this to describe
false teachers. A "grace-awakened" minister by Swindoll's definition is one who
is tolerant of error and who emphasizes the positive in every situation. This is not how
Paul acted. In the Pastoral Epistles alone he identifies false teachers and compromisers
10 times (1 Tim. 1:20; 2 Tim. 1:15; 2:17; 3:8; 4:10,14).
The Apostles were NOT New Evangelicals. Regarding false teachers, they gave the
following instruction: (1) Mark and avoid them (Rom. 16:17,18). (2) Come out from among
them (2 Cor. 6:14-18). (3) Shun their babblings (2 Tim. 2:16,17). (4) Turn away from them
(2 Tim. 3:5). (5) Reject them (Tit. 3:10). (6) Do not receive them nor bid them God speed
(2 Jn. 10-11).
"LUIS PALAU'S form of worship presents such a broad Christian message that it
appeals to Protestants and Catholics alike ... [Palau] carefully avoids the controversial
differences between Catholics and Protestants" (The Arizona Republic, Oct. 31, 1992).
This is a good description of New Evangelicalism. It presents a "broad"
Christian message and carefully avoids controversial matters. It is interesting that this
discerning description is given by the secular press.
"MALIBU - ... it was a week in which Christianity came with top-notch food served
by waiters, bikini-clad girls, water skiing, immaculate facilities, games galore, rock
music, new friends, affection and some of the most glorious scenery in Creation.
"One hundred miles north of Vancouver ... the Malibu Club brings in about 4,000
teenagers each summer.
"Malibu teaches the teens that Christianity can be a blast.
"`It's just they make God, like, really fun,' said Crystal Primrose, 15, from
North Vancouver.
"A casually dressed club director, John McNichol, led the final night's session in
which he asked kids to make a commitment to Jesus. He told the teens they have doubts
about whether they'd still have fun if they became Christian and about what their friends
might think if they converted. `But don't worry. God is like the king of fun,' said
McNichol, who earlier in the day dressed up as James Bond for a comedy skit" (Report
on YOUNG LIFE'S Malabu, The Spectator, Hamilton, Ontario, Sat., Oct. 1, 1994).
Fun Christianity. That is New Evangelicalism. The New Evangelical's God is not the
awesomely holy God of Scripture, the God who requires repentance, the God who is to be
served in "reverence and godly fear," the God who requires the crucified life;
he is the king of fun. If someone protests that this is not the case, I challenge that one
to observe any New Evangelical youth ministry. You will quickly see that we know whereof
we speak.
"Wagner makes negative assessments about nobody. He has made a career out of
finding what is good in growing churches, and affirming it without asking many critical
questions" (Tim Stafford, "Testing the Wine from John Wimber's Vineyard,"
Christianity Today, August 8, 1986, p.18).
Fuller Seminary professor C. Peter Wagner is a popular church growth proponent in
Evangelical circles. This description of his ministry illustrates what we are saying about
New Evangelicalism. It has a conscious goal of being positive, even to the degree of
ignoring or downplaying error.
Thus we see that the foremost trait of New Evangelicalism is its repudiation of the
negative aspects of biblical Christianity. If the preacher you listen to avoids such
things as Hell, Judgment, and Separation; if he never pointedly identifies apostasy,
speaking of error on in the most general terms; if he studiously avoids being
controversial; if he speaks more of self-esteem than self-denial, you are probably
listening to a New Evangelical preacher.
A MOOD OF NEUTRALISM
Another way of identifying New Evangelicalism is its mood of neutralism. New
Evangelicalism is a philosophy, but it is also a mood. In his discerning book on
Evangelicalism, subtitled The New Neutralism, John Ashbrook notes: "[New
Evangelicalism] might more properly be labeled The New Neutralism. It seeks neutral
ground, being neither fish nor fowl, neither right nor left, neither for nor against--it
stands between!" (p. 2).
New Evangelicalism can be identified by the following terms: Soft, cautious, hesitant,
tolerant, pragmatic, accommodating, flexible, non- controversial, non-offensive,
non-passionate, non-dogmatic.
Whenever you encounter churches and preachers who are characterized by these terms, you
have encountered New Evangelicalism. Contrast Bible Christianity, which is characterized
by other terms: Strong, bold, fearless, dogmatic, plain, intolerant and unaccommodating
(of sin and error), inflexible (in regard to the truth), controversial, offensive (to
those who are disobedient to God), passionate.
While the battle between Truth and Error rages, New Evangelicalism tries to sit on the
sidelines.
Beware of New Evangelicalism. It is a great error, and to adopt it is to enter a
downward path which often leads to increasing blindness. Behold Billy Graham, who, in the
early days of his ministry preached against Romanism, Communism, and Modernism, today sees
no great problem with any of these, today calls the pope a great evangelist and a friend
of the saints. Behold Jack Van Impe, who only two decades ago preached in Fundamental
circles, today holds forth the pope of Rome as a defender of the faith! Behold James
Robison, who only a few years ago lifted his voice boldly against apostasy, today thinks
the pope is a saved man and a great example of morality.
"The New Evangelical advocates toleration of error. It is following the downward
path of accommodation to error, cooperation with error, contamination by error, and
ultimate capitulation to error" (Charles Woodbridge).
"Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners" (1 Cor.
15:33).
"But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more
ungodliness" (2 Tim. 2:16).
"The truth is being lost in our churches, not by those who teach errors, but by
the men who don't care. They sit indifferently as though they weren't involved, as though
they could be noble gentlemen by being above all such struggling. They don't realize that
all we need to do to lose the truth is nothing. Then there are those who throw the dirt of
slander at the finest fighters. They'll have to face God for that" (Christian News,
June 22, 1992).
"The New Evangelicalism is a theological and moral compromise of the deadliest
sort. It is an insidious attack upon the Word of God." --Dr. Charles Woodridge
"When we bow before God we never know what may come of it. We are in the presence
of a greatness which gives to our slightest acts an infinite significance; and though our
prayers may not live in the thought and memory of mankind, they always have effects which
stretch out into eternity." --R.W. Dale
"Those who defend heretics, even if they do not believe in their teachings, are
guilty of lending credibility to their heresies, and will be held accountable to God for
the souls that are destroyed as a result." --Al Dager
"From the Liberality which says that everybody is right; from the Charity which
forbids to say that anybody is wrong; from the Peace which is bought at the expense of
Truth; may the good Lord deliver us." --J.C. Ryle
"To seek unity with false prophets without challenging their errors leaves one's
own beliefs open to questions. Those who defend heretics, even if they do not believe in
their teachings, are guilty of lending credibility to their heresies, and will be held
accountable to God for the souls that are destroyed as a result. It's up to those that
know the truth to defend the church against false teachers whatever the cost to unity or
to personal benefit." --Al Dager
"On all hands we hear cries for unity in this and unity in that; but in our mind
the main need of this age is not compromise but conscientiousness. `First pure, then
peaceable...' It is easy to cry, `A confederacy,' but that union that is not based on the
truth of God is rather a conspiracy than a communion. Charity by all means: but honesty
also. Love of course, but love to God as well as love to men, and love of truth as well as
love of union. It is exceedingly difficult in these times to preserve one's fidelity
before God and one's fraternity among men. Should not the former be preferred to the
latter if both cannot be maintained? We think so." --C.H. Spurgeon
|
