Updated September 23, 2003 (first published May 31, 1996) (David Cloud, Fundamental Baptist Information Service, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061, 866-295-4143, fbns@wayoflife.org; for instructions about subscribing and unsubscribing or changing addresses, see the information paragraph at the end of the article) -

The term "evangelical" has been used in a number of ways and has changed meaning through the centuries. The term itself is from Latin and means "the good news," or the Gospel. Webster, in 1828, defined it as "sound in the doctrines of the gospel; orthodox, as an evangelical preacher." Prior to the Reformation it described ancient Bible-believing separatist Christians such as the Waldenses. A history written by these people and published in 1669 was titled "A General History of the Evangelical Churches of the Piedmontese Valleys" (by Leger). During and after the Reformation, the term "evangelical" was used to describe Protestants who separated from the Roman Catholic Church and who believed in personal salvation through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Earlier in the twentieth century it retained this meaning, describing a zealous Protestantism and a resistance of and separation from theological modernism. (As we shall note in the last part of this article, it was never really more than this.)

THE NEW EVANGELICALISM

At the mid-point of this century Evangelicalism took a different turn. Described as a "new evangelicalism," many well-known Christian leaders (i.e., Harold Ockenga, Carl Henry, and Billy Graham), schools (Wheaton, Fuller, etc.), publications (Christianity Today, etc.), and organizations (Campus Crusade, Youth for Christ, etc.) denounced biblical separation and determined to practice infiltration, dialogue, and inclusivism. They thought the old fundamentalists were too negative, and they determined to approach theology and the ministry in a more positive manner. They also allowed for some rethinking or reexamination of certain points of the old Evangelical theology. They did not desire to be so boxed in theologically. Ockenga (1905-1985) described this new evangelicalism in an address he gave in 1948. "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" (emphasis added) (Ockenga, Foreword to The Battle for the Bible by Harold Lindsell, p. 11). The Bible warns that a little leaven leavens the whole lump, and since the 1950s, Evangelicalism has been on a rapid downhill slide.

THE CONDITION OF EVANGELICALISM TODAY

Many of Evangelicalism's own leaders have described its fallen condition, though they don't seem to perceive the historic reasons underlying this condition. Harold Lindsell testified that the doctrine of biblical inspiration has been weakened among many who profess to be Evangelical. He published two books documenting this--The Battle for the Bible (1976) and The Bible in the Balance (1979). Let me be very plain. If a man denies or questions the perfect inspiration of Scripture he is denying Jesus Christ and the Apostles and is a dangerous heretic. It matters not by what name he is called. There is absolutely no room here for reexamination of doctrine. Our doctrine was settled 2,000 years ago. It is the “faith once delivered to the saints” (Jude 3).

Others have documented the deterioration of theology in the Evangelical world. David Wells traced this phenomenon in his 1993 book entitled No Place for Truth: Or Whatever Happened to Evangelical Theology? He describes modern-day Evangelicalism in these terms: "But in between these far shores [Anglo-Catholicism and Fundamentalism] lie the choppy waters that most evangelicals now ply with their boats, and here the winds of modernity blow with disconcerting force, fragmenting what it means to be evangelical. This is because evangelicals have allowed their confessional center to dissipate" (p. 128). In my opinion, this is a description of apostasy and unbelief. To wrap heresy in the term "evangelical" does not lessen its wickedness.

In 1984, not long before he died, the very popular evangelical leader Francis Schaeffer published his exposure of what he termed "The Great Evangelical Disaster." He argued that "latitudinarianism" has been adopted by the Evangelical world at large. This refers to the prevailing attitude that Christians must be broadminded, must not be dogmatic or judgmental but must allow for a wide range of theology. He noted, "When doctrinal latitudinarianism sets in, we can be sure both from church history and from personal observation that in one or two generations those who are taught by the churches that hold this mentality will lose still more, and the line between evangelical and liberal will be lost" (p. 78). That is precisely what is happening before our very eyes.

Another book that took up this theme and further documented the downfall of Evangelicalism was The Coming Evangelical Crisis, Moody Press, 1996. John Armstrong was General Editor, and contributors include John MacArthur, R.C. Sproul, Michael Horton, and Albert Mohler. In a chapter titled "Does Theology Still Matter?" Gary Johnson described a survey published in Christianity Today, October 1994, which showed that church members in Evangelical circles, leaders and non-leaders, considered theology as the LEAST important priority for pastors. The pastors surveyed listed "relational skills the top priority," followed by "management abilities and communication skills" (p. 59). This is apostasy. God exalts sound doctrine above any of these matters. Johnson speaks of "the astounding degree of theological illiteracy within the evangelical church and the growing bias against theology in wider evangelical circles" (p. 58). In chapter one, "Evangelical: What's in a Name?" R. Albert Mohler, Jr., noted that "evangelicalism in the 1990s is an amalgam of diverse and often theologically ill-defined groups, institutions, and traditions" (p. 32). He says that "the theological unity that once marked the movement has given way to a theological pluralism" (p. 33). He documents theological modernism being promoted by men and publishers which claim to be evangelical, and observes: "Evangelicalism is not healthy in conviction or spiritual discipline. Our theological defenses have been let down, and the infusion of revisionist theologies has affected large segments of evangelicalism. Much damage has already been done, but a greater crisis yet threatens" (p. 36). We agree wholeheartedly with this assessment, and it applies to the Southern Baptist Convention of which Mohler is a part.

THE REASON FOR THIS EVANGELICAL APOSTASY

Though some Evangelical leaders have discerned the apostasy which is leavening their movement, it does not appear that they understand the root causes and solutions for the problem. They draw back from labeling apostate evangelicals as heretics and false teachers. They draw back from calling for separation from error. They are extremely confused about the church, thinking that “the church” is composed of all professing Christians and denominations.

I believe there are two chief causes behind the apostasy which is evident in the Evangelical world. First, there is A REFUSAL TO PRACTICE BIBLICAL SEPARATION. It is absolutely impossible to maintain the truth without practicing discipline and separation. This is evident throughout the natural world. It is seen in gardening. Unless the gardener is ruthless in dealing with weeds and disease, he will soon have no crop. It is seen in medicine. The doctor who refuses to deal ruthlessly with disease will lose his patient. It is seen in shepherding. The shepherd who is unwilling to separate the flock from wolves will lose his flock. Yet many Evangelical leaders tell us that it is unloving and unscriptural to practice discipline and separation toward error. They are confused, at best. The Bible exhorts us to deal with error in two ways: mark and avoid. "Now I beseech you, brethren, MARK them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and AVOID them" (Romans 16:17). It is not unloving or unchristian to mark and identify a man or a church or an organization as false or compromised, and then to separate from them. The pastor who really loves the sheep will protect them from danger. The only way to be protected from the apostasy which is rampant in the Evangelical world is to separate from it. Don't go to the conferences which promote Evangelical ecumenism and compromise. Don't attend churches that support compromised Evangelicalism, that participate in ecumenical evangelism, that promote publishers which are printing heresy, that support parachurch organizations which are committed to inclusivism and positivism. Don’t promote the books written by popular Evangelicals. Biblical separation is even more than this, though. It involves a militancy for truth and against error. It involves plainly identifying error and labeling false teachers. Only in this way can the flock be protected from the same. If the shepherd boldly warns the flock to beware of wolves but refuses to lift the sheep's skin under which the wily wolf is hiding and expose him plainly before the sheep, he is ineffective. Preaching against error in a general sense is not enough. When God’s people walk into a Christian book store today, they should be able to discern between sound and unsound authors because their pastors have instructed them properly and plainly in these matters. In the vast majority of cases, though, this type of instruction is not being given even in churches and schools that claim to be fundamentalist.

The second chief reason for the Evangelical apostasy is THE REFUSAL TO MAKE AN ISSUE OF THE WHOLE COUNSEL OF GOD. It is common for doctrine to be divided into essential and non-essential. Thus a man is welcomed as a fellow Evangelical regardless of his position on ecclesiology or the ordinances or prophecy or sanctification or the spiritual gifts or eternal security. Even the doctrine of biblical inerrancy is not considered necessary by many Evangelical leaders. Kenneth Kantzer claims "the doctrine of inerrancy should not be made a test for Christian fellowship" (Kantzer, "Evangelicals and the Inerrancy Question," Evangelical Roots, Thomas Nelson, 1978, p. 91). This is unscriptural and dangerous. If a man does not stand for all of the teaching of the Bible, how can he know what portion to stand for? Where do the Apostles instruct us that certain things in Scripture are essential while others are non-essential? While we acknowledge that certain doctrines are more important than others, we do not believe the Bible teaches us to despise or disregard anything clearly taught in Scripture. We are to contend for the "faith once delivered unto the saints" (Jude 3). This does not refer merely to the Gospel, but to all of the truth delivered to us by inspiration in the New Testament Scripture. The faith is not merely a series of doctrines, but is one body of truth, and we are to contend for all of it. This includes whatever the Bible teaches about the church or prophecy or personal holiness or sanctification or separation or spiritual gifts, etc. A church's job is to determine what the Bible says about everything and to stand for it unequivocally.

Beware, friends, of today's Evangelicalism. It is undependable. The Bible prophesies that the end of the age will be characterized by widespread error and confusion. "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables" (2 Timothy 4:3,4). This is precisely what we find today. The Scripture itself warns us that at the end of the church age, truth will not be found among the masses and the popular movements but among the despised remnants.

TRUE FUNDAMENTAL BAPTISTS ARE MORE THAN EVANGELICALS

Though compromise and worldliness is eating at the edges of many fundamental Baptist churches -- yea, it has eaten the very heart out of some alleged fundamental Baptist churches -- I praise the Lord for this movement. I praise the Lord that for 30 years, in the midst of the apostasy of these last hours, I have found fellowship with churches that are committed to the whole counsel of God. I can still stand in the pulpit of hundreds of fundamental Baptist churches and be plain spoken about apostasy and sin and receive a hearty Amen. I praise the Lord for this. Fundamentalist, Bible-believing Baptists are more than Protestants or Evangelicals. They do not believe Roman Catholicism needed to be reformed; they believe it was utter apostasy from its inception in the 4th to 7th century. They do not revere the “church fathers,” but seek to found themselves strictly upon to the New Testament pattern in everything, including the ordinances and ecclesiology. They trace their heritage not through the Roman Catholic Church via the Reformation but through the separated New Testament congregations that were persecuted by Rome throughout the Dark Ages. They care nothing about tradition except for apostolic tradition. May God increase their numbers and strengthen their spiritual power and conviction, and, as the old country preacher said, "prop them up on the leaning side."

See "Fundamentalism, Modernism, and New Evangelicalism."