Updated February 9, 1999 (David W. Cloud, Fundamental Baptist Information Service, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061-0368, fbns@wayoflife.org) - The following is part four of a four-part article entitled "Fundamentalism, Modernism, and New Evangelicalism," by David W. Cloud, copyright 1995, 1999 --

NEW EVANGELICALISM: ITS HEART

In the previous section we traced the history of New Evangelicalism and gave the classic, historic definition thereof. In this section, I want to describe 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.

PRACTICAL EXPERIENCE

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, since 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 consciously rejected the negatives of biblical Christianity and who attempted 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 affect 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 Kathmandu 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 explains 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 at that time. There were a number of small, struggling house churches that 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, again, to be a hot topic!

One of the men who attended the meeting was from eastern Nepal, and was considered the chief pastor among a number of house churches scattered across that region. His response to my teaching appeared to be very enthusiastic. After each session he approached me and shook my hand cheerfully and told me what a help these meetings were to him. I was encouraged. My ministry was appreciated! My gifts were recognized! I was getting through and being a blessing!

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 was a polygamist and 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 concerning certain matters having to do with money and properties. When I confronted him with his polygamy 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, allegedly, in which God commanded him to "preach to my sheep." I explained that he could preach the Gospel 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 invited to speak at Evangelical meetings in Kathmandu after that. I had only been there a year and a half or so and already, my career as a popular 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 then, I have studied New Evangelicalism diligently. I had discovered 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. David, the man after God’s own heart, was not tolerant: "Therefore I esteem all thy precepts concerning all things to be right; and I hate every false way" (Psalm 119:128).

"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, quote false teachers indiscriminately, and thereby send signals that the false teachers are genuine brethren in Christ.

Dr. Warren Wiersbe spoke each year at Tennessee Temple while I was attending Bible School. I enjoyed his teaching. When we began having some materials translated into the Nepali language during our first years there, I got permission from Dr. Wiersbe to use some of his notes on the Old Testament. Later, when I began studying the ecumenical movement, I subscribed to Christianity Today. The unscriptural things that were promoted by that publication shocked me. They were supporting the idea of evangelical Catholics. They often praised liberals. They said Robert Schuller is not a heretic. They supported "Christian" rock music and recommended filthy Hollywood movies. One day I saw that Dr. Wiersbe was an associate editor of Christianity Today, so I decided to write and ask him how he could be associated with such an unscriptural magazine and why he refused to speak plainly against such things as Romanism and Modernism. He replied with the following comment.

"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).

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 affection for quarreling. Wiersbe’s advice, though, was given in the context of contending for the faith, in the context of standing against false gospels that damn men’s souls to eternal Hell. If ever there were a day in which God’s men need to put on the gloves and earnestly fight for the faith once delivered to the saints, it is today!

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?"

That was an excellent question that got at the heart of the matter and exposed the compromiser’s real nature. Olford replied as follows:

"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).

Again, we observe the New Evangelical trait of refusing to be specific about error. They will warn of false teaching in general but they refuse to deal with false teaching in a specific manner according to the Word of God. The truth is that the New Evangelical is far more concerned about the "error of" Fundamentalism than he is about Modernism or Romanism or any other form of apostasy.

Note another example of New Evangelicalism’s repudiation of negativism:

"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.

Charles Swindoll, well-known teacher and writer, president of Dallas Theological Seminary, exemplifies the New Evangelical philosophy. Though he does not accept Charismatic theology and practice, for example, he refuses to deal with it in a Scriptural manner. He refuses to be that "negative."

"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 the secular press gives this discerning description.

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 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. No, the New Evangelical’s God 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.

Fuller Seminary professor C. Peter Wagner is a popular church growth proponent in Evangelical circles. The following 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.

"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).

Thus, we see that the foremost trait of New Evangelicalism is its positivism and its repudiation of the negative aspects of biblical Christianity. If a preacher avoids such things as Hell, Judgment, and Separation; if he doesn’t identify apostasy plainly and by name; if he speaks of sin and error only in general terms; if he studiously avoids being controversial; if he speaks more of self-esteem than self-denial, you are listening to a New Evangelical preacher (regardless of what he calls himself).

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 observed: "[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 (concerning 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 that leads to increasing blindness. Dr. Charles Woodbridge, who was a professor at Fuller Seminary and a member of the National Association of Evangelicals before he rejected New Evangelicalism, warned:

"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).

Behold Billy Graham. In the early days of his ministry, he preached against Romanism, Communism, and Modernism, but today sees no great problem with any of these. Today he calls the Pope a great evangelist and a friend of the saints and he sends seekers back into the arms of Rome.

Behold Jack Van Impe. A short two decades ago he preached in Fundamentalist circles, but today he exalts the Pope of Rome as a defender of the faith and says that God has called him to preach only "love and unity."

Behold James Robison. Only a few years ago he was lifting his voice boldly against apostasy and modernism. Today thinks the Pope is a saved man and a great example of morality.

"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 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).

"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).

"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).

"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).

"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).

[The previous material is part four of a four-part article entitled "Fundamentalism, Modernism, and New-Evangelicalism," by David W. Cloud, copyright 1995, 1999. It was first printed in O Timothy magazine, Volume 12, Issue 1, 1995, 1999, Way of Life Literature, 1701 Harns Rd., Oak Harbor, WA 98277, dcloud@wayoflife.org]

Part I: The Fundamentalist-Modernism Controversies
Part II: Evangelicalism
Part III: The Apostate Fruit of New Evangelicalism

See also "Billy Graham and Rome"