In the next four articles of Straightway, this editor desires to present the imminent dilemma and inevitable extinction of Christian Fundamentalism as a movement of recent Church history. Fundamentalism's extinction will be the result of an internal intelligent and subversive movement that is presently seeking its downfall. Already this historic warship of Fundamentalism is being dismantled and restructured in order to join the prestigious fleet of Neo-Evangelical luxury liners. A new generation of preaching, teaching, and publications is systematically erasing Fundamentalism's former identification and purpose to a point now that it is questionable whether any would desire to return to its former days of biblical integrity.
The story of Fundamentalism's rise and fall will be one of the saddest enigmas in the annals of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. Costly battles have already been lost within Fundamentalism. Those to whom we looked in the past for leadership in the battles seem to be selling us to the highest religious bidder. The only hope we see is for a remnant to pick up what remains and preserve it with a mighty revival of repentance and a return to the former foundational heart and battle cry of previous days. The enemies that we face by no means have diminished or changed in heart. To the contrary they have only vastly increased, deepened in their deception, and escalated in their influence.
Many will shout a sigh of relief to the changes that have come and are coming to Fundamentalism. These individuals have privately cursed the militancy of this warship and its reputation in the battle, and have longed for it to become a more popular "carnival" ocean liner conformed to a more acceptable worldly, compatible Christianity.
Unless God brings a soil-shaking revival to a remnant found within the last public bastion for Truth in the End Time, Fundamentalism will simply become a blind Samson enslaved and mocked by its Neo-Christian enemies as it contributes to grinding at their mills of poisoned grain. It is to the remnant that we plead in these articles for a return to the former landmarks and noble separatist heart.
A Divinely Appointed Movement
Fundamentalism was a divinely appointed movement that arose in the 1850s at a crucial hour in history when many enemies to the Word of God were rising in power within the United States and Europe. The aggressive births of Liberalism, Modernism, Unitarianism, the Cults, Evolution, and the subtle, intellectual deception of Neo-Orthodoxy all pressed upon true historical churches for the need of a remnant movement to rise and be counted for the Lord Jesus Christ and His Word, the Bible. This remnant movement began as a "puritan" movement within the denominations calling for an allegiance to the foundational principles of God's Word. These foundation principles became known as the cardinal doctrines of the Christian Faith or the fundamentals of the Christian Faith.
The Fundamentalist movement truly started as a militant movement. It raised the battle cry against the high-handed attack and bold invasion of heretical theologies and movements that were rapidly sweeping through these historical denominations. Such theologies and movements were destroying all validity of Scripture, its message and miracles, as well as the character and personage of the Lord Jesus Christ. It was in this crucial hour of evangelical history that God raised up a remnant of men in these various denominations to trumpet forth the call to battle against these aggressions.
These aggressions, however, had so infiltrated seminaries training ministers and teachers that denominations inevitably underwent a full transformation into heresy. What was this remnant of men to do? What were their parishioners to do? It was evident that the denominations had become the product of the liberalism and modernism. Therefore, Providence forced the men to the next step for Christ—an irreversible exodus from their denomination's ecclesiastical apostasy. What began as a "puritan" movement was now pressed by God to become a "pilgrim" movement, leaving a Babylonian system of error and apostasy.
As a result of this exodus, the Fundamentalist movement then became a "separatist" movement: a separation from not only sin but also the apostate system of Protestant Christianity. To be delivered from Egypt (a type of sin) is one thing, but to be delivered from Babylon (a type of apostate religion) is another. There must be a separation from sin, and there must be also a separation from the apostasy which controls churches and ministries that are part of Neo-Christianity.
We should be reminded that historical Fundamentalism was not a denominational identification; it was a biblically-based transdenominational unity. Men from various theological backgrounds saw the same apostate encroachment within their denominational and theological system that was devouring others. The common attack was against the fundamentals of the Christian Faith they all held dear and believed were essential to being a Christian. Though they possessed varying distinctives, their foundation was the same—the Christ of Scripture, the true Word of God. They wanted a militant stand commingled with an evangelical heart for souls. The united cry was, "Ye must be born again" (John 3:3) and "that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints" (Jude 3).
The Birth of Neo-Evangelicalism
As the Fundamentalist movement continued as a militant, separatist, evangelical movement, there were increasing voices within the movement who believed militancy was no longer needed. As they secretly read the works of Liberals and especially Neo-Orthodox writers, they became infatuated with the enemies' intellect and began to subtly embrace their terminology and form of reasoning. Enamored with such scholastic epistemology, they slowly convinced themselves that these modernist theologians were not as dangerous as the narrow-minded Fundamentalist leaders had purported. Their fleshly reasoning prompted greater thoughts of sympathy for the enemies of God, desiring some manner of fellowship if only on scholastic grounds. Détente, dialogue, and infiltration became the new approach toward these theological enemies. They reasoned of another way to approach the battle. Should we discard the militancy and separatist position with the hope of winning the enemy? Should we no longer view them as enemies but rather as brethren in the Lord? Could we not become their friend, religiously meeting with them to win their confidence, sitting down with them to dialogue our differences? After all they also profess to love Christ while serving Him in their own way. Perhaps we need to give them a chance to express themselves; we may find them not to be as bad as originally assumed.
In such a rationalistic frame of mind, Neo-Evangelicalism was born. It was truly a new approach to evangelicalism. This growing movement within the movement finally made its separation from the Fundamentalist movement in the late 1940s. We must at least respect them for leaving and discarding the word Fundamentalist while claiming still to be evangelical. Those who left indicated that they were not of the spirit and heart of the Fundamentalist (First John 2:18, 19).
Most authors consider Dr. Harold Ockenga's 1948 convocation address at Fuller Theological Seminary to be the official birth of Neo-Evangelicalism. Though Dr. Ockenga did acknowledge the fundamentals of the Christian Faith, he repudiated its ecclesiology and social theory. He also strongly renounced biblical separation and called his followers to more of the social gospel approach rather than the historical approach of Fundamentalism. He also declared that instead of separation from the Liberals and Modernists, Neo-Evangelicalism should engage itself in theological dialogue. On December 8, 1957, Dr. Ockenga wrote the following observation:
The New Evangelicalism has changed its strategy from one of separation to one of infiltration. Instead of static front battles, the new theological war is one of movement. Instead of attack upon error, the New Evangelicals proclaim the great historical doctrines of Christianity. . . . The strategy of the New Evangelicalism is the positive proclamation of truth in distinction from all errors without delving in personalities which embrace error. (P. 6, New Neutralism II, by John Ashbrook)
Who was this Harold Ockenga? And what influence did he bring to the evangelical perspective? Dr. Ockenga was well trained in his early days as a conservative Presbyterian preacher. While studying at Princeton Seminary in 1929, Dr. J. Gresham Machen led a courageous exodus from that school because of Modernism. Harold Ockenga followed his teacher to the newly formed Westminster Seminary becoming one of its first graduates. It is interesting to note that the three prominent students of Dr. Machen during those early days were Harold Ockenga (the father of Neo-Evangelicalism), Carl McIntire (who became a prominent voice in Biblical Fundamentalism), and Francis Schaeffer (the Neo-Evangelical Christian philosopher). Dr. Ockenga later became pastor of Park Street Congregational Church in Boston, the first president of the National Association of Evangelicals in 1942, and the first president of Fuller Theological Seminary in 1947. In 1956 he also became the chairman of the board of Christianity Today (the brainchild publication of Billy Graham and his father-in-law Nelson Bell). Dr. Ockenga passed away in 1985.
Over the years Neo-Evangelicalism has continued an intense hatred for the darling, guardian principle of the Christian Faith, the principle of Biblical Separation. In the beginning years of this movement, three entities emerged in great influence over the evangelical world: Billy Graham became the "public relations" spokesperson for the movement; Fuller Theological Seminary became its elite institution of learning; and Christianity Today became the publication voice for the movement.
The very Greek term neo signifies "new in time," or something never before used. Such a term as Neo-Evangelical boldly declares a dislike for the past and the belief that a "new" way must be taken, a way never taken before. In reaction to old Fundamentalism, their "new" path had three major characteristics: (1) a total rejection of Biblical Separation, (2) a direct pursuit to be accepted by the world and liberal Protestant theology, and (3) a promotion of a social rather than Scriptural Gospel.
The lines of demarcation were distinctly drawn between the two movements. Neo-Evangelicalism became a major enemy to Fundamentalism. Of necessity, this enemy would need to be carefully watched and consistently warned about as future generations arose in the ranks of the Fundamentalist movement.
Dialecticism—The Infrastructure of Neo-Evangelicalism
It is important to understand the infrastructure of Neo-Evangelicalism in order to see with candor the present-day collapse of historical Fundamentalism. Infatuation with the intellect of Liberalism and especially Neo-Protestantism or Neo-Orthodoxy brought about the birth of Neo-Evangelicalism. Rather than relying on the work of the Holy Spirit and the purity of the message of Scripture itself, Neo-Evangelicalism leaned towards the powers of the intellect to declare the Gospel. But an underlying reality of this new movement was the abhorrence for biblical separation.
The infrastructure of Neo-Evangelicalism is based upon the philosophical principle of dialecticism. Perhaps an understanding of this principle would aid in our understanding of what is happening in the evangelical world today and why it is the way it is.
Georg Wilhelm Hegel's (1770-1831) proposal of dialecticism as a new form of reasoning was essentially an attack on the linear logic of Western Civilization. Our civilization was based upon the belief of absolutes: there are things that are absolutely true; there are things that are absolutely false; and there can be no compatibility between the two. However, Hegel believed that linear logic could be bent at its opposite ends to form a triangle uniting opposing absolutes. He took a thesis and its antithesis and produced a synthesis. There are no opposite absolutes; facts are simply how you interpret them and reason them. Hegel called this the "Dialectic Principle."
We must understand, however, that the Bible is based upon a linear process of thinking. The apostle Paul in II Corinthians 6:14-17 gives theses and then their antitheses declaring that they cannot be yoked together. Right is right and wrong is wrong. There is the Christ and there is the Antichrist, and these two are opposites; neither can be brought together. There is light and darkness, there is God and the Devil, there is righteousness and there is unrighteousness, there is that which is clean and that which is unclean. There is the flesh and there is the Spirit. These opposites cannot be brought together and made compatible. Paul tells us that "these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would" (Galatians 5:17). Christ Himself declared, "That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit" (John 3:6). The Bible declares that the two cannot be mixed.
Neo-Evangelicalism, in its denunciation of biblical separation, has endeavored to dialogue and make compatible error and truth. It is based upon making dialectical the reasoning of Christianity.
Conclusion
It must be emphatically declared that Neo-Evangelicalism is a part of the Neo-Christianity of our times. It is exactly what it purports to be: a new view of evangelicalism. It is "another Gospel" (Galatians 1:6-9). Yes, it is true they came out of Fundamentalism, but they went to another Gospel, one making the message of Christianity more palatable to the secular and liberal theological world. It is one thing to not believe in Christ, with the "wrath" of God abiding upon such a person (John 3:36). It is a different thing to preach another Gospel and have the "curse" of God upon such a person (Galatians 1:8). It will be a far deeper punishment in hell for those who perverted and distorted the message of Christ than for one who did not believe. We are in the days, the final days, before the coming of Christ, and are experiencing the final deception of the Gospel, "insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect."
God used the strong, separatist stand of the Fundamentalists in "earnestly contending for the Faith once delivered unto the saints." There has been no other movement to stand against the global apostasy of the End Time. Fundamentalism arose in the most crucial hour since the Reformation, when Protestantism was apostatizing and contemplating returning to Romanism. However, Fundamentalism in losing its power has lost its identification. There is no longer the clear line of demarcation between it and Neo-Evangelicalism.
While Fundamentalism's public message is practically gone as it is fast becoming a blended part of Neo-Christianity, may God speak to a remnant to return to the legacy of that which gave worth and purpose to Fundamentalism.