[The following material is from O Timothy magazine, Volume 12, Issue 5, 1995. Permission is given for free distribution of this material, but not for resale. 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, Bible Baptist Church, 1219 N. Harns Road, Oak Harbor, Washington 98277. Phone (360) 675-8311. FOR CANADA the subscription is $20 Canadian. Send to Bethel Baptist Church, P.O. Box 9075, London, Ontario N6E 1V0.]

Introduction

Some have concocted a position that Fundamentalism historically was not militant or separatist, but was merely a belief in “the five fundamentals.” That this is a serious perversion of history is clear from the following facts.

We must note at the outset of these considerations that Fundamentalism has never been a monolithic movement. It has never had one definition only. It has taken many different forms. There have always been those who have worn the Fundamentalist label who have shied away from the heat of the battle, who have refused to obey the Word of God and separate from error. Describing Fundamentalism is like the ant describing the elephant; one’s description depends somewhat upon one’s perspective. Even so, to claim that Fundamentalism was NOT characterized by militancy for truth, to claim that fighting and separating have NOT been a significant aspect of historic Fundamentalism, is to fly in the face of history. It is this gross error that we set out to disprove.

1. That Historic Fundamentalism Was More Than The Affirmation Of “The Five Fundamentals” Is Admitted By Its Historians.

George Marsden gives this overview: “By the 1930s, then it became painfully clear that reform from within could not prevent the spread of modernism in major northern denominations, more and more fundamentalists began to make separation from America’s major denominations an article of faith. Although most who supported fundamentalism in the 1920s still remained in their denominations, many Baptist dispensationalists and a few influential Presbyterians were demanding separatism” (Marsden, Reforming Fundamentalism: Fuller Seminary and the New Evangelicalism, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987, p. 7).

George Dollar, one of the few historians of the Fundamentalist movement to write from the standpoint of a genuine Fundamentalist, gives this definition: “Historic fundamentalism is the literal interpretation of all the affirmations and attitudes of the Bible and the militant exposure of all non-biblical affirmations and attitudes” (Dollar, A History of Fundamentalism in America, 1973).

Dollar divides Fundamentalism into three periods. From 1875-1900 conservative leaders raised the banner against Modernism within the denominations. From 1900-1935 these struggles resulted in men leaving their denominations to form separate churches and groups. “They were the architects of ecclesiastical separation.” From 1935-1983 the second generation Fundamentalists continued the battle from outside of the mainline denominations and also had the New Evangelical movement to contend with. It is plain that this historian, who has given a significant portion of his life to the examination of these matters, identifies historic Fundamentalism with earnest militancy and biblical separation.

David O. Beale, who has written one of the most thorough histories of Fundamentalism from a Fundamentalist perspective in print, gives this definition: “The essence of Fundamentalism … is the unqualified acceptance of and obedience to the Scriptures. … The present study reveals that pre-1930 Fundamentalism was nonconformist, while post-1930 Fundamentalism has been separatist” (Beale, In Pursuit of Purity: American Fundamentalism Since 1850, Bob Jones University Press, 1986, p. 5).

I give one more illustration of the definition given to Fundamentalism by its historians. Again we use a Fundamentalist author. John Ashbrook has deep roots in the Fundamentalist movement. His father, William, was brought to trial by the Presbyterian denomination because of his stand against Modernism. After his separation from Presbyterianism, William Ashbrook established an independent Fundamentalist church. He wrote one of the most incisive books on New Evangelicalism entitled Evangelicalism: The New Neutralism. The first edition of this work appeared in 1958. His son, John, after a period of toying with New Evangelicalism as a young man, became a solid Fundamentalist leader in his own right. His book New Neutralism II: Exposing the Gray of Compromise is, in this author’s opinion, the best book in print on the subject of New Evangelicalism. In looking back over the Fundamentalist movement since the 1930s, how does John Ashbrook define Fundamentalism? Fundamentalism is the militant belief and proclamation of the basic doctrines of Christianity leading to a Scriptural separation from those who reject them (Ashbrook, Axioms of Separation, nd., p. 10).

Those today who deny the militancy and separation of historic Fundamentalism are trying to rewrite history. Instead of admitting that they are NOT old-line Fundamentalists, that indeed they have repudiated biblical Fundamentalism, have compromised the Word of God and adopted New Evangelicalism, these revisionists are trying to redefine Fundamentalism to fit their backslidden condition.

2. That Historic Fundamentalism Was More Than The Affirmation Of “The Five Fundamentals” Is Proven By The Fact Of New Evangelicalism.

If it were true that historical Fundamentalism was a mere exaltation of “the five fundamentals,” the New Evangelical movement of the 1940s would have made no sense at all. New Evangelicalism has always held to “the five fundamentals.” In fact, as we have seen, one of the fathers of New Evangelicalism has noted that there at least several dozen fundamentals! The keynote of New Evangelicalism was the repudiation of the separatism and other negative aspects of old-line Fundamentalism.

In his history of Fuller Theological Seminary, Reforming Fundamentalism, historian George M. Marsden makes it plain that Fuller’s early leaders were consciously rejecting the negative aspects of old-line Fundamentalism. The title of Marsden’s book itself is evidence of the militant character of historic Fundamentalism. It is clear to honest historians that the Fundamentalism fifty years ago was characterized by MILITANCY, by a willingness to deal with the NEGATIVES, and by SEPARATION, and it was this fact that brought about the New Evangelical movement.

Marion Reynolds, director of the Fundamental Evangelistic Association in Los Osos, California, has a rich heritage in the Fundamentalist movement. His father was an early Fundamentalist leader and Marion himself has been in the forefront of Fundamentalism for at least forty years. This man knows the true history of American Fundamentalism inside out. In replying to the charge by Jack Van Impe that today’s Fundamentalist leaders have left their heritage and that Fundamentalism of old was not a militant confrontation with error but more a positive affirmation of the doctrinal heart of Christianity, Reynolds gives the following overview of Fundamentalism’s history:

“(1) The first generation fundamentalists were battling unbelief in their own denominations BEFORE the liberals had gained control. Separation from disobedient brethren was not the issue as it was later to become. (2) Along with the love and appreciation the first generation fundamentalists showed to each other as they stood shoulder-to-shoulder against a common foe, there were plenty of tears, heartaches, trials, misunderstandings and disappointments as some fundamentantalists weakened in the heat of the conflict and opted for `more love’ rather than continued confrontation. First generation fundamentalists fought a valiant battle but they did not labor in the `ideal situation’ which Dr. Van Impe imagines it to be. (3) After some 30 years of the historic struggle between first generation fundamentalists and liberalism within the denominations, true fundamentalists, recognizing that the liberals could not be removed, obeyed the command of the Lord to `come out and be separate’ (2 Cor. 6:14-18). As a result, new churches and denominations were established and fundamentalism was used of God to preserve the purity of the Word and the Gospel. (4) It was in the early 1940’s that a further separation occurred and the evangelical movement was born. It was at the time that the very same spirit and attitude now being advocated by Dr. Van Impe was the moving force in the launching of the evangelical movement. From that time forward the continuing battle between fundamentalism and liberalism has been complicated by this third movement, evangelicalism, which took an in- between, compromised position. Claiming to hold to the fundamentalist position doctrinally, evangelicalism advocated a `more positive position’ and a `broader fellowship.’ A major issue then, as it is today, revolves around the question of how to treat brothers who walk disorderly and whether or not it constitutes `disorderliness’ for a brother to remain in fellowship with those who deny the Fundamentals of the Faith. True fundamentalists believe that all brethren who fellowship with false teachers are definitely disobedient and are walking disorderly. Therefore, the command to separate from such disobedient brethren is no less important to obey than God’s command to separate from false teachers” (M.H. Reynolds, Jr., “Heart Disease in Christ’s Body: Fundamentalism … Is It Sidetracked?” Los Osos: Fundamental Evangelistic Assocation, nd.).

3. That Historic Fundamentalism Was More Than The Affirmation Of “The Five Fundamentals” Is Acknowledged By Historic Fundamentalist Organizations And Publications.

Consider The Fundamentalist, published by J. Frank Norris, a powerful Fundamental Baptist leader of Texas. Independent Baptist historian George Dollar describes Norris’s The Fundamentalist in this way: “The Fundamentalist alarmed and alerted … Reading the 1920-1930 back issues of The Fundamentalist, one can almost see the smoke and hear the battle cries of those times” (Dollar, The Fight for Fundamentalism, published by the author, 1983, p. 3).

Norris’s paper is representative of that entire generation of Fundamentalism in that it was a generation noted for its bold militancy for the truth.

An accurate definition of Fundamentalism was given by the World Congress of Fundamentalists, which met in 1976 in Usher Hall, Edinburgh, Scotland:

• A Fundamentalist is a born-again believer in the Lord Jesus Christ who–

1. Maintains an immovable allegiance to the inerrant, infallible, and verbally inspired Bible.
2. Believes that whatever the Bible says is so.
3. Judges all things by the Bible and is judged only by the Bible.
4. Affirms the foundational truths of the historic Christian Faith: The doctrine of the Trinity; the incarnation, virgin birth, substitutionary atonement, bodily resurrection and glorious ascension, and Second Coming of the Lord Jesus Christ; the new birth through regeneration by the Holy Spirit; the resurrection of the saints to life eternal; the resurrection of the ungodly to final judgment and eternal death; the fellowship of the saints, who are the body of Christ.
5. Practices fidelity to that Faith and endeavors to preach it to every creature.
6. Exposes and separates from all ecclesiastical denial of that Faith, compromise with error, and apostasy from the Truth.
7. Earnestly contends for the Faith once delivered.

The World Congress of Fundamentalists summarized their definition in this way: “Fundamentalism is militant orthodoxy set on fire with soulwinning zeal.”

As we noted at the beginning of this study, many varying definitions of Fundamentalism have been given through the years, and the truth of the matter is that Fundamentalism has taken a great variety of forms. As a movement it has been largely interdenominational, yet many independent, separatist churches, such as independent Baptists and independent Bible churches, have accepted the label. Regardless of this variety, though, one of the chief hallmarks of Fundamentalism–its very essence, if you will–has always been a MILITANCY for the Faith of the Word of God. Anyone who is not truly militant in standing for the Truth has no title to biblical Fundamentalism.

We close with the words of G. Archer Weniger, who showed the fallicy of the view that Fundamentalism is merely a concern for “the five fundamentals”–

“The five fundamentals have only to do with the Presbyterian aspect of the struggle with modernism. … The bulk of Fundamentalism, especially the Baptists of every stripe who composed the majority by far, never accepted the five fundamentals alone. The World’s Christian Fundamentals Association, founded in 1919, had at least a dozen main doctrines highlighted. The same was true of the Fundamental Baptist Fellowship, which originated in 1920. A true Fundamentalist would under no circumstances restrict his doctrinal position to five fundamentals. Even Dr. Carl F.H.

Henry, a New Evangelical theologian, listed at least several dozen doctrines essential to the Faith. The only advantage of reducing the Faith down to five is to make possible a wider inclusion of religionists, who might be way off in heresy on other specific doctrines. It is much easier to have large numbers of adherents with the lowest common denominator in doctrine” (G. Archer Weniger, quoted in Calvary Contender, April 15, 1994).

[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

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.

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, 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

The Lord of the Rings movie has made more than $260 million since its release on December 19; and in spite of its PG-13 rating and its occultic imagery, it and its literary counterpart are being praised by some professing Christians. The Lord of the Rings is the first in a proposed fantasy trilogy based on the books by J.R.R. Tolkien. The movie edition of the trilogy was filmed at a cost of $300 million, but as we have seen, that amount was almost fully recovered a mere two months after the release of the first episode; and the second and third parts of the trilogy are yet to appear. The television rights to the trilogy were recently purchased by WB network for $160 million.

Christianity Today ran a positive review of the books and the movie entitled “Lord of the Megaplex.” Focus on the Family praised Tolkiens fantasies and promotes the book “Finding God in the Lord of the Rings” by Kurt Bruner and Jim Ware (Tyndale House). The glowing advertisement at the Focus on the Family web site calls fantasy a “vehicle for truth” and says: “In Finding God in the Lord of the Rings, Kurt Bruner and Jim Ware examine the story behind the stories the inspirational themes of hope, redemption and faith that Tolkien wove into his classic tales.” World magazines review is titled “Powerful Rings” and claims that the “movie version of Tolkiens book speaks to todays culture.” There is no warning in these reviews about Tolkiens occultic imagery.

• HARMLESS FANTASY, WHOLESOME ALLEGORY?

Is the Lord of the Rings harmless fantasy or perhaps even a wholesome Christian allegory? We think not. I read The Hobbit and the three volumes of The Lord of the Rings in 1971 when I was in Vietnam with the U.S. Army. I was not saved at the time, and, in fact, I was very antagonistic to the Christian faith; and had the books contained even a hint of Bible truth, I can assure you that I would not have read them at that particular point in my life. Though I have forgotten many of the details of the books, I can recall very vividly that they are filled with occultic imagery. The books were published in inexpensive paperback editions in the late 1960s, and they became very popular with that generation of drug headed hippies.

• THE AUTHOR OF THE LORD OF THE RINGS

The author of the Lord of the Rings, John Ronald Reuel Tolkien, was born in South Africa in 1892, but his family moved to Britain when he was about 3 years old. When Tolkien was eight years old, his mother converted to Roman Catholicism, and he remained a Catholic throughout his life. In his last interview, two years before his death, he unhesitatingly testified, “Im a devout Roman Catholic.” J.R. Tolkien married his childhood sweetheart, Edith, and they had four children. He wrote them letters each year as if from Santa Claus, and a selection of these was published in 1976 as “The Father Christmas Letters.” One of Tolkiens sons became a Catholic priest. Tolkien was an advisor for the translation of the Roman Catholic Jerusalem Bible.

As a professor of literature at Oxford University, Tolkien specialized in Old and Middle English and loved ancient pagan mythology. His first fantasy novel, The Hobbit, appeared in 1937, and The Lord of the Rings, in 1954-55. Several others were published later, some posthumously.

One of Tolkiens drinking buddies was the famous C.S. Lewis. They and some other Oxford associates formed a group called the “Inklings” and met regularly at an Oxford pub to drink beer and regale about literary and other matters. Tolkien, in fact, is credited with influencing Lewis to become a Christian of sorts. Like Tolkien, though, Lewis did not accept the Bible as the infallible Word of God and he picked and chose what he would believe about the New Testament apostolic faith, rejecting such things as the substitutionary blood atonement of Christ. And like Tolkien, C.S. Lewis loved at least some things about Catholicism. He believed in purgatory, confessed his sins to a priest, and had the last rites performed by a Catholic priest (C.S. Lewis: A Biography, pp. 198, 301)

J.R. Tolkien died in 1973 at age 81, two years after his wife, and they are buried in the Catholic section of the Wolvercote cemetery in the suburbs of Oxford.

• THE STORY OF THE LORD OF THE RINGS

The setting for Tolkiens The Lord of the Rings is in “Middle Earth” and the hero is a little creature (a hobbit) named Frodo Baggins who accidentally becomes possessor of a magical ring that is the lost and greatly desired treasure of the “Dark Lord Sauron.” The story line revolves around Frodos action-filled journey to take the ring to the Cracks of Doom where it can be destroyed. The individual titles of the trilogy are “The Fellowship of the Ring,” “The Two Towers,” and “The Return of the Ring.”

• OCCULTISM

Though the aforementioned reviewers would have us believe that Tolkiens books contain simple allegories of good vs. evil, Tolkien portrays wizards and witches and wizardry as both good and evil. There is white magic and black magic in Tolkiens fantasies. For example, a wizard named Gandalf is portrayed as a good person who convinces Bilbo Baggins in The Hobbit to take a journey to recover stolen treasure. The books depict the calling up of the dead to assist the living, which is plainly condemned in the Scriptures. Though not as overtly and sympathetically occultic as the Harry Potter series, Tolkiens fantasies are unscriptural and present a very dangerous message.

• TOLKIEN SAID THE BOOKS ARE NOT CHRISTIAN ALLEGORIES

In his last interview in 1971, Tolkien plainly stated that he did not intend The Lord of the Rings as a Christian allegory and that Christ is not depicted in his fantasy novels. When asked about the efforts of the trilogys hero, Frodo, to struggle on and destroy the ring, Tolkien said, “But that seems I suppose more like an allegory of the human race. Ive always been impressed that were here surviving because of the indomitable courage of quite small people against impossible odds: jungles, volcanoes, wild beasts… they struggle on, almost blindly in a way” (Interview by Dennis Gerrolt; it was first broadcast in January 1971 on BBC Radio 4 program “Now Read On”). That doesnt sound like the gospel to me. When Gerrolt asked Tolkien, “Is the book to be considered as an allegory?” the author replied, “No. I dislike allegory whenever I smell it.”

Thus, the author of The Lord of the Rings denied the very thing that some Christians today are claiming, that these fantasies are an allegory of Christs victory over the devil.

• TOLKIEN SPAWNED DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS

Tolkiens books created the vast and spiritually dangerous fantasy role-playing games that are so influential today. Dungeons and Dragons, which appeared in the early 1970s, was based on Tolkiens fantasy novels. One fantasy-game web site makes this interesting observation: “The whole fantasy adventure genre of books came into play when J.R. Tolkien wrote his The Lord of the Rings books. From his vivid imagination and creative thinking he created the fantasy adventure genre. Tolkien probably got his ideas from ancient religions. Peoples of different civilizations were writing epics way before Tolkien was even born. They wrote epics about people with superior strength, about gods that punished people and, travels to the underworld. Tolkien is accredited to being the man who started it all but if traced back even further you’ll see that he wasnt the one that created it, just the one that pushed it forth.”

This secular writer better understands what Tolkiens books are about than the aforementioned Christian publications. Tolkien certainly did get his ideas from pagan religions, and the message promoted in his fantasy books is strictly pagan.

• ROCK AND ROLLERS LOVE TOLKIEN

Tolkien has influenced many rock and rollers. The song “Misty Mountain Hop” by the demonic hard rock group, Led Zeppelin, was inspired by Tolkiens writings. Marc Bolan, of the rock group Tyannasaurus Rex, created a musical and visual style influenced by Tolkien. The heavy metal rock group Iluvatar named themselves after a fictional god from Tolkiens work The Silmarillion. Others could be mentioned.

The world knows its own; and when the demonic world of fantasy role-playing and the morally filthy world of rock and roll love something, you can be sure it is not godly and it is not the truth.

February 5, 2002 (David Cloud, Fundamental Baptist Information Service, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061, 866-295-4143, fbns@wayoflife.org)

[Distributed by Way of Life Literatures Fundamental Baptist Information Service. These articles cannot be stored on BBS or Internet sites or sold or placed by themselves or with other material in any electronic format for sale, but may be distributed for free by e-mail or by print. They must be left intact and nothing removed or changed, including these informational headers. The Fundamental Baptist Information Service is a listing for Fundamental Baptists and other fundamentalist, Bible-believing Christians. Our goal in this particular aspect of our ministry is not devotional but is TO PROVIDE INFORMATION TO ASSIST PREACHERS IN THE PROTECTION OF THE CHURCHES IN THIS APOSTATE HOUR. This material is sent only to those who personally subscribe to the list. If somehow you have subscribed unintentionally, following are the instructions for removal. To Subscribe to the Fundamental Baptist Information Service, send an email to lists@wayoflife.org and put “subscribe FBIS” in the subject field. To Unsubscribe, send an email to lists@wayoflife.org and put “unsubscribe FBIS” in the subject field. To change addresses, simply unsubscribe the old one, then re-subscribe the new one. We take up a quarterly offering to fund this ministry, and those who use the materials are expected to participate (Galatians 6:6). Some of these articles are from O Timothy magazine, which is in its 19th year of publication. Way of Life publishes many helpful books. The catalog is located at the web site: http://www.wayoflife.org. Way of Life Literature, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061. 866-295-4143, fbns@wayoflife.org (e-mail)]