The difference between the terms “Evangelical” and “New Evangelical”

Part of the generation gap is the differing use of terms from one generation to the next.  I have heard some respond to the present day use of the term new evangelical with mockery.  “They were ‘new’ 50 years ago, not today.”  There actually is a legitimate use for the term today once we understand its historical context.  In the interest of better communication, let me explain.

The term new evangelical describes a historical movement, theology, and accompanying philosophy of ministry.  In contrast, the term evangelical loosely describes people of faith who would neither identify themselves as theologically liberal or as fundamentalists.  The term evangelical is used very loosely and has many different meanings to many different people.  The meaning of new evangelical is static and clearly historically defined.  Evangelical is a term that is in constant flux, with new definitions and nuances daily depending upon who is using it.

From roughly 1920 to the mid-1950’s, the terms fundamentalist and evangelical were virtually synonymous.  They described the same groups of people.  These were those that accepted the inspiration of scripture and all the doctrines that became known as the fundamentals of the faith.  They were also the people committed to the gospel of Jesus Christ and the evangelization of the lost.

But in the late 1940’s and early 1950’s a new group of evangelicals arose that wanted to loose themselves from the “embarrassment” that they believed fundamentalism had become.  They wanted the respect and recognition of academia that had been denied them for 30 years and they also wanted to abandon the “combative” nature of fundamentalism.  The movement had several key leaders.  Harold Ockenga was an influential theologian and pastor of the Park Street Church in Boston.  Ken Kantzer was the editor of Christianity Today Magazine.  Carl F.H. Henry was a theologian and author.  And of course, Billy Graham was the most widely known of the early leaders.  His evangelistic crusades implemented the philosophy of the movement on a grand scale.  Fuller Seminary was the educational institution that took the lead in the movement.

According to Ockenga there were four primary characteristics of the movement.  1.  A willingness to accept the modernist concept of the social gospel alongside the traditional gospel.  2.  A desire to distance themselves from the “combativeness” of historic fundamentalism.  3.  A willingness to explore and accept alternative views on creation and Genesis 1-6.  4.  A repudiation of the doctrine of separation from theological modernists as false teachers.  This included a desire dialogue with theological liberals and replace the long held doctrine of separation with a strategy of infiltration of modernist educational and ministry institutions.   As demonstrated very quickly at Fuller Seminary, there was also a willingness to abandon the inerrancy of scripture as a fundamental of the faith.

It is not anachronistic to use the term new evangelical when talking about this historical movement specifically.  Whenever the term, evangelical is used, it would probably be wise to add further explanation regarding the specifics of the intended meaning since the term is almost completely devoid of any confessional definition today.