The Cognitive Dissonance of 21st Century Evangelicalism (and Fundamentalism)

It is very hard to offer a critique of present-day evangelicalism because it has no clear identity. This has been the case for the last 30 years. David Wells described the meaninglessness of the word evangelical in his 1992 work No Place for Truth, or, Whatever Happened to Evangelical Theology (Eerdmans).

As evangelicalism has continued to grow numerically, it has seeped through its older structures and now spills out in all directions, producing a family of hybrids whose theological connections are quite baffling: evangelical Catholics, evangelicals who are Catholic, evangelical liberationists, , evangelicals who are liberationists, evangelical feminists, evangelical ecumenists, ecumenists who are evangelical, young evangelicals, orthodox evangelicals, radical evangelicals, liberal evangelicals, Liberals who are evangelical, and charismatic evangelicals. The word evangelical, precisely because it has lost its confessional dimension, has become descriptively anemic. (p. 134)

There is no doubt that biblical Christianity is under attack as it never has been before not only in this country but around the world. The mentality with which we face the battle is revealing the underlying weaknesses of our respective movements.

There was a time when the terms fundamentalist and evangelical were used interchangeably. That was before Ockenga. In a news release in December of 1957, Harold John Ockenga, pastor of the Park Street Church in Boston wrote the following:

Since I first coined the phrase “The New Evangelicalism” at a convocation address at Fuller Theological Seminary ten years ago, the evangelical forces have ben welded into an organizational front.

There were some strategic news ways of thinking with the New Evangelicals. This new theological movement would be to fundamentalism what Neo-Orthodoxy had been to theological modernism—a sort of kinder, gentler, more worldly friendly version of the predecessor. It would be characterized by a willingness to accept loose definitions of the inspiration of scripture, a willingness to enter into dialogue with theological liberals, a strategy of infiltration of theologically liberal structures, a disdain for hardline fundamentalist predecessors, and the really big one—an acceptance of the social gospel of the modernists alongside the theological gospel of scripture.

Evangelicalism grew wildly in the next five decades, but by the late 1980’s it was clear that evangelicalism was, on many fronts ceasing to be—well—evangelical. Fundamentalists criticized the ideology of the New Evangelicals as flawed both biblically and strategically. The admonition to “come out from them and be separated and touch not the unclean thing” cannot be obeyed while implementing a strategy of fraternization or infiltration. Jude’s condemnation that one who bids a false teacher “Godspeed” becomes a partaker of his evil deeds was either ignored or considered not to apply.

While the term New Evangelical is no longer in use, the theological mindset remains widespread. At its heart is the deep desire of those that call themselves Christians to be respected, admired, or liked by the unbelieving intelligentsia of the world. It is this spirit that drives people like Max Lucado to speak at the National Cathedral and then to deliver his disastrous apology.

R.C. Sproul Jr., a self-confessed evangelical, assessed the problem in the March 2006 issue of Tabletalk. The following are few excerpts from his article.

What is it that distinguishes evangelicals and fundamentalists? . . . An evangelical is a fundamentalist that wants the respect of modernists, and sell his soul to get it.

We evangelicals are they who cut this deal with the modernists, “We will call you brother, if you will call us scholar.”

The point is that the right way to believe is with a holy indifference to what others think about us. Any movement that begins with a fear of those we are seeking to win has already been won by those that are feared.

Weakness disguised as compromise compromised our convictions, and exposed our weakness. Because were too worldly to not care, we have become too worldly to matter.

We still follow the same path today. For fear of offending the lost, we will not tell them they are lost. For fear of looking narrow and close-minded, we have made peace not just with the deadly secularism of modernism, but with the doubly deadly folly of post-modernism.

The sad truth is that while Sproul recognized the problem, he failed to see the worldliness in his own life that led to scandal and dishonor.

The new generation of evangelicals has known nothing of the fighting spirit of the early fundamentalists. They were taught by the new evangelicals of the world. But among this generation is a group that has been for the last thirty years or so been seeking to reclaim the gospel and the lost soul of evangelicalism. We commend their efforts but suggest the following:

No victory against this corruption can be complete without developing and practicing a well-formed doctrine of biblical separation. Christ-followers have to get over trying to be respected, liked, loved, or at least not hated, by the broader movements of our culture. There can be no pleasing both sides. We can be kind, we can be godly, we can love our enemies, but we cannot seek their favor.

This is the dilemma of 21^st Century Evangelicalism. There can be no pleasing the world around while also pleasing the Savior. It has always been this way, but now it is more apparent than ever.

Have you ever noticed two different kinds of insecure high school girls?  One is desperate for attention and does everything she can to get everyone around to notice her and like her.  The other is so terrified that she will not be liked that she does all she can to blend into the background so that no one will notice her or be unkind to her.  Many evangelicals (not all of course) are the former, many fundamentalists (not all again) are the latter.

The following is my observation, I am sure some who have a different vantage point than I do, would disagree.

For those of us who call ourselves fundamentalists, our tendency is to seek to please ourselves with self-serving isolation from the world around us. It is orthodoxy, but it easily becomes a timid, withdrawn, self-satisfied orthodoxy that makes no impact in the world. When we need to stand and be counted, we have often withdrawn. While evangelicalism sought approval and applause of the world, fundamentalists gave up trying to impact the world and just focused on self-preservation. It’s no wonder many fundamentalist churches have declined or closed. Just surviving is not standing and usually leads to atrophy and death. We have committed ourselves to a “prevent defense” so despised by sports fans because of how often it leads to failure. True fundamentalism is committed to ideals that are much bigger than ourselves and are not only worth dying for, they are worth sacrificing our beloved institutions for. Maintaining our institutions, fellowships, accreditation, churches, mission boards–not making waves—can easily become just a different form of compromise.  We need to choose to be difference-makers again–like our namesakes of the last century.  In trying to preserve the institutions they built, we have sacrificed the spirit that drove them.

We will all have to do better. We have no choice.

 

Photo by Robert Couse-Baker–https://www.flickr.com/photos/29233640@N07/