What is a "New Evangelical?"

[kevinmiller]

Wow......lol
I've been in very few IFB churches that didn't have padded pews, air conditioning, carpeting, a sound system, piano and organ. I'm very proud of our church orchestra too. I should be since I play in it. But surely you aren't suggesting that a church having modern technology, air conditioning and...a piano(?) leads to contemporary worship services?

[IM4given]

No I do not have any problem with it at all, as long as the membership all remember why they are gathered together in the first place! It is when they take their hearts and minds off of God that the problems seep in.

[Madeline]

Evangelical" is generic enough these days. The term apparently goes back some ways as a reaction against "fundamentalism", which I guess means embarrassment about having any true connection to scripture. As the term may be used today, I'm not sure, but I think I'm correct in saying it would depend very much on the person using it. Perhaps it may mean a dumbing-down of the already dumbed-down doctrinal content of evangelicalism (that is indeed very much a "neo-" trend). But as far as I am aware it is not a term of generally agreed upon content. And I agree that the trend of multimedia is distracting, but since nothing happens in most churches that even comes close to approximating Bible teaching, it begs the question "distracting from what?" Most of those who ascend to the pulpit seem more concerned with eliciting audience response than in teaching the assembled believers about Philippians, e.g. Memorable illustrations do not equate to learning truth, and, in my experience, usually both distract from it and lead to false perceptions about what scripture actually says. :2cents

Love,
Madeline

[John81]

Our church is relatively simple. Regular, old fashioned pews, with a Bible and two hymnals on the back and a place to put the empty communion cups.

We have air conditioning and ceiling fans. There is a piano and an organ. The "sound system" is two speakers strategically hung so the preacher can be well heard.

That's about it, besides the pulpit.

[Samer]

One thing I still haven't figured out...what's wrong with using multimedia?

When the verses are on the slides being projected, people will be less likely to open up their Bibles and look through the context.

[John81]

When the verses are on the slides being projected, people will be less likely to open up their Bibles and look through the context.

Sadly, most every church we visited when looking for a new church home had members who didn't carry Bibles.

Thankfully, the church we attend has no screens and they have Bibles in the pews for those who need the use of one.

[brother_mike]

Even more sad still are the churches that don't even have a Bible in the pews (and the folks don't bring them in with them either). They have relegated the Word of God to an insert or the back page of the bulletin.

[John81]

Even more sad still are the churches that don't even have a Bible in the pews (and the folks don't bring them in with them either). They have relegated the Word of God to an insert or the back page of the bulletin.

Most of the churches we visited were like that. :sad

They had modern pews that didn't even have the places for Bibles and hymnals. Nobody, and I mean nobody, carried a Bible! In one church, we were the only ones with a Bible; even the pastor didn't bring a Bible in with him! He brought his notes and when he read a verse from his notes the verse was shown on the two screens in the church. Even worse, he quoted from about a half-dozen Bible "versions" during his 20 minute sermon and none of them were from the KJB.

[suitman]

yeah it is a problem and it bothers me about a lot of modern churches.

In our church everyone except for guests pretty much brings their bible. Due to the fact we don't own a buiding ourselves we meet in a school which has plastic chiars rather than pews. and we don't give out bibles which is something which I have been asking for. We do have a screen that shows the bible verses but it always shows at least 2 verses above and below and the preacher as standard always explains the context around it.

Anyway back to the original question

New evangelical?

The word evangelical is a very misunderstood word. For once the dictionary actually gives a good definition.

"Evangelical" (from the chambers english dictionary): ... of the school that insists especially on the total depravity of unregenerate human nature, justification of the sinner by faith alone, the free offer of the gospel to all, and plenary inspiration and exclusive authority of the bible.

Some may recognise this if they have ever done studies into the doctrine of salvation. there are alot of different views on this.

Naturalists believe that man through choice and works can save himself. and supernaturalists believe that gods grace is what saves us.

supernaturalists split into 2 groups.

sacerdotalists is where the catholics are. they believe that man is saved by faith but if wrong is done then people must go through penance along with other things. They do not believe someone is saved by works. as many people believe they do.

and you have the evangelicals which I already explained.
that can be broken down even more but it doesn't help answer the question.

NEW evangelicals is not a real term and was probally used by some silly church to help themselves sound modern.

well I hope that answers it.

[dwayner79]

When the verses are on the slides being projected, people will be less likely to open up their Bibles and look through the context.

Perhaps this is true if you are only studying one verse, but in every church I have been in (which runs the gammot), some of the crazy IFB churches are the only ones that read one verse and talk about it. We display the scripture on the screen. There are typically entire passages (think chapters) displayed. The screen is a tool, like anything else. Is it required, no. Is it somehow wrong? Absolutely not.

[HappyChristian]

Perhaps this is true if you are only studying one verse, but in every church I have been in (which runs the gammot), some of the crazy IFB churches are the only ones that read one verse and talk about it. We display the scripture on the screen. There are typically entire passages (think chapters) displayed. The screen is a tool, like anything else. Is it required, no. Is it somehow wrong? Absolutely not.

I agree with you about the screen being a tool, Dwayne. Our church doesn't have one, but I do think if a church used it right, it would work. I also agree with the others regarding the lack of bringing a Bible to church. My BIL doesn't bring one...but I am glad he is going to church!

[brother_mike]

Here is a small snipet from an article on Bro. Cloud's site http://www.wayoflife.org regarding new-evangelicalism. Please go there and read all the articles, very interesting:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the first half of the 20th century evangelicalism in America was largely synonymous with fundamentalism.

Many historians make this connection, including Mark Ellingsen (The Evangelical Movement) and George Marsden (Reforming Fundamentalism). Marsden says, ?There was not a practical distinction between fundamentalist and evangelical: the words were interchangeable? (p. 48).

When the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) was formed in 1942, for example, participants included such staunch fundamentalist leaders as Bob Jones, Sr., John R. Rice, Charles Woodbridge, Harry Ironside, and David Otis Fuller.

By the mid-1950s, though, a clear break between separatist fundamentalists and non-separatist evangelicals occurred. This was occasioned largely by the ecumenical evangelism of Billy Graham. The stronger men dropped out of the NAE. The terms evangelicalism and fundamentalism began ?to refer to two different movements? (William Martin, A Prophet with Honor, p. 224).

The sons of evangelical-fundamentalist preachers determined to create a ?New Evangelicalism.? They would not be fighters; they would be diplomats, positive rather than militant, infiltrators rather than separatists. They would not be restricted by a separationist mentality.

Harold Ockenga claimed to have coined the term ?new evangelical? in 1948. Ockenga was pastor of Park Street Church in Boston, founder of the National Association of Evangelicals, co-founder and first president of Fuller Seminary, first president of the World Evangelical Fellowship, president of Gordon College and Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, a director of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, and chairman of the board and one-time editor of Christianity Today. Following is how Ockenga defined New Evangelicalism in 1976 when he wrote the foreword to Harold Lindsell?s The Battle for the Bible:

?Neo-evangelicalism was born in 1948 in connection with a convocation address which I gave in the Civic Auditorium in Pasadena. While reaffirming the theological view of fundamentalism, this address REPUDIATED ITS ECCLESIOLOGY AND ITS SOCIAL THEORY. The ringing call for A REPUDIATION OF SEPARATISM AND THE SUMMONS TO SOCIAL INVOLVEMENT received a hearty response from many evangelicals. The name caught on and spokesmen such as Drs. Harold Lindsell, Carl F.H. Henry, Edward Carnell, and Gleason Archer supported this viewpoint. We had no intention of launching a movement, but found that the emphasis attracted widespread support and exercised great influence. Neo-evangelicalism... DIFFERENT FROM FUNDAMENTALISM IN ITS REPUDIATION OF SEPARATISM AND ITS DETERMINATION TO ENGAGE ITSELF IN THE THEOLOGICAL DIALOGUE OF THE DAY. IT HAD A NEW EMPHASIS UPON THE APPLICATION OF THE GOSPEL TO THE SOCIOLOGICAL, POLITICAL, AND ECONOMIC AREAS OF LIFE. Neo-evangelicals emphasized the restatement of Christian theology in accordance with the need of the times, the REENGAGEMENT IN THE THEOLOGICAL DEBATE, THE RECAPTURE OF DENOMINATIONAL LEADERSHIP, AND THE REEXAMINATION OF THEOLOGICAL PROBLEMS SUCH AS THE ANTIQUITY OF MAN, THE UNIVERSALITY OF THE FLOOD, GOD'S METHOD OF CREATION, AND OTHERS? (Harold J. Ockenga, foreword to Harold Lindsell?s book The Battle for the Bible).

Regardless of who coined the term ?New Evangelical? (Ockenga?s claim has been disputed), it is certain that it aptly described the new mood of positivism and non-militancy that was permeating that generation. Ockenga and the new generation of evangelicals, Billy Graham figuring most prominently, determined to abandon a militant Bible stance. Instead, they would pursue dialogue, intellectualism, and appeasement. They determined to stay within apostate denominations to attempt to change things from within rather than practice biblical separation. (Billy Graham remained a member of a Southern Baptist congregation even as that denomination was permeated with theological modernism in the 1960s and never gave even the mildest warning.) The New Evangelical would dialogue with those who teach error rather than proclaim the Word of God boldly and without compromise. The New Evangelical would meet the proud humanist and the haughty liberal on their own turf with human scholarship rather than follow the humble path of being counted a fool for Christ?s sake by standing humbly and simply upon the Bible. New Evangelical leaders also determined to start a ?rethinking process? whereby the old paths were to be continually reassessed in light of new goals, methods, and ideology.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Jerry]

sacerdotalists is where the catholics are. they believe that man is saved by faith but if wrong is done then people must go through penance along with other things. They do not believe someone is saved by works. as many people believe they do.

Yes, they very much believe someone is saved by their works. They redefine grace to mean their faith plus their works - but Romans 11:6 teaches very clearly any amount of works is considered works in God's eyes.

NEW evangelicals is not a real term and was probally used by some silly church to help themselves sound modern.

It was coined by the father of the New Evangelical movement.

One thing worth noting - evangelicalism today is what New Evangelicalism was 50 years ago!

[tired]

1534 Two other sacraments, Holy Orders and Matrimony, are directed towards the salvation of others; if they contribute as well to personal salvation, it is through service to others that they do so. They confer a particular mission in the Church and serve to build up the People of God.

What in the world does that mean?
"Are you saved?" asks the Fundamentalist. The Catholic should reply: "As the Bible says, I am already saved (Rom. 8:24, Eph. 2:5?8), but I?m also being saved (1 Cor. 1:8, 2 Cor. 2:15, Phil. 2:12), and I have the hope that I will be saved (Rom. 5:9?10, 1 Cor. 3:12?15). Like the apostle Paul I am working out my salvation in fear and trembling (Phil. 2:12), with hopeful confidence in the promises of Christ (Rom. 5:2, 2 Tim. 2:11?13)."
off the catholic.com site. Looks to me that works is definately the way of salvation. Didn't the council of trent rule that if anyone believes that salvation is by grace through faith, and no works than that man should be accursed?

[tired]

Berean Beacon is a great site for catholic concerns. Mr Bennett was a priest and knows the catholic dogma inside and out. There are many good articles on it dealing with the church at rome and the emergent church.