Dr. Donald Grey Barnhouse and Neo-Evangelicalism

Miles J. Stanford

Spiritual Sharing Service (Tri-S-Series) Number 8 of 19

This is Section III

LAUDABLE, LIBERAL, AND LOST -- We had best share here an enlightening but sad letter written by a lost, Liberal Methodist pastor. May this candid cry be used of the Lord to give each of us a heart-burden: Carefully cultivate a curate!

Many of my Liberal colleagues are guilty of going through the process of rethinking the meaning of the traditional words and phrases of historic Christian faith, often radically reconstituting them with meaning which negates Christian faith in its historical sense, but they do not let this be known to their congregations.

They use the phrases without indicating that they do not mean by them what the typical parishioner thinks they mean. This, of course, is blatant intellectual dishonesty. The crime is compounded, furthermore, because it is committed most often by those who speak most strongly in favor of intellectual honesty.

One is appalled to learn, repeatedly, that when I tell those who resent my Liberalism that I represent, for good or ill, the overwhelming majority of Protestant ministers, most of them refuse to believe me. They haven't the slightest idea what is currently (1946) being taught in the seminaries they support "for Jesus' sake."

One experiences a wistfulness about all this, to be sure. There was a time, in one's cumulative educational experience, when one felt that it was not only possible, but necessary, radically to reshape what was meant by Christian faith.

But one comes, reluctantly but logically, to see that true Christian faith cannot be reshaped: it must either be accepted in its biblical and historic form, or it must be rejected. And if, after taking what were once exciting and highly stimulating and, hopefully, incisive looks at Liberalism, at Neo-orthodoxy, at Bultmannism, etc., it is impossible to accept any of these in the place of Fundamentalism which itself has been rejected, then a wistfulness takes over; for one is lost in the most profound existentialist sense of that word.

Heartbreaking, is it not?

PSEUDO-SEPARATION -- There is more bad news to be considered from the 1957 September issue of Eternity. Dr. Barnhouse's downward course is being traced because of the many Christians influenced by him. Having had the finest and soundest Fundamental training of his day, his questionable leadership could not have been carried out in ignorance! And what he did with Scripture in order to justify his ends was simply unconscionable. "A broad path is not a broad heart, but a broad conscience."

In the article previously quoted, Dr. Barnhouse wrote:

Though the Bible commands us to separate from Unitarians and others who deny the lordship of Jesus Christ, nowhere does the Bible suggest that believers separate from each other because of differences in interpretation of even important doctrines. The only grounds for separation between believers is moral. If a believer is caught in a lie he must be excluded from the communion table until he confesses his sin and repents. There must be separation where there is moral lapse, but there is never a hint of separation because of doctrinal differences.

SOUND DOCTRINAL SEPARATION -- Paul did more than "hint" when it came to false teaching within the Body of Christ. An example is seen in 2 Timothy 2:16-18 where Hymenaeus and Philetus had embraced false doctrine concerning the resurrection. Believers are told to "shun" such "profane and vain babblings." They were to withdraw their fellowship from those who taught false doctrine--"shun" them. It is a matter of doctrine, not morals.

Actually, the issue of separation from believers was beside the point. The real issue was separation from unbelievers, something that Dr. Barnhouse steadfastly refused to do. But in 2 Timothy 3:1-9 Paul lists in the first five verses the sins of those who, in the last days, will reject God's truth. He then commands believers, "from such turn away," i.e., separate yourselves.

Such separation is not only to take place on the ground of their ungodly lives, but also because of their ignorance of truth (v. 7), their rebellion against truth (v. 8), and their counterfeit faith (v. 8). The root of their trouble was doctrinal; the fruit of it was moral. God is just as concerned with correct doctrine as He is with correct living; they are inextricably interrelated.

EXTRAVAGANT EXEGESIS -- It was in relation to 2 Corinthians 6:14-17 that Dr. Barnhouse resorted to his more invalid interpretation. He insisted that this Scripture applied only to separation from those who worshiped pagan deities in the Corinthian temples: "I'm just not going to let you apply that verse to the Church. If you are honest with the Epistle to the Corinthians--'come out from them' meant to come out from heathen who worshiped at the temple of Venus and the temple of Jupiter where libations were poured out to demon gods."

But the Word of God is too plain for that deduction. "Be ye not unqually yoked together with unbelievers...." "Wherefore, come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord." Dr. Ernest Pickering wrote on this subject:

"Unbelievers" are those who have rejected God's revealed truth regardless of their morality. The cooperative program of a denomination is most certainly a "yoke," bringing people together in a common cause or effort.

It became historically an "unequal" yoke as unbelieving men assumed positions of denominational responsibility and permitted the introduction and inclusion of blasphemous teachings. The voice of Fundamentalism was stilled and protests were crushed. The only recourse was obedience to God's Word--"come out from among them." The passage commands separation from those who reject divine truth, not merely from those whose lives are ungodly.

SEPARATE OR COMPROMISE -- The thousands of Fundamental believers who separated themselves from the apostate denominations were separating from unbelievers, and separating themselves unto believers "in all good conscience before God." It was a matter of sacrificially and conscientiously breaking the unequal yoke, a separation from complicity with and conformity to the false teachers who were in control--"vessels of dishonor."

"Truth cannot be perpetuated through compromise, and compromise cannot be avoided without separation." Luther, whose heroic separation freed the truths of salvation by faith for you and for me, observed, "Cursed be that love and unity for whose sake the Word of God must be put to the stake."

ERRONEOUS EXEGESIS -- Dr. Barnhouse went so far as to make an erroneous interpretation of Matthew 13:41, in claiming that "some men have taught the heretical doctrine of a 'pure church.' This has caused a fantastic number of church divisions. Our Lord clearly taught that the church would contain tares and wheat so well mixed together that men could not distinguish between them, and were forbidden to try. Separation in the church is a job reserved for the angels."

It has been well said, "Theological defense, especially concerning a questionable position, tends to be selective and self-serving." Our brother's malfeasance forced him into desperate measures. Here he is wrong on at least three counts, simple doctrinal points that leave no excuse for one so theologically astute.

He has contradicted his own Presbyterian ordination vow which bound (yoked) him to "study the peace, unity, and purity of the church."
Paul called for the saints, not angels, to discern and distinguish within the church--"The churches of Christ greet you. Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them who cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ but their own body, and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the innocent" (Romans 16: 16-18).
"The field is the world" -- What Dr. Barnhouse failed to notice, or acknowledge, was that Matthew 13 is referring to the world, not the church! "The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom, but the tares are the children of the wicked one" (Matthew 13:38). In this doctrinal maneuver, he is forced to contradict Scripture, placing Matthew 13 in opposition to 1 Corinthians 5. Paul said to the Corinthians, and to us, "For what have I to do to judge them also that are outside? Do not ye judge them that are within? But them that are outside God judgeth. Therefore, put away from among yourselves that wicked person" (1 Corinthians 5:12,13).

Dr. Barnhouse's esteemed fellow-Keswick speaker, Dr. Graham Scroggie, said on this subject: "When wheat and tares compromise, it is the wheat that suffers. Light and darkness, right and wrong, good and evil, truth and error are incompatibles, and when they compromise it is the light, the right, the good, and the truth that are damaged."

In his use of Matthew 13 Dr. Barnhouse wrote that verses 30 and 39 "lead me to remain in my denomination, which is related to the National Council of Churches. Even if my denomination were described in terms of Revelation 3:1 (and I know it cannot be), I would yet obey the next verse, 3:2, and be awake to strengthen the things that are on the point of death."

It was nothing less than Revelation 3:1 that Dr. Barnhouse hurled at the denomination and Council for years, but here he says his denomination cannot be described in such terms. However, neither the denomination, nor the Council, had changed!

"SPEAK THE TRUTH IN LOVE" -- We are approaching the final leaven of '57. By now our brother's rally cry had become, "By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another" (John 13:35). It was through this influence, coupled with the like attitude of such Neo-evangelical leaders as Dr. Edward Carnell, Dr. Harold Ockenga, and Dr. Billy Graham, that the movement insists that love is more important in the Christian life than doctrine.

These doctors of the New Evangelicalism notwithstanding, the New Testament never places love above truth. As a Christian virtue, love is greater than faith and hope (1 Corinthians 13:13), but it is not greater than truth! Actually, true Christian love cannot function apart from the basis of Christian truth.

BIBLICAL BALANCE -- The Liberals and Neo-orthodox, of course, have always exalted love over truth. The Fundamentalist, William. Kelly, warned of this attitude over half a century ago: "God is light as much as He is love; and I must own His love without the denial of His light. What prevails among many now, is the deifying of love (love is God) in order to strip Him of His light." The Neo-evangelical is unaware of the baleful influence this erroneous disposition has had upon his own balance of Scripture.

It is true that the manner of our speaking should ever be in love, but what is to be the measure of our speaking? "Speak thou the things which become sound doctrine" (Titus 2:1).

It was the Apostle of love who wrote, "Grace be with you ... in truth and love. I rejoiced greatly that I found of thy children walking in truth." "I have no greater joy than to hear that my children walk in truth" (2 John 3,4; 3 John 4).

LOVE-LIGHT -- Dr. Graham Scroggie once said at Keswick, "The Church of God needs to remember that fellowship with God necessitates separation from all who fail to fulfil the responsibilities of fellowship in light. We are not only to yield to love; we are to guard its holiness. It is possible to be led astray from the activity of true love by yielding to a false charity. At the very center of love is light. That is not true love which sacrifices doctrine and principle. God has never acted in love at the expense of light."

THE CLIMAX OF COMPROMISE -- I shall always remember listening to Dr. Barnhouse over Moody's radio station, WMBI, as he spoke at Inter-Varsity's "Urbana '57." The Conference theme for that year was "One Lord, One Church, One World." All three speakers were Neo-evangelical leaders, the other two being Dr. Ockenga and Dr. Graham. On the second day, Dr. Barnhouse was speaking on the subject of "One Church." (Wouldn't you know?) He launched into a veritable tirade against all the divisions that have occurred in the Church down through history: Greek-Roman, Arminius-Calvin, Luther-Rome, U.S. (Civil War) North-South, Methodist, Presbyterian, Baptist, Fundamentalist, etc.

END OF CONTROL -- All were vilified for not maintaining the "one Church." He then began to ridicule present-day separatists with the most biting sarcasm, accompanied by roars of laughter from the many thousands of students in attendance.

As he developed his favorite arguments against separation, and for loving inclusivism, he struck a passing blow at Unitarianism and Christian Science as being Satanic. In capping his demand for loving oneness in the Church, he unfurled his banner of John 13:35--"By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another."

He exclaimed, "Listen: 'By this shall all men know that you are my disciples, if you separate into 378 denominations?' Oh, no, excuse me, I misread it, that's the wrong translation. And yet, and yet, this is what the church has made of Christianity!"

END OF A MESSAGE -- At that instant there was total silence. In the midst of a key message at a leading missionary conference, spoken to thousands of students from all over America, plus multiplied thousands of radio listeners, Moody Bible Institute had cut Dr. Donald Grey Barnhouse off the air!

Understandably, many thought the drastic action had been taken because of the unchristian and unloving attack upon the separatists. But the official reason for it that I received from Dr. Wm. Culbertson, then Moody president, was that WMBI cut off Dr. Barnhouse because of his severe denunciation of Christian Science and Unitarianism. It was feared that WMBI's position before the Federal Communications Commission might be jeopardized.

END OF A MESSENGER -- Dr. Barnhouse's fateful year of 1957 was finally finished, culminating in this paralyzing blow to his personal testimony and ministry. By November of 1960 he was with his Lord--the Lord he had served for over forty years with all the intensity and pertinacity of his great heart and intellect. For that alone he will ever stand head and shoulders above most of us.

BE ALERTED! -- It was not on the basis of truth, of doctrinal conviction, that Dr. Barnhouse chose to avoid the shame and separation of the Cross, in order to embrace the intellectual freedom and erudite adulation of the Liberal realm. He separated from Fundamentalist friends of the Lord Jesus to yoke up with the enemies of His Cross, thereby becoming a founder and file-leader of crossless Neo-evangelicalism.

This being true of one founded upon the fundamentals of the Word, and in possession of the Word of the Cross, consider the plight of his peers who by comparison know nothing of the crucifying Cross of liberation. Years ago Dr. Tozer discerned that "the Neo-evangelicalism of today is the Neo-liberalism of tomorrow." Not in Dr. Tozer's day; not in Dr. Barnhouse's day; but in our day--today! Leadership that would avoid the Cross produces a movement devoid of the Cross.

BE ADVISED! -- That which is true of Neo-evangelicalism can all too easily become true of Fundamentalism. And the Fundamentalism to which we refer is the doctrinally sound, separated, tongues-free, dependable evangelistic church which is seeking to feed and establish its consituency.

The best of Fundamentalism, clean and clear, is heir to the separation battle faithfully fought, won, and maintained by two previous generations. It is a third-generation beneficiary. That should be a warning in itself. Further, the basic truths so confidently and proudly held, the Fundamentals, are no different than those maintained so faithfully by Dr. Barnhouse--no different than those held by most Neo-evangelicals today! Then too, Dr. Barnhouse was aware of and preached the vital truths of identification, truths that the average Fundamentalist knows nothing of. Double jeopardy!

Dr. Barnhouse knew the identification growth truths--he knew about the message of the Cross in the life of the believer. But in his avoidance of that Cross in his life and ministry, he carried his Fundamental truths into the lair of Liberalism. "Now all these things happened unto them for examples, and they are written for our admonition.... Wherefore, let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall" (1 Corinthians 10:11,12).

BE WARNED! -- The warning equation: The Fundamentalism of today, minus the crucifying Cross of Calvary, equals the Neo-evangelicalism of tomorrow! "Safe and sound" believer, if this happened to a Barnhouse, beware! For much of Fundamentalism today is already declining. An obvious symptom, if not the actual cause, is its casual yoking up with Neo-evangelical extravaganzas such as the Billy Graham Crusades, the Bill Bright "Win America" campaigns, etc. Dr. Barnhouse and many others have opened doors that swing both ways. As an ex-drunk, I can quote the old-time bartender's cry, "Get away from them swingin'doors!"

And, incidentally, having been delivered by the Deliverer from booze, as well as enticing wine, I am a total abstainer. Furthermore, I am a critic of believers who do not abstain, including those who insist upon serving wine at the Lord's Table.

THE CENTRALITY OF THE CROSS -- In order to move Fundamentalism's fundamentals from mummification to manifestation, the Lord has been quietly awakening an increasing number of pastors and people to the spiritual growth truths: the Cross to deal with the old nature, and the Cross to free the new nature, that the life of the Lord Jesus might be made manifest in our mortal flesh.

THE SEPARATION OF THE CROSS -- With the application of the Cross to the life of the believer, it is not simply a matter of maintaining the fundamentals--Fundamentalists have been faithfully accomplishing that for over fifty years. Now it is a matter of maintenance in order to manifest, and that calls for reckoning upon the Cross. "So then death worketh in us, but life in you" (2 Corinthians 4:12).

Separation there must be, not only from Neo-evangelicalism with all of its compromise and carnality, but most important of all, separation unto the Lord Jesus Christ and His crucifying Cross. It is the Cross alone that separates the life that will compromise truth from the life that will characterize truth. "Not I, but Christ"; "For to me to live is Christ" (Galatians 2:20; Philippians 1:21).

THE CRUCIFIXION OF THE CROSS -- The "old man," free to thrive and ever tending in the wrong direction, has been the cause of death in the march of Neo-evangelicalism. It will be the same for Fundamentalism unless the finished work of the Cross is always applied for the crucifixion of the old nature, and the resulting cultivation of the new nature. The "old man" may hold to the Fundamentals, but he will never allow the Fundamentals to hold him, "because the carnal mind is enmity against God, for it is not subject to the law of God, neither, indeed, can be" (Romans 8:7).

ALL, OR NOTHING AT ALL -- It is one thing to hold the Bible as the verbally inspired Word of God; it is quite another thing to be held by the authority of that Scripture. Weakness in the latter is Neo-evangelicalism in the making for the soundest Fundamentalist. And where authority is flaunted, authenticity is soon to fall--the inevitable result that has surfaced in the midst of present-day Neo-evangelicalism. When your Bible is lost, ALL is lost! Take this to heart, growing believer--not only for your own sake, but for the sake of those who are, and those who may soon be, floundering in the fog of equivocation.

DARE TO DISCERN! -- During Neo-evangelicalism's formative days Dr. Raymond Edman, then president of Wheaton College, stated, "In science His creation is the final authority and not man, just as in matters spiritual His Word, the Bible, is our authority and not we ourselves." Would you have said it any better than that? Would you say Amen, to that? Would you be guilty of damning the Bible with such faint praise? Believer, beware!

The Word of God cannot be just the best authority, supreme authority, or final authority; it must be the sole authority! When the Bible is made to share its position with science, creeds, tradition, scholarship, or concensus of opinion, it soon will be replaced. Those other criteria may defend or illustrate the Word; they can never be used as a test of its value; they can never take its place as authority, they can never even share its position.

TREACHEROUS TRENDISM -- Neo-evangelicalism began its death march full of life, endeavoring to get as far away from lowly Fundamentalism, and as close to towering Liberalism, as possible. From shame to admiration was the headstrong goal, and the pathway was all downhill. At the outset of the movement, there was little that could be challenged as outright error--just a few progressive trends such as reinvestigation, re-evaluation, and redefinition. But they are trends that in time become terminal!

In those early, "innocent" days, Dr. Vance Havner warned about Neo-evangelicalism, but his voice was a cry in the wilderness. Hear him now!

Trendism is treacherous! And sometimes it looks so good that you dare not lift up your voice against it. We are in danger of being carried off our feet by trends. And the test of any issue is this--not what it is in itself, but which way is it headed? What is it a part of? Whither does it tend? What wave is it riding? Not what is it right now, but where is it going and where will I be if I go along with it?

THE TRUE YOKE -- What of you, awakening and growing believer, there in the midst of Fundamentalism? Separated from heterodoxy? Assuredly, although not just for the sake of separation, but for the sake of the truth. Dr. Graham Scroggie commented decades ago at England's Keswick, "The growing Christian is not morally and spiritually flabby and anaemic, but robust and energetic, and because there is so much in the world and the church that should be resisted, he is an indefatigable resister, and inveterate non-conformist."

There is but one yoke for you. "Come unto me.... Take my yoke upon you. and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart, and ye shall find rest unto your souls" (Matthew 11:28,29). His yoke for you is His Cross and yours; it is an equal yoke: identification with Him in His death unto sin, the law, the world, the old nature, and the devil. That liberating yoke gives rest from the power of all these, and rest in the new life that is "hid with Christ in God" (Colossians 3:3).

TRUTH PERSONIFIED -- The one valid complaint against Fundamentalism by Dr. Barnhouse, and other thousands who turn away in disgust and disillusionment, is the lack of manifestation of the Lord Jesus among Fundamental believers. Truths sufficiently maintained; the Truth insufficiently manifested.

Fundamentalist failure does not excuse Dr. Barnhouse, nor most of the others. If their true-to-the-Word brethren in Christ are lacking in spiritual growth, it is their responsibility to remain and minister, not abandon and abuse. The penalty for deserting the realm of truth is far too tragic and costly. The best the inclusivists can possibly hope to encounter by infiltrating the realm of error is the "historical Jesus" of Modernism's pantheistic patron, the late Dr. Albert Schweitzer.

ACCESSIBLE SEPARATION -- Separated, but accessible, is the stance for sharing. The Lord Jesus Christ, who is our Life, "is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners" (Hebrews 7:26). At the same time there is manifested His meekness and lowliness--He is ever accessible to all who will come unto Him for His life and yoke.

Separation unto truth will keep the growing and sharing believer in the realm of those who have the truth upon which to build and grow. The life of the Lord Jesus, increasingly manifested through you, will awaken and draw the needy. "Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden" (Matthew 11:28).

INACCESSIBLE SEPARATION -- There are those who would separate from the separated. They would keep them, and themselves, from accessibility to the needy. Such "secondary separatists" soon become heartlessly isolated from everybody and everything but themselves--a plight not even they deserve.

CROSSLESS FUNDAMENTALISM -- Fundamentalism is in bloat today. Churches are crammed with Crossless Christians--Fundamental believers who are in no position to escape Neo-evangelicalism, to say nothing of charismatic influence. Churches turgid with torn hearts; insurmountable problems within; overpowering problems without. Blessed needs! They will come unto Him as their Life when they see that Cross-life at hand. "Sir, we would see Jesus" (John 12:21).

CROSSLESS NEO-EVANGELICALISM -- Much of Neo-evangelicalism is at the end of its theological tether, dangerously dangling over the void of a questioned Bible. Their penetration principle has failed in the face of deadly denominational detente. Neo-evangelicalism's neo evangelism is choking the scene with the grey ash of least-common-denominator "commitments"--counterfeit (spurious) conversions. "Converts," spurious or otherwise, for the most part doomed to denominationalism.

CROSSLESS EVANGELISM -- Twenty years ago Dr. Tozer admonished:

The inflationary religious boom of recent years has given us more Christianity, but it is worth less. Religion has become popular. Thousands of uninstructed and bewildered persons have accepted Christ, but they have not a remote idea of the true meaning of the Cross.

They are not penitent; they evince no real fear of God; they have not separated from the world; their psychology is pagan, their ambitions are carnal, their lives empty. They turned to Christianity because it was at the moment the popular thing to do. They innocently believed what they were told and did what they were urged to do; but tragically they accepted a christ that is no Christ, and a cross that is not the Cross of Christ.

CROSS-CENTERED CHRISTIAN -- Many dear Neo-evangelical brethren are heavyladen with the labor of accumulated compromise, and they are beginning to covertly cast about in the pathetic hope of finding reality and Life. If they are lovingly given a glimpse of Him who is their Life (even in the midst of despised Fundamentalism), they will come seeking. Hunger will supersede hostility. Their one justifiable fear is that their tentative overture will encounter the works of the flesh instead of the fruit of the Spirit! The Cross alone can guard against that calamity.

Nearly a century ago Wm. Kelly cautioned the would-be sharer:

There is no greater danger than forgetting the spirit that becomes those to whom God has shown His mercy in giving true understanding of what suits Him in the actual broken state of Christendom.

Is it not one of the things we need most to look to that the tone in which we use the truth should be becoming? The more we learn of God, the more we should cultivate lowliness of mind. This does not imply that you should have indecision in your convictions, but that along with this you have a just sense of your own weakness, and that you are Cross-broken in spirit, remembering how the glory of the Lord has suffered by the failure of His people.

"And this I pray, that your love may abound yet more and more in knowledge and in all judgment (discernment); that ye may approve things that are excellent; that ye may be sincere and without offense till the day of Christ, being filled with the fruits of righteousness, which are by Jesus Christ, unto the glory and praise of God" (Philippians 1:9-11).

If I would keep apart from pain and tears,

From sharing travail with the groaning earth,

Drift through my life-long days with ease and mirth--

Then I must turn from love, all that endears;

Be unconcerned, thus safe from anxious fears.

Keep heart and soul stagnated by a dearth

Of outward flow--bastioned secure from birth

To death by walls of self through barren years....

Not I! Such cowardice my soul decries!

Though loving puts me in another's power,

And giving rends my heart until it bleeds--

I would not, could not, have it otherwise

For I once died to self, and since that hour

CHRIST lives in me, to serve another's needs!

--Rachel Friend Capehart

________________________________________________________________

POSTSCRIPT 2005: So what has happened to neo-evangelicalism? According to Erickson, Helseth, and Taylor in RECLAIMING THE CENTER, Crossway, 2004, the neo-Evangelical movement continued to (d)evolve and gave rise to further, new expressions of compromise. The traditional neo-evangelical era (1950-1975) was followed by the widely-popular, pragmatic evangelicals (1975-2000) as well as a newer postconservative ("younger") evangelicalism.

"Pragmatic evangelicals focus more on therapeutic models and success-oriented apologetics, high-energy leaders, and interdenominationalism. They are interested in the innovative, focusing on outreach programs and using seeker services [Seeker-sensitive church movement] and broadcast tools for outreach."

Postconservative evangelicalism goes even further into full accommodation with the philosophy of postmodernism and relativism! Thus, the subtitle of their book is Confronting Evangelical Accommodation in Postmodern Times. [Emphasis mine.]

"The younger evangelicals, on the other hand, practice an embodied or incarnational apologetic, see the church as a community of faith, and are intentionally ecumenical [Emergent church movement]. They take an "ancient-future" approach to tradition, whereby the future runs through the past. For outreach they look to "process evangelism" and interactive communication on the Internet." "...the younger evangelicals value tradition over ahistoricism; stories over propositions; a communally embodied apologetic over rational argumentation; and the visible over the invisible church."

Did you follow all that? The leading edge of neo-evangelicalism has gone over the waterfall and into postmodern oblivion and the traditionalist 'old guard' is struggling to prevent being swept over in tow.

Webcurator - DRS

MJStanford

Best viewed in Explorer 6+ or Netscape 6+, 1024x768 screen display, 16 bit color or higher, and JavaScript on

(Materials by Miles J. Stanford are republished here under exclusive permission from the author.)