Christianity
Astray: Is "New Evangelicalism" Really Pseudo-Evangelicalism?
Copyright © 2003 by Phillip R. Johnson. All
rights reserved.
For more of Phil's
sermons and messages go to: www.SwordandTrowel.org
Perhaps you page through each month's issue of Christianity Today as
I do—baffled and disconcerted to see that venerable magazine being used
as a platform for so many of the dubious fads and disturbing theological trends
that constantly flourish at the fringes of the evangelical movement. Until now,
all I could think to do was wince and chuck the magazine in the circular file.
But from now on, I'm going to express my frustration by writing about it.
March 2004
The February issue of Christianity
Today anticipates the magazine's 50th anniversary (still two years
away) by beginning a series of special articles called "Evangelicals: The
Next 50 Years." The series is introduced with a one-page piece (p. 37)
titled "The New Evangelicals in the New Century."
Rehearsing how CT was born, the introduction says, "Billy Graham
helped start CHRISTIANITY TODAY to do for evangelicals what The Christian
Century had done for liberal Protestants."
Indeed, for several years now, CT has been doing for evangelicals exactly
what its liberal counterpart once did for the mainstream denominations: It has
systematically blurred the boundaries of the movement, muddied our theological
distinctives, forfeited biblical integrity in pursuit of "academic
respectability," and bartered away the uniqueness of authentic
evangelicalism for a mess of ecumenical pottage.
These days CT's editors are careful to portray their rivalry with The
Christian Century as a friendly one. They more or less acknowledge with
pride that both magazines have moved and are now much closer together.
("Though we still lock theological horns with the Century from time
to time, a look at both magazines shows that we have learned from one another
over the decades.")
It's obvious, however, that CT's editors still regard their magazine as
the evangelical movement's unofficial house organ. While tacitly acknowledging
that they have shifted stance, they show no interest in relinquishing the name
"evangelical" to the old evangelicals. They clearly believe
their own Centuryfied, increasingly-ecumenical perspective represents
today's evangelical mainstream. They think they speak for the movement and
would be quite happy to set its agenda. They have in effect co-opted the word evangelical.
Ironically, CT's editors note with a tone of disapproval that U.S.
News and World Report recently featured a cover article on evangelicalism
without ever precisely defining the word evangelical.
"That's a problem in general," the CT editors opine.
"Scan books and journal articles from the last two decades, and you'll
find that evangelical is used to describe a theology, a subculture, a
religious attitude, a mission emphasis—and some even argue it represents
a mythical group!"
Yet while saying the lack of evangelical definition is "a
problem," CT's editors offer no clear definition of their own.
Instead, they imply that (as a sort of early birthday present to themselves)
now would be a good time to reimagine the whole movement: "It seems to us
that as this magazine approaches its 50th anniversary, it would be good to
think afresh about the movement associated with the word evangelical."
It seems to us, however, that's precisely what CT has already
been doing for several years: reconceptualizing what it means to be
"evangelical." No one has done more than CT to prop up
and popularize the notion that it's possible to advocate open theism,
postmodernism, Roman Catholicism, neo-orthodoxy, or whatever—and still
legitimately call oneself an evangelical.
It's an interesting and obvious tactic. By moving the boundaries of
evangelicalism, CT has expanded its own constituency. Perhaps CT's
editors also imagine that by artificially inflating evangelicals' ranks they
automatically increase evangelicalism's clout. Whatever their rationale, CT
itself surely deserves the lion's share of credit (or blame) for modern
evangelicalism's lack of definition. They have been deliberately obfuscating
rather than defining the term for years.
Historically, the word evangelical first came into widespread usage
along with the Protestant Reformation. William Tyndale used the expression
"evangelical truth" as a synonym for the gospel. By the 18th century,
the adjective was being used to describe "that
Naturally, as Protestants, evangelicals affirmed both the formal and material
principles of the Reformation (sola Scriptura and sola fide).
They were also committed to the exclusivity of Christ; believing that His
atoning work is the only hope of salvation for sinners. That usage of
the term evangelical has been crystal clear for at least two and a half
centuries.
In other words, in the historic sense of the word, when we speak of the evangelical
movement, we're speaking of those who share 1) a commitment to the authority
and sufficiency of Scripture; 2) a belief in the necessity and the efficacy of
Christ's atoning work; and 3) a profound sense of urgency about getting the
gospel message to the uttermost parts of the world. The simplicity of the
definition is the very thing that gives clarity to the expression. There is not
really much that's vague about the historic meaning of the term evangelical.
Notice: the distinguishing characteristics of historic evangelicalism are
weighty, foundational, and fundamental principles—not peripheral matters.
That is why evangelical convictions have always transcended
denominational lines. Those vital truths established an unshakable core of
unity and remarkable harmony on matters that are of the essence of the gospel.
Yet they allowed for amazing diversity on peripheral issues.
Among the "old" evangelicals, the core issues and the peripheral ones
have always been more or less clearly delineated. A hundred years ago, when the
distinction between primary and secondary doctrines first began to be blurred
(by the very same movement that gave birth to The Christian Century,)
leading evangelicals published a landmark series of articles called The
Fundamentals, reaffirming the evangelical essentials. CT's founders
all professed unity on those vital doctrines.
These days, however, evangelical unity is being sacrificed at the altar of a
politically-correct notion of ecumenical "diversity." The
distinction between core and peripheral doctrines is once again being
systematically obliterated—only this time CT, not The Christian
Century, is leading the way. The term evangelical has become so
ambiguous that it is now practically useless—thanks in no small part to CT's
own editorial direction.
The current series of articles in CT is a case in point. It illustrates
how the magazine seems hell-bent on making "evangelicalism" as broad
and enigmatic as possible. It seems CT's "new" evangelical
movement has more in common with the old ecumenical movement than with historic
evangelicals.
This is not to suggest that CT's editors utterly ignore the notion of
evangelical unity. At least they give it lip service. They direct readers to
the "Editor's Bookshelf (page 75), where editor David Neff previews a book
by Thomas Oden and J. I. Packer. These senior theologians survey and synthesize
50 years of evangelical faith statements and find a consensus worth
considering."
"Worth considering?" The old evangelical consensus was
deemed essential. And unlike CT's current editors, the old
evangelicals didn't engage in a lot of hand-wringing about whether their
doctrinal distinctives might "become shibboleths—precise word tests
to discover who is in and who is out" (p. 76). They despised artificial
ecumenical homogeneity as much as they treasured their evangelical unity.
But Neff's
summary of the Oden-Packer book shows just how much things have changed.
Instead of the authority and sufficiency of Scripture, Oden and Packer speak of
"our 'cohesive account of the canonical Scriptures and their integral
canonical interpretation'—fancy language for our ingrained habit of
looking to the whole Bible and recognizing the same voice as we trace the inner
links between its parts" (p. 76). The necessity and efficacy of Christ's
vicarious atonement have also either evaporated or been diluted beyond
recognition with radically toned-down language; Oden and Packer speak instead
of "the Christ-centered story of redemption" (p. 76). And
evangelicals' commitment to the exclusivity of Christ and the urgency of the
gospel message has subtly morphed into "interdenominational opportunities
for witness, protest, fellowship, evangelism, and service (p. 76)."
Whereas "the evangelicalism of 50 years ago focused narrowly on issues
that emerged from the confrontation with modernism," CT's editors
tell us the new evangelicalism "has become 'an ecumenically significant
reality'" (p. 76). The truths today's evangelicals are concerned with are
no longer "a series of facts, but truth understood in a dynamic,
relational, and personal fashion" (p. 75)—i.e., subjective ideas
rather than objective facts.
All the high-sounding language can't obscure the fact that this new brand of
"evangelicalism" is fundamentally different from the historic evangelicalism
most of CT's original constituency adhered to.
Remember, the old evangelicalism was defined by those few clear-cut,
essential, core beliefs all evangelicals held in common. But there's no
mistaking that the new evangelicalism's chief characteristic—and
the main thing the CT editors want to celebrate—is its vast
diversity. The movement is so "dynamic and varied" that it
practically defies description. No one has "the last word" in
defining it. "And that is part of the fun and the frustration of being an
evangelical" (p. 37).
Oddly enough, however, the first word in analyzing the new
evangelicalism comes from a well-known editor of The Christian Century. The lead article
in the anniversary series was written by Martin E. Marty. Marty has long
been a bitter critic of evangelical narrow-mindedness, but even he observes
that "evangelicalism today, like its counterparts, has tremendous
diversity" (p. 39).
The article
that follows is by Telford Work, assistant professor of theology at
The editors of CT solemnly assure readers that Telford Work is "an
evangelical professor at an evangelical institution of higher learning."
We are not so sure. Professor Work's
Web site reveals that he denies the historicity of several biblical
characters and events. He also has a decidedly unevangelical interpretation of
the fall of Adam. He certainly would not have been deemed
"evangelical" in the old sense of the term.
But Professor Work does nonetheless claim to be an evangelical. Summing
up his paean to evangelical diversity, he says, "The reason Paul could
address his letter to all the saints in
Well, we still think it's the wrong label. What Telford Work and CT's
editors are promoting is not historic evangelicalism at all; it is
merely a 21st-century postmodern twist on the old ecumenism. And we think it's
past time for true evangelicals to reassert the classic distinctives of our
faith with the same kind of bold clarity our spiritual ancestors insisted on.
Written by Phil Johnson
For more of Phil's sermons
and messages go to: www.SwordandTrowel.org
Posted to Bible Bulletin Board's
"Sermons and Articles" collection by
Tony Capoccia
Bible Bulletin Board
Websites: www.biblebb.com and www.gospelgems.com
Email: tony@biblebb.com
Online since 1986