Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I think the expressed motivations of Ockenga and others in the neo-evangelical movement included some good and some bad. There were fundamentalist excesses to back away from. But the desire to be admired and intellectually respectable was a very pernicious leaven that quickly led to corruption in the whole lump. Witness Fuller Seminary and Christianity Today, today. The decline did not take long.
Very true but to be scholarly instead of selfconsciencly anti intellectual is not the worst of things, not all Fundamentalists. But the social aspect is good.I think the expressed motivations of Ockenga and others in the neo-evangelical movement included some good and some bad. There were fundamentalist excesses to back away from. But the desire to be admired and intellectually respectable was a very pernicious leaven that quickly led to corruption in the whole lump. Witness Fuller Seminary and Christianity Today, today. The decline did not take long.
It wasn't the desire for scholarship that was a problem, but the focus on having that scholarship acknowledged and recognized. Christians can be excellent scholars, of course, and those with that calling should absolutely pursue excellence. But they should pursue excellence to the glory of God, and not to attain recognition or accomplish strategic goals of gaining influence. "How can ye believe, who receive honor one of another?" If we attempt to build the faith on scholarly reputation, we are attempting to ground faith on the wisdom of men, rather than on the power of God. Pursuing respectability for the faith once delivered ultimately winds up diluting the faith into a form which no one could respect.
Very true but, to play devil's advocate, wasn't it fundamentalism he was reacting to? Not saying that justifies it, Machen was a scholar par excellence and he never compromised his confessional standing. It seems that their intentions were at least in line with Machen on scholarship but had pan Christian, unrealistic to say the least, movement.It wasn't the desire for scholarship that was a problem, but the focus on having that scholarship acknowledged and recognized. Christians can be excellent scholars, of course, and those with that calling should absolutely pursue excellence. But they should pursue excellence to the glory of God, and not to attain recognition or accomplish strategic goals of gaining influence. "How can ye believe, who receive honor one of another?" If we attempt to build the faith on scholarly reputation, we are attempting to ground faith on the wisdom of men, rather than on the power of God. Pursuing respectability for the faith once delivered ultimately winds up diluting the faith into a form which no one could respect.
I mean the quotes still seem to me to be in that context. I'm not defending them, but we have a context today that is different than theirs.Machen actually shows that the whole approach of neo-evangelicalism was compromised from the get go. They had an example: there was a way to be Christian, scholarly, and Biblically convicted. Machen was also familiar with fundamentalism and its problems, but he didn't let that stalking horse drive him into error. Listen to probably the best of the neo-evangelicals:
Carl F.H. Henry, Confessions of a Theologian
p. 119
Meanwhile the Seminary faced an intensive job of public relations with community and churches. It seemed imperative to me that in the cultured context of Pasadena, evangelical Christianity be seen as an intellectually viable and vibrant faith and not as a suspect cult.
p.137
Carnell wrote me he was disturbed by what he considered a "lukewarm reception" of his A Philosophy of the Christian Religion (1952). "After pouring the fruit of my philosophic labors into it, it has received little or no acclaim; at least not a measure of what I thought it was deserving in the light of the effort expended." He added: "There is a parochialism in evangelicalism from which I must withdraw. I trust that the fruit of this withdrawal will be a richness and breadth of comprehension that will serve as a new point of rallying for the evangelicals. . . . I want to command the attention of Tillich and Bennett; then I shall be in a better place to be of service to the evangelicals. We need prestige desperately."
p.293 [of a rather tense meeting of the board of Christianity Today]
Baker said he wanted to hear from Henry on magazine policy.
"First," I began, "no evangelical magazine has defined the evangelical alternative to ecumenical patterns on Church and Society with more critical power and precision than Christianity Today. I would be surprised," I said, "if the proposed editor needs to add clarity and/or depth to these positions." ["Christianity Today," Lamont interjected, "made it possible for us to 'live with' evangelical criticisms as respectable positions."] "Secondly," I continued, "Christianity Today cannot 'win' by escalating editorial policy to a plane of polemics and propaganda; on that basis we would soon forfeit dialogue with the ecumenical leaders and churches. Third, the one level at which Christianity Today could have strengthened the attack—and I was wholly ready—would have been through essays from influential evangelicals in NCC-related denominations, included in our own Board members, but these have not been forthcoming across these ten past years. If these criticisms now come from an editor or from essayists outside the ecumenical churches, they will be shrugged off as what may be expected from such sources."
(Emphasis added.)
Fair enough.We do have a different context, in part because neo-evangelicalism was tried and did not really succeed. They had intellectual firepower (especially Henry); they had money; they had celebrity (Billy Graham). They used those things to build institutions, but many of the positions adopted by those institutions would be unrecognizable to people like Ockenga.
The three quotes given reflected Carl F. H. Henry personally, E.J. Carnell, and Robert Lamont, a founding board member of Christianity Today. I think most would recognize that they are in as good a position as anyone to speak sympathetically and from within about neo-evangelicalism. And they said the same thing about prestige or respectability. I think that is a pretty strong case ("in the mouth of two or three witnesses"). They pursued an idol, and of course it receded from their grasp.
As to Ockenga, you can read his sermons (a 3-volume set is available from Logos). I read him on 2 Thessalonians 2 as part of my own research on that passage, and found him the weakest and least informative of all the sources I consulted.
Machen actually shows that the whole approach of neo-evangelicalism was compromised from the get go. They had an example: there was a way to be Christian, scholarly, and Biblically convicted. Machen was also familiar with fundamentalism and its problems, but he didn't let that stalking horse drive him into error. Listen to probably the best of the neo-evangelicals:
Carl F.H. Henry, Confessions of a Theologian
p. 119
Meanwhile the Seminary faced an intensive job of public relations with community and churches. It seemed imperative to me that in the cultured context of Pasadena, evangelical Christianity be seen as an intellectually viable and vibrant faith and not as a suspect cult.
p.137
Carnell wrote me he was disturbed by what he considered a "lukewarm reception" of his A Philosophy of the Christian Religion (1952). "After pouring the fruit of my philosophic labors into it, it has received little or no acclaim; at least not a measure of what I thought it was deserving in the light of the effort expended." He added: "There is a parochialism in evangelicalism from which I must withdraw. I trust that the fruit of this withdrawal will be a richness and breadth of comprehension that will serve as a new point of rallying for the evangelicals. . . . I want to command the attention of Tillich and Bennett; then I shall be in a better place to be of service to the evangelicals. We need prestige desperately."
p.293 [of a rather tense meeting of the board of Christianity Today]
Baker said he wanted to hear from Henry on magazine policy.
"First," I began, "no evangelical magazine has defined the evangelical alternative to ecumenical patterns on Church and Society with more critical power and precision than Christianity Today. I would be surprised," I said, "if the proposed editor needs to add clarity and/or depth to these positions." ["Christianity Today," Lamont interjected, "made it possible for us to 'live with' evangelical criticisms as respectable positions."] "Secondly," I continued, "Christianity Today cannot 'win' by escalating editorial policy to a plane of polemics and propaganda; on that basis we would soon forfeit dialogue with the ecumenical leaders and churches. Third, the one level at which Christianity Today could have strengthened the attack—and I was wholly ready—would have been through essays from influential evangelicals in NCC-related denominations, included in our own Board members, but these have not been forthcoming across these ten past years. If these criticisms now come from an editor or from essayists outside the ecumenical churches, they will be shrugged off as what may be expected from such sources."
(Emphasis added.)