|
|
This is only a preview of the paper
Click here to register and get the full text.
Existing members click here to login
|
|
|
Introduction
Evangelicalism is changing. From the beginning, regardless as to when you date it, evangelicalism has been amorphous and diverse. These changes are particularly pronounced in late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries in America. ... Some may contend that evangelicalism is less evangelical than before and is showing signs of decline. ... However, in the western world in the early twenty-first century, the landscape has changed. The dominant culture facing evangelicalism is no longer modernity, but a post-modern, post-Christian, milieu of shifting contexts and realities. ... There has been at least fifty years of change taking place within evangelicalism. ... And they are forcing evangelicalism to reassess itself.
The subject of this paper’s query is how evangelicalism was disestablished in the latter part of the twentieth century and how the emerging post-evangelical church is engaging this new context. To accomplish this task one must have a sense for how deeply ingrained evangelicalism is with modernity’s assumptions. After looking into this foundation the next task is to explore the history of evangelicalism in the latter part of the twentieth century. ...
From whence we come: our modern roots
Martin Marty has said that “Evangelicalism is the characteristic Protestant way of relating to modernity” (Carpenter 1997:235), indeed evangelicals relate well to modernity’s compartmentalization because of the intense emphasis on individual religious experience (Ibid 1997:235). ... Stephen Toulmin highlights four fundamental transitions that characterize the emerging modernity of the time. First was a shift from the orality to the literacy. ... This would have profound effect upon evangelicalism and the inerrancy debate of scripture.
The inerrancy of the Bible became a defining characteristic of American fundamentalism and evangelicalism. ...
However, orality, which has come to possess something of a second-class citizenship in modernity, is temporal and dynamic. ...
Second, there was a shift from the particular to the universal. ... Evangelicalism was thus infected with a penchant for objective, universal truth. ...
Our Evangelical Past
Modernity has shaped so much of evangelicalism that it is compelling to consider how it must change now that modern era is coming to a close. This is not to say that within the constraints of modernity that evangelicalism had only one face. ...
Fundamentalism came to prominence out of the decline of traditional revivalist evangelicalism during the first half of the twentieth century (Marsden 1987:4). ... However, this version of evangelicalism collapsed during the early years of the twentieth century (Ibid 1987:4). ... They insisted upon adherence to fundamental doctrines, such as the virgin birth of Christ, miracles, Christ’s bodily resurrection, the second coming, and an inerrant understanding of Scripture (Ibid 1987:4).
Following the Second World War, evangelical Christianity has been in constant transition. ... Until the mid-twentieth century the dominant forms of Protestant Christianity in the U. ... With the coming of Fuller Theological Seminary evangelicalism would find a new home. The “new evangelicals” were the next step in evangelicalism’s adaptation to a changing culture.
Marsden makes the point of highlighting how Fuller Seminary, in its inception, was part of three religious traditions; fundamentalism, evangelicalism, and new evangelicalism. James Bradley notes that during the seminary’s first decade it was unclear if it would move to a more conservative fundamentalist prospective or a more progressive “new evangelical” one (1988:67). This “new evangelicalism” was birthed through Fuller’s leadership. ... Henry, both founders of Fuller Seminary, began using the phrase “new evangelicalism” in the 1940s and 1950s (Marsden 1987:3). ... Gill notes, in a review of Marsden work, Reforming Fundamentalism: Fuller Seminary and the New Evangelicalism, that the central issue in the “transformation to evangelicalism was the authority of scripture” (1990:132). Fundamentalism “was and is bound to a narrow, literalist epistemology, leaving no room for symbolic or mythic truth” where as the new evangelicalism affirmed scripture “as absolutely true in matters of faith and practice” (Ibid. ...
However, this new evangelicalism is deceiving. ... Though the distinctions may be somewhat forced (Sweeney 1991:70) and not necessarily contemporary, since the book was written in 1974, it is still useful for gaining a broad view of how evangelicalism developed post-Second World War. Quebedeaux’s four categories of evangelical streams are “Separatist Fundamentalism”, “Open Fundamentalism”, “Established Evangelicalism”, and “New Evangelicalism”.
Quebedeaux first describes, what he calls, “Separatist Fundamentalism”. ...
Quebedeaux’s second category in the evangelical tradition is “Open Fundamentalism”. ...
Quebedeaux’s third categorization of evangelical streams of thought is “Established Evangelicalism”. This expression of evangelicalism maintains an authoritative understanding of scripture, but not as literalistic as the previous two fundamentalist streams. Dispensationalism is not a defining factor within Established Evangelicalism, but even still much of its theology has dispensational roots. Most notably, Established Evangelicalism does not maintain a separatist attitude, but is open to dialogue and cooperation with other varieties of Christian thought (Quebedeaux 1974:28-29). ... Organizations such as Youth for Christ and Campus Crusade for Christ fit neatly within the bounds of Established Evangelicalism (Quebedeaux 1974:30). While Established Evangelicalism is a significant step away from the isolationist tendencies of fundamentalism, and while it does show more concern for social welfare and unity among disparate Christian traditions, it does not move in a meaningful way toward a constructive unity of the church or an active engagement with issues of social justice (Ibid 1974:37). ... Henry began using the phrase “new evangelicalism” in the 1940s and 1950s. At the time “new evangelicalism” was associated with the newly established Fuller Seminary, the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) of which Ockenga was a founding member and president, and Christianity Today of which Henry was its first editor. The movement eventually came to also carry the designation of “neo-evangelicalism”. As such, Donald Bloesch, along with Quebedeaux, contends that the “new evangelicalism” which is highlighted in the 1970s is another new evangelicalism which is “wider and deeper than the original ‘neo-evangelicalism’, which was limited mainly to those who were seeking to eschew the excesses of fundamentalism but at the same time remain solidly biblical” (Bloesch 1973:30). The new evangelicalism for which Bloesch and Quebedeaux were advocating was a converging of theological trends and currents (Ibid 1973:30).
Therefore, Quebedeaux’s fourth category of evangelicals called “New Evangelicalism”, from which he gleans his title, The Young Evangelicals, is for the mid-1970s another new expression of evangelicalism that steps beyond the constraints of the Established Evangelicalism of his day.
Approximate Word count = 5293
Approximate Pages = 21.2
(250 words per page double spaced)
|
|
|
|
|
|