Inw~

ytf'wwnuuu

 

 

 

2:101...
KW... ‘5
Y. . .

It! :5 to“...
{in}. V3.1 l“
I}. «Vb: .

$21

 

”111%inITHWIWWITWI'ITIWM t,

3 1293 01026 2057

 

LIBRARY
Mlchlgan State
Unlverstty

 

 

 

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled

Coming to Grips with the Age of Reason:
An Analysis of the New Evangelical Intellectual
Agenda, 1942-1970

presented by

David Lee Russell

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ph-D degree in Religion

Major professor

Date 92/ @074: AL». /7?3

MS U L! on Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunin Institution 0-12771

PLACE III RETURN BOX to remove Ihb checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES retum on or before date due.

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MSU Ie An AfflrmetIve Action/Equal Opportunlty Inetltmion
Walnut

CWING TO GRIPS WITH THE AGE OF REASON: AN ANALYSIS OF THE NEW
EVANGELICAL INTELLECTUAL AGENDA, 1942 - 1970

By

David Lee Russell

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

College of.Arts and Letters, Interdisciplinary

1993

ABSTRACT

COMING TO GRIPS WITH THE AGE OF REASON: AN ANALYSIS
OF THE NEW EVANGELICAL INTELLECTUAL AGENDA, 1942-1970

BY

David Lee Russell

This study analyzes the intellectual agenda of the new
evangelicals from 1942 - 1970. It demonstrates the
struggles that the new evangelicals had in their attempt to
make evangelicalism intellectually credible. The chapters
in this study analyze the intellectual background from which
the new evangelicals emerged, the new evangelical
repudiation of fundamentalism's lack of concern for
intellectual credibility, the fundamentalist opposition to
the new evangelicals, the intellectual agenda of the new
evangelicals, and the intellectual vision of Edward John
Carnell. This study concludes that the new evangelicals
made strides forward in their attempt to make evangelicalism
intellectually credible, but failed to get beyond the
entrapments of the theological issues of the fundamentalist-
modernist controversy. As a result, the new evangelicals
spent most of their intellectual energy on theological
issues rather than wider intellectual concerns. The new
evangelicals were also sidetracked by a bitter war they had
waged with fundamentalists as well as a significant amount
of divisiveness between themselves.

This study has analyzed the intellectual contributions

of Edward Carnell to new evangelicalism. His correspondence

and his writings have demonstrated that he understood the
intellectual needs of evangelicalism in a way that many of
his peers failed to comprehend. He understood the necessity
of letting go of the negative image of fundamentalism as a
first step toward an intellectually relevant new
evangelicalism. He understood as well the theological
trappings of dispensational premillennialism that was
associated with fundamentalism and the need to move beyond
them to a much broader, tolerant theological tradition.

The new evangelicals influenced the present generation
of evangelical intellectuals, but the overall intellectual
focus continued to show more concern for theological issues
rather than the wider academic concerns of which the new

evangelicals originally set out to pursue.

Copyright by
DAVID LEE RUSSELL
1993

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The most difficult part about expressing gratitude to
those who have helped to make a work like this possible is
that the author may overlook those who deserve to be
recognized. I will try my best not to exclude anyone.

First, I would like to thank the members of my committee,
Professor Fred Graham, Professor David Bailey, and Professor
Marvin Grandstaff for putting up with me through the long
haul of my study at Michigan State. I would also like to
thank Professor Justin Kestenbaum, Professor Michael Sedlak,
and Professor Norman Pollack for teaching me how to study
history with a passion. I am grateful for their scholarly
examples.

I would like to express a special degree of gratitude
to the many librarians and archivists who helped me find my
way around the dusty catacombs for valuable materials. First
up, I would like to thank Thad Voss of the Buswell Library
of Wheaton College; Archivist Robert Schuster of the Billy
Graham Center Archives and Library. A major portion of the
materials used in this dissertation came from Wheaton
College and the Billy Graham Center. I would also like to
thank Dr. Stephen Parrish, Librarian of William Tyndale

College, for his insightful comments and dialogue regarding

my research into new evangelical history, and for his
allowing me to borrow some much needed audio taped sermons
of the late Robert T. Ketchum. I would also like to thank
the Tyndale Library staff for throwing out a gold mine
collection of Sword of the Lord and Christian Beacog
periodicals. I was able to retrieve over one thousand of
them in two large trash cans; The helpful staff of the
library shared by Bethany and Northern Baptist Theological
Seminaries, the Library of Calvin College, the Ketchum
Library of the Grand Rapids Baptist College and Seminary,
the Library of the Moody Bible Institute, the Library and
Archives of Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, the Library
of the University of Detroit Mercy, the Library of the
University of Michigan, and the Library of Michigan State
University.

Much gratitude goes to Professor Garth Rosell, Director
of the Ockenga Institute of Gordon-Conwell Theological
Seminary. I met Garth Rosell at a conference at Wheaton
College in the spring of 1992 at which time I told him how
much I would love to get my hands on the correspondence
between Edward John Carnell and Harold John Ockenga. He
allowed me to go through a major portion of the massive
amount of Ockenga correspondence with Carnell. These letters
enhanced my dissertation more than I could have every hope.
Thank you, Garth, from the bottom of my heart. The scholarly
networking that I was able to achieve while in the midst of

my research brought me across the path of Professor Donald

vi

W. Dayton. I have thoroughly enjoyed making his acquaintance
and most of all having the opportunity to glean priceless
insights from him as we have spent long hours discussing the
nature and history of American evangelicalism. He brings to
the debate over American evangelicalism the kind of
theological and historical savvy often missing in the
community of evangelical scholars. My close friends deserve
a note of thanks for listening to me bounce around the
conclusions of my research: John Marine, of Dove
Booksellers, who allowed me to tag along with him on used
book buying trips and visits to Chicago, and who is
responsible for introducing me to Don Dayton and numerous
other scholars. His insights into the pros and cons of
American evangelicalism proved to be brilliant and often
times frightening. His wit, on top of his intellect, was a
shot in the arm when I needed it most. No greater friend for
which I could ever ask; Paul Patton my Pastor, mentor, and
friend, Al Kresta, Greg Todd (who teases me about my method
of trash can research) Bill Garfield Jr., Mike Bauman, Dan
Clendenin, Sam Eerdmans, Mike Hamilton, Herbert Cocking, Tom
and Kathy Sigmon, Craig Mayes, Diane White, and Dan Lewis,
And to a number of scholars whom I am now getting to
know, and am grateful for the path breaking work they have
done in the field of evangelical historiography: Mark Noll,
George Marsden, Martin Marty, Sam Hill, Randall Balmer,
Harry Stout, Bill Ringenberg, Joel Carpenter, Nathan Hatch,

Douglas Frank, William Vance Trollinger, Ronald L. Numbers,

vii

Richard V. Pierard, John Stackhouse, and Daryl Hart. Thanks
also to my brother Doug, who early on encouraged me to study
and to think critically about Christianity, and to my mom
and dad, for giving me an evangelical heritage and for
believing in me. My dad, a self-taught Civil War historian,
taught me to think historically from my earliest
remembrances. Thanks as well to my mother-in-law Sandra
Haney for the use of her laser printer. It was especially
helpful in the early drafts of this dissertation.

The greatest debt I owe is to my wife Karen and
children Kurt and Sandra who endured the long years of this
endeavor. The number of times I was too immersed in study
and writing to give them the time they deserve from me are
too many to remember. I hope I can make it up to them in
the end. Toward the end of this study my son Weston Carnell
was born. He has brought much joy to our family. His middle
name reflects my own affection and respect for Edward
Carnell. My wife Karen and highest earthly love has been my
greatest source of encouragement in this project. Her
patience with my procrastination and periodic despair showed
me the depth of her inner qualities that often put me to

shame. To her I dedicate this dissertation.

viii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction 1

I. The Authority of the Bible and the
Suspicion of Modern Learning 15

II. The New Evangelical Repudiation of
Fundamentalism: Unified Agenda or
Conflicting Ideals? 61

III. The War Against Apostasy: Fundamentalist
Opposition to the New Evangelicalism 97

IV. The Intellectual Agenda of the New

Evangelicals 127
V. The Intellectual Vision of Edward John Carnell 154
Summary 185
Bibliography 188

ix

INTRODUCTION

Attempting to define the terms fundamentalism and
evangelicalism is as difficult a job as nailing jello to the
wall. More difficult, perhaps, is the task of defining who
qualifies as an evangelical or a fundamentalist.

Evangelical historians are currently about the task of
identifying the historical antecedents of what is commonly
understood to be American evangelicalism. Out of this has
come a great deal of debate between two specific schools of
thought; the Wesleyan - Holiness and the Reformed -
Presbyterian traditions. George Marsden, a representative
of the Reformed - Presbyterian paradigm, identifies the term
evangelical "as referring to the now classical tradition
arising out of the eighteenth-century awakenings." The
significance of this statement is in his identification of
evangelicalism with "the eighteenth-century awakenings."1
Eighteenth-century revivalism was a Reformed - Calvinistic
experience. As a representative of the Wesleyan - Holiness

paradigm, Donald Dayton has pointed out that evangelicalism

 

1George M. Marsden, "Fundamentalism and American

Evangelicalism," in The Variety of American Evangelicalism,
eds., Donald W. Dayton and Robert K, Johnston (Knoxville:

University of Tennessee Press, 1991), p. 33.

1

2
is more closely related to nineteenth-century revivalism,
particularly the social activism that arose from it. "The
revivalistic movement incarnated an element of protest
against nominal Christianity and the traditional churches
that sometimes manifested itself in a rather sectarian
dynamic."21Dayton brings to light that the membership roles
of the National Association of Evangelicals and the
historical roots of mainline evangelical colleges and
seminaries reveals that a great deal of contemporary
evangelicalism has a direct link to nineteenth-century
revivalism.3 In Dayton's analysis, if evangelicalism is to
be understood from the standpoint of the Reformed paradigm,
then the Wesleyan - Holiness paradigm (including
Pentecostalism) must be understood as something other than
evangelical.‘ The scope of this study, however, is not
concerned with resolving the questions raised in the above
debate, yet its importance cannot be overlooked with regards
to defining the term evangelical. The terms evangelicalism
and fundamentalism are both similar and incongruent. Within
the conservative evangelical community the terms are
sometimes understood as mutually exclusive. For instance, a

conservative evangelical will agree with a fundamentalist on

 

zDonald W. Dayton, cove ' va 'c
(Peabody: Hendrickson, 1988), p. 139.

film. , p. 139.

‘Donald W. Dayton, "The Limits of Evangelicalism: The

Pentecostal Tradition." in Misty—Lawn
Evangelicalism. p- 51.

3

almost every line of doctrinef’ yet draw the line when it
comes to the issue of separatism.6 To make matters even
more confusing, there are those who take a fundamentalist
position on separation but still refer to themselves as
evangelicals. There are even those who deny most of the
historic doctrines of evangelical Christianity who refer to
themselves as evangelicals. Conservative evangelicals and
fundamentalists have at least one thing in common insofar as
they would identify the above-mentioned evangelical as
"liberal." What I have just described is the tip of the
iceberg as far as evangelical and fundamentalist identity is
concerned. The limits of this particular study, however, do
not allow us the space to pursue an exhaustive analysis of
definitions, yet at least some understanding of these terms
is in order.

The term evangelical has its origin in the New
Testament Greek word "euangelion," which mean "gospel" or
more literally "good news." Twentieth century evangelicals

claim to embrace the gospel (good news) of Jesus Christ in

 

5These doctrines include the Virgin birth, the deity of
Christ, Christ atonement for sins, the inspiration and
authority of the Bible, the death, burial and resurrection
of Christ, and His second coming.

6I discuss separatism in chapter three of this study.
Fundamentalists are notorious for separating not only from
what they consider to be worldliness, but also from other
Christians whom they feel are compromisers by not taking the
same stand on separation.

4
the same manner which the first century Church embraced it.7
Though this study deals with a particular group of
evangelicals (new evangelicals) I will define an evangelical
as one belonging to any protestant group or denomination
whose roots stem from eighteenth and nineteenth century
revivalism. Despite the obvious historical departure that
the nineteenth-century revivalists made from the preceding
system of Presbyterian Calvinism,°.it is still safe to say
that they were heirs to the Reformation tradition. An
evangelical, therefore, is one who embraces the authority
and inspiration of the Bible, and is committed to sharing
the "good news" with the unconverted.

I have used the term fundamentalism to describe a
movement within evangelical Christianity that reacted
strongly against modernism in the late nineteenth and early
twentieth centuries. The earmarks of fundamentalism include
a suspicion of modern learning, separation from the world

and other Christians whom they consider compromisers with

 

Ronald H. Nash WW
Wn§r_1ngy_fig11gy_ (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1987), pp. 22-

8The revivalists of the early to mid-nineteenth century
despised the Calvinistic idea that God predestines some for
hell and others (the elect) for heaven. That God would
predestine people for hell and still say it's their fault
was considered unacceptable. Nineteenth-century revivalists,
on the other hand, believed that God gives people a free
will choice to accept or reject His offer of salvation.
These same revivalists also rejected the idea of a
centralized ecclesiastical authority that Presbyterianism
was structured around. See Nathan 0. Hatch, _h_

ngggrarizgrign or American Qhrisriagiry (New Haven: Yale
University Press, 1989).

5
the world, and a commitment to biblical orthodoxy.9 The
defining difference between fundamentalists and
evangelicals, then, is over the issue of separation.
Evangelicals generally do not separate themselves from the
world or from their more liberal-minded fellow believers.
Fundamentalists see the separation issue as core to their
code of belief and conduct.

Fundamentalism began to emerge in the early 19003 as a
reaction to the growth of modernism. The roots of
fundamentalism stem back to the last two decades of the
nineteenth century. During this period evangelicals felt
threatened by Darwinism, atheism, and the higher criticism
of the Bible by liberal scholars. It was not until 1910
that evangelical leaders published a twelve volume set of
apologetic treatise entitled, The £undamentaTs. Though the
terms fundamentalist and fundamentalism were not yet being
utilized by evangelicals, the ideological foundations for
the fundamentalist movement were in place. A fundamentalist
was one who was committed to upholding the fundamentals of
the historic Christian faith.10

The term fundamentalist was first used by Curtis Lee
Laws, editor of the Baptist Watchman-Exam'n , in 1920. In
the years to follow many evangelicals would wilfully abandon

the term evangelical for fundamentalist since it expressed a

 

9Biblical orthodoxy was understood mainly as a
commitment to biblical inerrancy.

10See footnote 5.

6

more committed, biblically sound position. Critics of
fundamentalism have argued that the movement was a failure
by the late 19203 due to a number of denominational schisms
and the humiliating cultural defeat of the fundamentalists
at the Scopes trial in 1925.11 By the 19305 fundamentalism
was on the rebound and emerging as a popular movement.
Fundamentalists concentrated their efforts on building Bible
schools, seminaries, radio broadcasting companies, and
mission organizations.12 Post-World War II fundamentalism
remained concerned about the issues over which the preceding
generation fought, yet the issue of separation had taken on
a new dimension: separation from worldly, compromising
believers. Fundamentalists of the 19205 and 1930s were also
in favor of separating from apostate believers, but the
issue was not at the forefront like it was for the post 1945
generation of fundamentalists. This study deals more
specifically with the post-1945 generation since it was this
group of fundamentalists that confronted the new
evangelicals.

The new evangelical movement (some have referred to it
as the neo evangelical movement) developed as a response to

the negative image that fundamentalism had portrayed to the

 

11While the fundamentalists won the court case at the
1925 trial they lost their case before a watching world, and
were ultimately the object of scorn.

12Joel A. Carpenter, "The Renewal of American
Fundamentalism, 1930-1945" (Ph.D dissertation, The Johns
Hopkins University, 1984).

7
world. The term new evangelicalism was coined by Harold John
Ockenga in 1947. New evangelicalism, as distinct from
evangelicalism, was to be a movement that would change the
negative image of fundamentalism both socially and
intellectually. In essence, it would be a reformed
fundamentalism. Fundamentalism had gained a reputation for
its anti-social and anti-intellectual attitudes. The new
evangelicals, who emerged from the fundamentalist movement
during the 1940s, were set on changing these negative images
and restoring evangelical Christianity to a respectable
position in the marketplace of truth. The first thing they
did was attain impressive graduate degrees from major
universities, especially from Harvard. Fundamentalists in
the 19208 and 19308 rarely ever went to secular universities
for accredited graduate degree.13 The new evangelicals
presumed that accredited academic credentials would not only
prepare them for serious academic work, but also improve
their chances of being accepted by the greater academic
community. The second task was to produce scholarship that
addressed the issues of the day. Some of these works
addressed the need for an evangelical social agenda while
others focused on issues of theology and local church
polity. Carl Henry's path breaking work, The Ungnsy
anscience of Modern Fundamentnlism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,

1947), spoke directly to the lack of concern among

 

13Fundamentalists were notorious for giving each other
honorary degrees. See chapter one.

8
fundamentalists for the social and political issues of the
day. Some consider this book to be the key work to
represent the new evangelical agenda.

It is the purpose of this study to look at the role
that the new evangelical intellectuals played in the
development of the new evangelicalism. New evangelical
intellectuals like Carl Henry, Harold John Ockenga, and
Edward John Carnell believed that they were going to restore
the intellectual foundations of evangelical Christianity.
They spoke openly about producing "world shaking" literature
that the non-Christian academic community would not be able
to ignore. To some extent, the new evangelicals were
successful in producing scholarship of a higher quality than
their fundamentalist predecessors, yet, as we shall see,
they were never really successful at impressing the non-
Christian academic community or moving beyond the issues
that earlier fundamentalists debated. There are a number of
variables that helped to work against the intellectual goals
of the new evangelicals. The chapters in this study outline
these variables in chronological order.

The first chapter lays a foundation for the eventual
emergence of the new evangelical movement. I discuss the
ways in which the fundamentalists of the 19205 and 19305
developed and expressed their suspicion of modern learning.
Critics have often argued that fundamentalists are anti-
intellectual and backward, yet I have shown that they were,

instead, selectively intellectual insofar as they believed

9
that all learning must be submitted to a belief in the
authority of the Bible. This position among fundamentalists
kept them from entering the mainstream academic community.
There were, nevertheless, many educated people within their
camp. This was the intellectual atmosphere from which the
new evangelicals emerged.

In chapter two I discuss the new evangelical
repudiation of fundamentalism for its lack of concern for a
serious social agenda and more specifically for its lack of
intellectual credibility. I show the ways that a number of
new evangelical intellectuals expressed their contempt for
fundamentalism with specific reference to Edward John
Carnell's repudiation of fundamentalism. I argue that
Carnell understood the necessity of letting go of the
negative image of fundamentalism in order to make the new
evangelicalism a success. Carnell received serious rebukes,
not only from fundamentalists, but from his new evangelical
colleagues. Instead of a unified new evangelical goal there
developed a problem of conflicting ideals among the new
evangelicals. Some new evangelicals refused to let go of
the mentality of fundamentalism while others (like Carnell)
were quick to condemn it. Chapter three explores the
fundamentalist response to the criticisms of the new
evangelicals. The war of words that developed between the
new evangelicals and the fundamentalists was reminiscent of
the war of words between the earlier fundamentalists and

modernists. The infighting between these two groups helped

10
to sidetrack the new evangelicals from their initial goal to
reform the intellectual image of evangelicalism.

The intellectual agenda of the new evangelicals is
discussed in chapter four. The new evangelicals would
experience some success in terms of publishing more
competent scholarly works, yet they were never able to
seriously move beyond issues of theology and apologetics.
The plan for a major evangelical research university was
never realized nor did they publish major works in the areas
of science and philosophy. Much of this was due to the new
evangelicals being sidetracked by their war with separatist
fundamentalists and their ongoing attempts to reconcile the
fundamentalist-modernist debates of the preceding
generation.

Finally in chapter five I look at the intellectual
vision of Edward John Carnell as the necessary paradigm for
the new evangelical intellectual agenda. Carnell possessed
the mind of a true scholar, yet he was tormented by the
realization that his evangelical identity would be more of a
hindrance than an asset. He understood the implications of
fundamentalism and how it would ultimately stifle
evangelicals socially and intellectually. He was a lonely
man who admitted that he was of a different intellectual
perspective than many of his peers.

In researching the new evangelical movement I
discovered that there are a number of works that addressed

uncritically the academic activities of the new

ll
evangelicals. One of the first works to make mention of the
intellectual activities of the new evangelicalism was Louis
Gasper's book, The Fundamentalist Movement, 1930-12§§
(1963). He argues that since World War II the new
evangelicals had been reversing the negative trend of
fundamentalism by publishing "a body of erudite

literature."“

He further says that the new evangelicals
"made impressive gains" in the 19505 in the area of
theology.15 Gasper's analysis is thorough, yet fails to
point out that the new evangelical intellectual agenda was
primarily an in—house exercise and was not widely recognized
outside the evangelical community.

Mark Noll's outstanding work, Between Faith ang
gririeien (1986), addresses the new evangelical intellectual
agenda from the standpoint of biblical and theological-
scholarship. The scope of his book does not intend to go
beyond the constraints of theological scholarship. He
points out that in the early stages of the new evangelical
movement few evangelical scholars "seemed eager to engage
the general intellectual values of the modern university or
the specific conventions of critical Bible scholarship." He

goes on to say that "only a few in this generation of

evangelical scholars published for the academic world at

 

1"Louis Gasper. The Fundamentalist Meyement, 1929’
12§§- (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981 [1963]), pp. 115-117.

2mm. p.116.

12

large."16

Noll does not, however, successfully show the
ways in which new evangelical scholars had impacted the
greater academic community.

More recent critiques of the new evangelicalism have
made mention of its unnecessary "fixation with theology,"
and definition of evangelicalism in exclusively theological
categories.17 The new evangelical (and presently
evangelical) fixation with theology stems in large part from
the unresolved conflicts of the fundamentalist-modernist
controversy of the 19205 and 19305. The new evangelicalism
was a movement born of controversy and continued to be
controversial through the 19605. Having failed to resolve
the theological controversies of its fundamentalists
predecessors it appeared to take on many of the divisive
characteristics of fundamentalism. For example, by the
19705 the inerrancy debate18 would reemerge to capture the
attention of evangelicals and eventually lead to
fragmentation and division within their own ranks. Not only

was this a continuation of the age old fundamentalist-

modernist debate over inspiration, but now it was between

 

16Mark A. Noll. Berween Faith and griticism;

o s i t 1 e in Ame ' . (San
Francisco: Harper & Row, 1986), pp. 97-99.

17Stanley 61- GrenZ- Wagner;
5 Ereeh Agenga {er the gisr Cenrury. (Downers Grove:
InterVarsity Press, 1993), p. 30.

18The term inerrancy is used by evangelicals to refer
to the total trustworthiness and inspiration of the Bible.
Some evangelicals refer only to inerrancy in the "original"
autographs of the Bible.

l3
evangelicals and evangelicals. In this sense, evangelicals
had retained some of the mentality of fundamentalism.

This study in no way attempts to write off completely
the intellectual activities of the new evangelicals. I have
acknowledged that the new evangelicals made significant
strides forward in their attempt to reform fundamentalism.
Just how successful they were in achieving their goal is a
question that this study will attempt to answer.

I have focused on the years 1942-1970 mainly because
the reference to the "new" evangelicalism had fallen from
the vocabulary of most evangelicals by 1970. The new
evangelicalism became, as Richard Quebedeaux writes,

"” The vision for the new

”Establishment Evangelicalism.
evangelicalism that was shared by Carl Henry, Billy Graham,
and Harold Ockenga would not be shared by many in their
children's generation.20 The specific agenda of the post-
World War II generation would ultimately be difficult to
maintain in the next generation of baby boomers who would
define the term evangelicalism more liberally than their

fathers would like. As to the intellectual gains in the

present evangelical scholarly community, only time will

 

19Richard Quebedeaux. he u E a e c . (New
York: Harper 8 Row, 1974), p. 37.

20Augustus Cerillo, Jr., and Murray W. Dempster. gal;
11’. 7°1,' 31:1°‘_ a_ _'O . _,«-., 10-h uOde I Lu‘ ,.
(Grand Rapids: Baker, 1989); and Robert Booth Fowler. A_hey

Engagemenr: Evangelical Polirical Thought, 1966-;97e.
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982).

14
tell. They still have no major research university,21 and
their acceptance in the larger academic community, though
better than it was twenty years ago, leaves much to be
desired. In the area of philosophy there has been some gain
through the influences of scholars like Alvin Plantinga of
Notre Dame University and Nicholas P. Wolterstorff of Yale.
In History there has been significant academic work produced
by scholars such as Mark Noll of Wheaton College, George
Marsden of Notre Dame, Nathan Hatch of Notre Dame, Harry
Stout of Yale, Randy Balmer of Columbia University, Grant
Wacker of the University of North Carolina, Bradley
Longfield of Duke University, and Ronald Numbers of the
University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Evangelicals may never feel at home in the wider
academic community, not because they are intellectually
inferior, but rather because of their historic Christian
convictions that place them at odds with a world system

alien from their own.

 

“Evangelicals have produced a number of quality
institutions of higher learning over the years. These include
Wheaton College and Graduate School, Calvin College, Liberty
University, Westmont College, Houghton College, North Park
College, Anderson University, and Gordon College. Though
there are a number of denominational universities within the
evangelical educational circle, there is still no major
research university that cuts across the denominational
divide. A cross-denominational research univerity was the
desired institution of the new evangelicals. See Chapter four.

Chapter One

IHE_AQIEQBIIX_QE_IEE_§I§L§_AND
USP C ON OF 0 LEARN N

Higher education, finding root in
unsaved hearts produces inevitably,
shameless unbelief, often dragging in
its ignoble train, licentious living,
heartache, broken homes, shattered hopes
and all manner of ungodliness. It makes
men, "heady, high minded, lovers of
pleasure more than lovers of God. " (II
Timothy 3: 4)

The late nineteenth century proved to be a time of
intense struggle for American evangelicals. Up until this
time evangelicals prided themselves on being God's elect
people to bring His truth to the world, many of whom
believed literally that America was analogous to the nation
of Israel.2

The situation that evangelicals found themselves in
post-civil war America was nothing short of an historical
earthquake as the nation was rapidly becoming a first-rate
industrial and political power. Along side these sweeping
changes was a growing sense of discontent and frustration

among those who would eventually call for political and

social reform by the century's end. The nation soon found

 

1Joseph Stowell, "Death on the Campus," The_fiaprier
Bulletin 5 (July 1939): 1-4.

20n millennial themes in American history, see Ruth H.
Bloch, V sionar Re u lic' l e n Themes e
Thenghr, i756- 1800 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,

1985); Perry Miller, Errand inte the Hildernees
(Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1956); and Ernest Lee

Tuveson. WWW
Bale (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1968).

15

16
itself searching for a workable social order from which to
construct a practical and secure way of life, but to some
extent found itself even more discontented and less
confident.3 From within this context the fundamentalist
movement was emerging with its own concerns and agendas,
primarily for its own survival and less so for any kind of
social reform.4 'To be sure, fundamentalists repudiated
their more social minded evangelical kin-folk, fearing that
they had abandoned orthodox Christianity in favor of a
watered down modernistic theology.5 Modernism was a general
term that fundamentalists used to describe the
liberalization process in American society, especially in
the realms of science and biblical studies. Their primary
concerns were Darwinism and the higher criticism,
particularly as they came to bear on the local church. By
the 18705 Darwinism and higher criticism had replaced the
preexisting paradigms of Baconian inductivism and orthodox

biblical literalism that evangelicals generally used to

 

3Robert H. Wiebe, he Se r 0rde 8 7-
(New York: Hill and Wang, 1967); and Henry F. May, The_En§
0' ih‘ _ a! 11- ‘ C“ ' Stud 0. e S ‘ars 0_ 0- um!

Timfii_1212:1211 (Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1964), pp. 121-
329.

‘Norris Magnuson, a t' ' ' v

S_lxa_12n_1a_ths_§lumsl__fl_angslical
Social_florkl_1§§§:1222 (Grand RapidS: Baker. 1990). p- XV-
5Donald K. Gorrell, The Age er Respensibiiiry: The

s e he Pro ressive ra 9 0- 9 (Macon:
Mercer University Press, 1988), pp. 129-130, 229-230; and

Richard F. Lovelace, pynamice er §pirirnai Life; An
Exangel12.1.1heglegx__f_gen_wal

a o e (Downers Grove: Inter
Varsity Press, 1979), p. 50.

l7

defend the faith, yet, not in the minds of most
fundamentalists. Regardless of the historical realities,
popular fundamentalist preachers and Bible teachers
continued to utilize these methods long abandoned by most
scholars and teachers in their study and defense of the
Bible. The unwillingness of fundamentalists to let go of
their established ways of doing theology and understanding
the world around them was indicative of the direction that
the fundamentalist movement was moving in the early decades
of the twentieth century. Most fundamentalists believed
that they could hold their ground against the modernists
while many others resigned themselves to the reality that
they no longer held a position of predominance in American
society. Douglas Frank has argued that evangelicals,
stemming back to the nineteenth century, were at best a
"shrinking and defensive minority," bemoaning the fact that
they were no longer, "running the show."6

The intellectual climate in which the fundamentalist
movement was evolving reflected a new found commitment to
higher education, rigorous academic inquiry, academic

professionalization, and academic freedom.7 This new

 

6Douglas Frank, Leee Than Qongnerors; Hoy

v t Twentieth Ce t r (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1986), p. 3; and Milton L. Rudnick,
Enndanentalism and the Missouri Synge; A historical grngy

' te ct a M ua e c (Saint Louis:
Concordia Publishing House, 1966),
p. 37.

7Richard Hofstadter and Walter P. Metzger, The
e de eedo ' t e St (New
York: Columbia University Press, 1955), pp. 383-412; and
Laurence R- Veysey. We

18

climate paralleled the positive atmosphere of the
Progressive Era in the early twentieth century. The life of
the mind during the Progressive Era was growing stronger and
more confident. Intellectual horizons widened,
intellectuals felt more "free and exuberant," and in touch,
"with the national mood."8 "Pre-1910 American
intellectuals," says Roderick Nash, "believed it their
responsibility to lead the nation upward and onward." These
intellectuals were still riding the wave of confidence in
the results of the enlightenment. Man was perceived as
finally arriving, his intellect fully capable of
understanding and utilizing the fruits of scientific
analysis.9

Fundamentalists during the progressive era felt as
though they were surrounded by enemies on all sides
including, "diabolically clever professors, proud
scientists, and dissolute society people." They felt even
worse about the fact that their own churches were filled
with liberal compromisers and infidels.” These external
pressures caused fundamentalists to develop what R. Laurence

Moore calls an outsider mindset which resulted in part from

 

uniyereiry (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1965),
Chapters 5-7.

8Richard Hofstadter, Anri-Inrelleetuaiisn in Aneriean
Life (New York: Vintage Books, 1963), pp. 204-205.

9Roderick Nash, The rvous Generation: Ame

Thgggh;r_1211;1ggg (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1970), p. 34.
”May, The Eng 9: American Tnneeence, p. 128.

19
a defensive reaction to intellectual insecurity.11 By the
time of the First World War, American fundamentalists began
to take on a more visible outsider role. They became, in
essence, America's other lost generation.12 The outsider
status of fundamentalists in America corresponded to their
official position on separation from the world. The motto
of the separatist fundamentalists taken from the Bible was
"Come out from among them and be ye separate." Being
outsiders in American culture was a position that
fundamentalists readily accepted, especially in the realm of
modern learning. While some early fundamentalists made
every effort to establish credibility in the greater

3

academic community,1 others placed greater confidence in

the fundamentalist rank and file, thus scorning those with

 

11R. Laurence Moore, Religious Outsiders and the

Making ef Anericans (New York: Oxford University Press,
1986), p. 165.

12Ibid., p. 163; For an interesting analysis of
America's lost generation of intellectuals and other social

discontents see Nash, The Neryeus Generarion, chapter 3.

”3.8. Warfield and Charles Hodge were examples of
conservative evangelicals who in no way supported an anti-
intellectual agenda, but instead attempted to give full
support to scientific and rational inquiry. See Mark Stephen
Massa, S.J., Qharies Augustus nriggs and rhe Crisis of
fliereriea1_gririeien (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990),
p. 60. It is important to note that Augustus Strong was
himself supportive of many of the conclusions of modern
science and scholarship. Strong did not align himself with
the liberals or the fundamentalists throughout his academic
career. Toward the end of his life, however, he sided with
the fundamentalists. See Grant Wacker, Angnerne_nr_§rreng

ang rhe pilenna er historicai gensciousness (Macon: Mercer
University Press, 1985).

20
advanced learning and scholarly calling.14 The bulk of this
suspicion of modern learning stemmed, in part, from the
fundamentalist humiliation over the liberalization of their
own denominational colleges and seminaries. As
fundamentalists lost their denominational power hold on
local churches to liberal protestants, they claimed also
that their control of the educational institutions had been
subverted by the same.15 During the 18905, conservative
evangelicals attempted to fight back against the liberal
influence in the mainline seminaries by staging a number of
heresy trials against professors who had been accused of
teaching unorthodox theology. Three of the most significant
cases were those of Charles Briggs, Henry Preserved Smith,
and A. C. McGiffert, each of whom was tried for heresy by
the Presbyterian Church and eventually disfellowshiped. The
main issue involved was their less than orthodox views on
inerrancy and their acceptance of higher criticism.”

Inerrancy is the belief that the Bible is without error in

 

14Ferenc Morton Szasz, The Divided Mind of Prerestanr
80- 930 (University: University of Alabama

Press, 1982), p. 96.

15Virginia Lieson Brereton, a n' G ' '
c - (Bloomington: Indiana
University Press, 1990), p. 33

16George M. Marsden, t s e

Qnitnre: The Shaping of Tyentieth-gentury American
Eyangelieaiieny_ialgeigz§ (New York: Oxford University
Press, 1980), p. 117; Mark A. Noll, Between Faith ang

tic's.° n e1 als Sch larshi and the Bib e
America (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1986), pp. 28-29;
and Ernest R. Sandeen, The Roots of Fundamentalism:

' ' ca 1 1e ' 'sm - 930 (Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1970), p. 251.

21
everything that it affirms. Generally, evangelicals accept
the notion that the Bible is inerrant in the original
manuscripts of the Bible. The question of inerrancy would
eventually become the litmus test for "true" orthodoxy among
fundamentalists.

In its beginning stage, fundamentalism reflected some
academic promise. This promise was most evident in the
production of a twelve volume set of polemical treatise
known as The Fundamentals, published between 1910 and 1915.
Funded by the wealthy oil magnate, Lyman Stewart, the twelve
volume project aimed to stem the tide of an insidious
modernism as well as to encourage believers to more prayer,
more evangelism, and more personal experience with God. The
list of contributors to The Fundamentals read like a "Who's
Who" in conservative evangelicalism. A total of sixty-four
authors were chosen for the project. Most of the
contributors were not highly trained scholars, at least
according to the academic standards of their day, yet among
this group were a few scholars with professional credentials
such as James Orr of the United Free Church College of
Scotland,17 George L. Robinson of McCormick Seminary, and
Oberlin College professor George Frederick Wright. For all
the claims that The Enndamentaia would represent a scholarly
treatment of orthodox Christianity and rational critique of

modernism, the editors seemed to have a more practical

 

17Orr received his greatest acclaim from publishing
four articles in The Fundamentais, see Glen G. Scorgie, A

gall fer gentinuity; The Theological Contribution of Janee
err (Macon: Mercer University Press, 1988), pp. 150-151.

22
concern with getting these works into the hands of "every
pastor, evangelist, missionary, theological student, sunday
school superintendent, Y.M.C.A. and Y.W.C.A. secretary in
the English speaking world, so far as the address of all
these can be obtained."18 In terms of its scholarly appeal,
little more than a half-dozen professional journals bothered
to review The Enngamentaie.19 This project represented,
perhaps, the best conservative evangelical scholarship of
the day, yet, as Sandeen has shown, its publication produced
”scarcely a ripple in the scholarly world and had little
impact upon biblical studies and theology."20 Due to its
overall appeal to the religious rank and file, there is
little wonder that the greater academic community failed to
give The_£nnganenraie more than a passing glance. A survey
of the contents of most of the articles will reveal that the
focus was more devotional in tone than it was scholarly.21
In addition to the concerns over the virgin birth, Christ's
deity, the atonement, the resurrection, and biblical
authority, The andanentaie were a "disavowal of the

scholarship and method in schools of religion, and of the

 

18The Enndamentals volume I (Chicago: Testimony
Publishing Company, 1910), forward to volume I.

19William R. Hutchison, e M r 's u e

Aneriean_£rereeranriem (New York: Oxford University Press,
1976), p. 198.

20Sandeen, The Roots er Fungamentalisn, p. 199.
“laid., p. 206.

23

arts and sciences in free colleges."22

As we have shown, the appearance of some learned
scholars among the list of contributors to The Fundamenrais
failed to arouse interest in the academic community at
large. Even in its appeal to the rank and file the
responses were at best lethargic and critically detached.
In fact, most of the letters the editors received in
response to The andamentals were quaint notes of thanks and
requests for address changes.23 There is no easy answer to
the question of why The Fundamentals seemed to receive such
an ambivalent response on both sides. The articles targeted
most of the issues important to conservative evangelicalism.
One third of the articles were dedicated to a defense of the
scriptures, including critiques of higher criticism.
Another third were dedicated to apologetics, the nature of
the trinity, the doctrine of sin, and the doctrine of
salvation. The remaining third were articles more difficult
to classify.24

Included in this category was an article by a prominent
lawyer named Philip Mauro entitled "Modern Philosophy." The
content of the article reflected the strong anti-modernistic

sentiment of the conservative evangelical community, but

 

2ZStewart G. Cole, The Histery of Fundamentalism
(Hamden: Archon Books, 1963 [1931]), pp. 60-61.

23Sandeen, The Boers er Enndamenraiism, p. 206.

24Marsden. Euudamsntalism_and_Amsrisan_Qulturs pp-
119- 120; For a chart that analyzes the contents of The

Enngamenrala see, Rudnick, u enta nd
fixngd. PP- 40-41-

24

more so it reflected a stern warning to Christians about the
pitfalls of modern philosophy. Mauro begins by quoting the
standard anti-philosophy text, Colossians 2:8-10. "Beware
lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit
after [according to] the traditions of men, after the
rudiments of the world, and not after Christ."
"Philosophers," according to Mauro, "have managed to
maintain in Christendom the same eminence which they
occupied in heathendom." Regretfully, philosophy has
somehow managed to become an important part of theological
education and holds a higher position of authority than the
Bible itself would give it.25 Verbal attacks on modernism
and philosophy are more obvious indications of the
fundamentalist distrust of reason, yet their failure to
interact not only with the critical theories of the day but
with critical thinkers as well, is perhaps an even more
obvious sign. In the case of Philip Mauro we see virtually
no mention of, or interaction with the critical philosophers
of the day. There is a brief mention of William James, but
this amounts to little more than a condensed overview of a
series of lectures he delivered in 1909 entitled, "The
Present Situation in Philosophy."26

When all was said and done, approximately three million

copies of The Eundamentals had been circulated. The wide

 

‘fiPhilip Mauro, "Modern Philosophy," in The

znngamenrale; A Tesrimony re the Trnrh, volume II
(Chicago: Testimony Publishing Company, 1910-1915), p. 85.

$119.19.. 109- 93-95-

25
circulation of The Fundamenrais is in a way an indication
that it was the "manifesto of the whole tradition,"27 for
there were many other conservative evangelicals who paid
little attention to the issues of concern surrounding the
publication of The Fundamentals.28 For all that it
attempted to do, The Fundamentals were never really
successful in maintaining the intellectual credibility of
evangelical Christianity. Despite overwhelming odds,
conservative evangelicals fought on with out-dated weapons
of intellectual warfare, but the focus of their attention
now turned toward the popular religious constituency. The
Enngamentals, therefore, were but a foretaste of the popular
direction that evangelicalism was going and the level at
which it would function for years to follow.

The years following World War I would find
fundamentalists on the losing end of most of their battles.
They lost control of many churches in the major
denominations like the Presbyterians and the Northern
Baptists, they failed to keep modernism away from the

foreign mission field,29 and now they had failed to gain

 

”David N. Livingstone, w '5 or tten e e 5°
The Eneennrer fierween Evangelical Theelogya ang Eveinrienary

Thenghr (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986), p. 148.

‘”Most notable, perhaps, were the Missouri Synod
Lutherans and the Southern Baptists.

29James Alan Patterson, "The Loss of a Protestant
Missionary Consensus: Foreign Missions and the
Fundamentalist-Modernist Conflict, " in Earthen Vesseie;
Ameriean Eyangeiicais and Eereign hiesiens , 1880-;28 9, Joel
A. Carpenter and Wilbert R. Shenk, eds., (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1990), pp. 73-91

26
control of the denominational seminaries and colleges and
were faced with having to find a way to win back control.
Time would tell, however, whether it would be possible for
the fundamentalists to attain this goal. Certainly within
denominational circles, following World War I,
fundamentalists were embroiled in an intense fight to win
back control, especially among the Northern Baptists,
Disciples of Christ, and the Northern Presbyterians.3o But
the attempt to win back their colleges and seminaries had
lost most of its fervor by the 19205. Turning from failed
attempts to win back control of the educational
institutions, fundamentalists began to focus their efforts
on building Bible institutes for the purpose of training
believers in the art of evangelism and lay ministry.31 The
Bible School Movement got its start in the late nineteenth
century beginning with the Missionary Training Institute
(1882) and Moody Bible Institute (1886). Soul-winning
became, perhaps, the most important activity in the agenda
of the Bible school movement as fundamentalists were
convinced that Christ's second coming was at hand. Some

were so convinced that they campaigned to win an entire

 

30For an extensive analysis of the denominational
controversies of the 19205, see Cole, The Hietory ef
Fundamentalism, pp. 65-225; Norman F. Furniss, The
Enndamentaiiet gonrreversy, 1218-i9gi (Hamden: Archon Books,
1963). pp- 103-181; Marsden. Wiser:

gnlrnre, pp. 171-175; and Sandeen, The Beots of
MW. 199 233-269.

31Brereton, W. pp. 55-77-

27
generation for Christ before His return.32 In the early
twentieth century Bible Schools developed in response to the
revivalistic spirit as well as the growing secularization of
American education.33 As fundamentalists grew more
convinced that secular education was controlled by the
modernists, the more entrenched they became in the idea that
"true" education should be centered around the complete
authority of the Bible. Fundamentalists began to repudiate
the non-biblical insights of the scholarly community,
placing greater credibility in the biblically informed
evangelical rank and file. Fundamentalist leaders led the
way in this endeavor through the medium of popular
literature and easily accessible Bible schools and Bible
conferences. One such popular leader was the evangelist
R.A. Torrey who gave up the pursuit of academic study for a
lifetime service of evangelism and Bible teaching, clearly
stating his contempt for modern scholarship in his book, The
Imperhanee ang Value of Proper Bible Study (1921). Torrey
sarcastically referred to those with learned degrees as,
"0.0., Ph.D., L.L.D., Litt.D., F.R.G.S., A.S.S." If God

says something is so, then it would be in one's best

 

32Although Mott started his ministry before the
fundamentalist movement began, his theology was identifiable
with fundamentalism. The "Student Volunteer Movement for
Foreign Missions" was focused on evangelizing as many as
possible before Christ's second advent. See John R. Mott The

Eyangeliaarion ef the World in rhis generation (New York:
Student Volunteer Movement for Foreign Missions, 1902).

33William C. Ringenberg, e tia :

duc 'o e 'c (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984), p. 157.

28
interest to believe what He says, "in spite of all the
A.S.S.E.S. in the world."34 Along the same line it was
common to hear fundamentalists ridicule Ph.Ds as direct
descendants from monkeys and baboons, which, according to
Marsden, "was always good for a laugh from an anti-evolution

crowd."35

The superiority of the biblically trained,
spiritually sensitive layman was a common theme in Torrey's
writing.
I have known uncultured people, almost illiterate
people, washerwomen and such like, for example,
who had studied and, therefore, did know the
Bible, and,therefore, they knew more of the wisdom
that really counts, the wisdom that spells
salvation, in five minutes, than these learned
professors knew in their whole lifetime.36
The guidance of the Holy Spirit, in Torrey's opinion,
was an added help for the uneducated layman to interpret the
scriptures. "The greatest university professor, or
theological professor," cannot properly interpret the
scriptures because he is not in a right relationship to

God.37 Its not entirely clear why Torrey developed such an

 

34R.A. Torrey, The Im orta e an Value of o e
firngy (Chicago: The Bible Institute Colportage Association,
1921), p. 45.

3SMarsden, Enngamentaiism and American Cuirure, p. 212.

36Torrey. W. p. 19.

37Ibid., p. 88; Torrey tells of a French scientist who,
while on a trip in Arabia, tells his guide that he is
ignorant for praying to a God that he cannot see, touch, or
experience. The next day the scientist told him that there
was a camel walking around outside the tent while they
slept. "How do you know?," said the guide. The scientist
answered that there were camel footprints around the tent.
”Did you hear the camel?" "No," said the scientist. " Did
you put out your hand and touch the camel?" To which the

29
animosity toward the secular academic community, especially
in light of the fact that he had extensive education,
including a year of theological study in Germany at Leipzig
and Erlangen.38 The open animosity that many
fundamentalists displayed toward modern learning did not
necessarily stem from an anti-intellectual perspective, but
often from the criticism that it abandoned the authoritative
Word of God. In the years preceding the official founding
of the fundamentalist movement (1920), notable evangelical
scholars had a biblically informed confidence that science,
rather than being an enemy of the faith, was an ally.39 The
popular religious leader, William Jennings Bryan even
expressed his admiration for science and biblical authority,
making sure to communicate that he was not anti-scientific
or anti-intellectual. There was no conflict between the

heart and the head, according to Bryan, but if called on to

 

scientist answered again, "No." The guide made his point by
saying, "You are a strange man of science to believe in a
camel you never saw, a camel you never heard, a camel you
never put out your hands and touched." The scientist
retorted by saying, "here are his footprints all around the
tent."The guide said pointing to the sun, "Behold the
footprints of the creator, and know that there is a God."
Torrey makes the point that the untutored savage won the
argument. See, R.A. Torrey, Aneegotes and Iilustrations (New
York: Fleming H. Revell, 1907), pp. 108-109; and Robert E.
Wenger, "Social Thought in American Fundamentalism" (Ph.D
dissertation, University of Nebraska, 1973), p. 79.

38Paul C. Witt, "Reuban Archer Torrey" in the

pierienary er Qhristianiry in America, ed., Daniel G. Reid
(Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1990), pp. 1180-1181.

39George M. Marsden, "Evangelicals and the Scientific

Culture: An Overview," in Beiigion ang Tyentieth- Centgry
Ameriean aneiiecrual Life ed., Michael J. Lacey (Washington
D.C.: Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars and
Cambridge University Press, 1989), p. 25.

30

make a decision between having a strong intellect or
receptive heart, he would choose the heart.“0 In a letter
to a high school student, Bryan attempted to make a similar
point regarding the over emphasis on the intellect. The
temptation to forget God is one result of trusting the head
over the heart, as was in the case of Adam and Eve. The
other temptation is to put selfish interests above the
interests of the common good. Bryan reminded the young
student that the mind must not think itself too highly, for
faith is greater than reason.41

These kinds of sympathies, though often perceived as
mere anti-intellectualism, were, as we have seen, more
informed by an overwhelming conviction that the Bible itself
was the only proper basis for education on any level. In
his work, The Bible: The True Universit , S. Ridout attempts
to lay out the biblical foundation for every academic
discipline imaginable, including astronomy, geology,
physical geography, chemistry, physics, mineralogy, botany,
zoology, anthropology, psychology, ethics, medical science,
surgery, hygienics, domestic science, the care of children,

elementary education, language and mathematics, ethnology,

 

”Lawrence W. Levine, Defenger of the Eaith Wiiiiam
s ' s e a e - (New York: Oxford
University Press, 1965), p. 279; William Jennings Bryan, The
Enndamentais in a series entitled, "Can Fundamentalists
Win?" The Eernm LXX (July 1923): 1665-1680; Morton White,
Pragmatism and rhe American Mind; Essays and Reviews in

Ehiiesophy and Intellectuai Hisrory (New York: Oxford
University Press, 1973), p. 79.

“Letter from William Jennings Bryan to Mr. Earl
Cranston, January 22, 1913 (Woodland Historical Document
Collections, Irving, Texas)

31
archeology, history, political science, literature,
biography, poetry, and the arts.42 Ridout's concern was
that young men were being led "further and further from God"
in American colleges and universities. In his analysis, the
biblical foundation for "all" learning should be laid before
the young go off to study in the pagan institutions of
higher learning.43 Despite the severe criticism that
secular education received at the hands of fundamentalists,
there was an understood confidence within this conservative
subculture that the conclusions of modern scholarship could
not change the fact that God's revelation was verbally
inspired and inerrant.44
The renowned fundamentalist preacher T.T. Shields was

adamant about his commitment to the authority of Christ's
word over and above the scholarship of the world.

I am convinced that the body of thought which is

Worthiest the high and honorable title of

scholarship and which represents the finding of

disciplined intellectual powers in cooperation

with spiritually enlightened and penetrating

understandings, will always be found to be in

agreement with the word of Him who is incarnate

truth.45

Shields gained significant fame in the fundamentalist

movement, exercising his influence mainly in Canada. His

 

42S. Ridout, The aihle: the True Universiry (New York:
Loizeau Brothers, 1912), pp. 18-41.

43Ibid., p. 29.

“Erling Jorstad, The Peiitics of Doemsday:

MAW (Nashville: Abingdon Press,
1970), p. 19.

”T.T. Shields, The Rio; That Eaiied (Toronto: The
Gospel Witness, 1937), p. 177.

32
fame as a fundamentalist leader came to fruition when he
became an outspoken critic of modernism at McMaster
University in Ontario. He became more involved with American
fundamentalism in the 19205 as he helped to establish the
Baptist Bible Union, serving as its president for over seven
years."6 The popular evangelist D. L. Moody was concerned
that ministers were educated over the heads of the
uneducated classes. He was not of the opinion that their
education was too much education, but rather that it is
irrelevant to the lives and needs of the average person. A
young man goes off to seminary and comes out "knowing
nothing about human nature, doesn't know how to rub up to
these men and adopt himself to them, and then gets up a
sermon on metaphysical subjects miles above these people.
We don't get down to them all; they move in another world.
What we want is men trained for this class of people."47
Such comments have solicited criticisms that Moody was an
anti-intellectualist, yet, as Findlay has shown, he was an
open-minded man at odds with his evangelical peers for not
committing himself to many of their theological dogmas.48 A
contemporary of Moody, A. T. Pierson, came down on the side

of the uneducated layman as he believed that "Scholastic

 

46Ed Dobson, et al., ed., The Fundamentalist

Ehenemenen; The Resurgence of Conservative Christianiry
(Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981), pp. 68-69

"Gene A. Getz, MBI: The §tory of hoody Bible Tnsriture
(Chicago: Moody Press, 1969), p. 37

48James F. Findlay, Qwight L. Moody: American
Eyangeliet, 1837-1899 (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1973), p. 410

33
training is not necessary for effective service." In his
experience there were numerous examples of "heroic men doing
valiant battle for the lord and the faith, who were never in

college or seminary."49

Pierson, unlike Moody, was no
stranger to scholarly inquiry. In his polemical work, Many
Infiallihle Proofs, he states that Christians must not be
satisfied to believe blindly the truths of the faith "for
blind belief makes bigots" who embrace their belief system
whether it is right or wrong. The same people have little
tolerance for those with different beliefs. In keeping with
the idea of the full power and authority of the Bible in
matters of scholarship, Pierson argues that "God has made it
possible for even the most unlearned to know the Bible is
His Word." He comes to understand through his biblically
informed personal experience rather than through rational
argument.50

The notorious fundamentalist, and founder of the
"World's Christian Fundamentals Association" (1920), William
Bell Riley fought hard for the cause of popular
fundamentalism. Himself an educated man, Riley had little
respect or tolerance for the modernists who had captured the

halls of higher learning. His concern was that modernism

was seeping into the foundations of the Church itself,

 

49Arthur T. Pierson. Ihe_Qrisis_2f_uis§ignsl_gr_ths
Yolce_Qut_9f_the_ngud (London: James Nisbet & company.
1886), pp. 336-338.

50Arthur T. Pierson, an a l o s'

Eyigeneee er Christianity (New York: Fleming H. Revell,
1886), pp. 14-17.

34
corrupting particularly the young people.51 Education
itself was not the issue for Riley, only an anti-Christian
education.52 Riley was known for his quick wit and
articulate polemical rhetoric against those who accused him
(and other fundamentalists) of anti-intellectual buffoonery.
He was quick to point out the fallacy of the modernist-
progressives who argued that the Church does not contain
learned members from the scientific community or the
academic world. The exact opposite was the case in Riley's
opinion.53 He was eager to show that there were many
conservative evangelical scholars who could translate Greek
and Hebrew with the best of them. The only difference is
that the conservative scholars embrace the full authority of
the Bible, whereas the modernists scoff in disbelief. These
same scholars, having embraced the conservative cause and
having repudiated higher criticism, are not considered as

4

equals by the moderns.s Riley managed to balance out his

 

51William Bell Riley, The Menace of Moderniem (New

York: Christian and Missionary Alliance Publishing Company,
1917), p. 8 (Reprinted by Garland Publishing, 1988); The
same concern was also expressed through allegorical novels,
see W.S. Harris, Mr. World ang hiss Shurch-Member: A
Tyenrierh Senrury Ailegory (G. Holzapfel, 1902). .

5211616., p. 127

53Ibid., pp. 44-45; and Arthur I. Brown, "A Changing
Science Versus a Changeless Faith," Serving ang Waiting 22
(August-September 1932): 88-90. W. B. Riley, uy_SihTer_An
Anelegerie (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1937), pp. 99-123.

54Riley, p. 57; For an interesting analysis of the
question regarding the compatibility of belief in the Bible
and true scholarship, see Charles G. Trumbull, Prepheeyie

Lighr_en_Tegay (New York: Fleming H. Revell, 1937), pp. 164-
165.

35
defense of the conservative evangelical scholar with
practical caveats for those who would be influencing the
Church from the pulpit. "I am not asking that the preacher
of the twentieth century be as unschooled as was his
predecessor in the nineteenth; I am only declaring it is a
profound pity that having become more schooled, he has

"T It seems so ironic that in an

become less scriptural.
age of academic growth and professionalization,
fundamentalists were content to place greater confidence in
opinions of the rank and file. Their belief in the ultimate
authority of the Bible justified this kind of response. One
of the most puzzling aspects of the fundamentalists, in
relation to their suspicion of modern learning, was the
proclivity toward the giving of honorary degrees. It is
unclear why it was important for fundamentalists to possess
the title "Dr" especially when we take into consideration
the way that Ph.Ds were ridiculed. While most
fundamentalist leaders had earned undergraduate degrees, as
well as seminary training, fewer had the professional
credentials necessary for credible involvement in the
academic community. Some fundamentalists intimated that not
having a doctorate was "Almost like being without the proper

ll 56

clothes. It has been recorded that at Wheaton College

 

55Riley, p. 146.

56Michael 8. Hamilton, "Wheaton College and the
Fundamentalist Network of Voluntary Associations, 1919-
1965." A paper presented at the "Evangelicals, Voluntary
Associations, and American Public Life," Conference. The
Billy Graham Center, Wheaton, Illinois (June 13-15, 1991):
1-32.

36
alone over "one hundred seventy-five men and five women,"
were awarded honorary doctorates between 1920 and 1965.
Most of these degrees were awarded to prominent Bible
teachers, evangelists, pastors, and missionaries, who, in
the words of J. Oliver Buswell, were "in a position to make
friends for the college." Some of the most influential
leaders in American fundamentalism received honorary degrees
from Wheaton, including "Paul Rader, Arno Gaebelein, Frank
Gaebelein, Don Shelton, Lewis Sperry Chafer, Charles G.
Trumbull, J. Gresham Machen, Rowland Bingham, Paul Rood,
Will H. Houghton, Robert McQuilkin, Harry Rimmer, Harry
Strachan, Stephen Paine, E. Schuyler English, Torry Johnson,
Philip Howard,Jr., Lewi Pethrus, A. W. Tozer, and Billy
Graham." The giving away of these honorary degrees also
fulfilled the purpose of showing publically the bond that
existed between the honor granting institution and the
honoree, or the institution he represented. By the 19305
approximately one third of all honorary doctorates in
America were conferred on clergyman.57 Perhaps
fundamentalist leaders believed that their popular

constituencies, like any other American populist group, were

 

” ., pp. 12-13; The following important work was

._Ihid
pointed out to me by Mike Hamilton; see Stephen E. Epler,
or r e ees' Surve o hei 5e Abus
(Washington D. C.: American Council on Public Affairs,
1943); For an excellent historical overview of how the
status of the minister has gone from scholar to non-scholar,
see Edward LeRoy Long, Jr., "Ministry and Scholarship in the

Reformed Tradition," in Schelarship, Sacraments ang

v' e: storic tudies n Protestant Traditi : s
in honer ef Sara Thempson. Daniel B. Clendenin and W. David

Buschart, Editors, (Lewiston: Edwin Mellen Press, 1990), PP.
1-28.

37
easily impressed by credentials while at the same time
blessing their efforts against modern higher learning. If
this was the case, it appears that much of the
fundamentalist agenda was structured around the nurturing of
a particular image. By the 19205 the fundamentalist
movement was well under way and, for the most part, appeared
to be in the hands of a popular religious constituency.
While some fundamentalist leaders were attempting to defend
the faith against modernism, the uneducated majority in the
local churches were satisfied to remain ignorant about the
issues.58 The choice to remain ignorant, however, cannot be
blamed entirely on the religious rank and file since it
appears that the fundamentalist hierarchy failed to
encourage them to develop a desire for critical thinking.
While many fundamentalists chose to remain ignorant about
science and education, it can be argued that some attempts
were made at informing the Christian layperson of the
critical issues of the day. This is particularly evident in
the kinds of informative articles that fundamentalists
published in periodicals such as the Snnday Schooi Timee,
Meegy_nenrhiy, The Christian Fungamentaiier, and Signe_efi
rhe_Timee to name just a few. It should also be kept in

mind that fundamentalist leaders, perhaps, did not see

 

58John Herman Randall, Jr., The Making of rhe Megern
hing: A Snrvey of the Intellectual Background er rhe Preeenr
Age (New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1940), p. 542;
Rimmer recounts a story about a woman who wrote him off for
not accepting as inspired the added dates in the margins of

the English Bible. See Harry Rimmer, A Considerarien e: rhe

e nolo o e (Los Angeles:
Research Science Bureau, 1929), pp. 3-4.

38

themselves as keeping the flock from critical thinking
since, in their minds, by giving them the fully
authoritative Word of God, they were giving them everything
they needed for critical thinking of the highest variety. A
survey of popular religious periodicals in the 19205 and
19305 reveals a great deal of concern for the issues of
education and scientific investigation. Fundamentalists
were quick to point out the essence of "true" education as
informed by the authoritative Word of God. Charles
Trumbull, editor of The Sunda School T'mes, claimed that
all the scholars who wrote for the Timee were fundamental,
"Bible-loving scholars." These scholars did not give what
Trumbull called "educated guesses," but rather messages of
truth derived from the Bible.59

Articles in The Sunday Schooi Times, as in many other
religious weeklies, focused on the theme of biblical
authority in every area of the believer's life.
"Intellectual orthodoxy without a heart-life witnessing to
the cleansing and keeping power of the Lord," was, according
to one author, a perilous and dangerous thing indeed.60 The
concern that Christian students were in danger of losing
their faith on secular college campuses was ever present in
the minds of fundamentalists, yet, as a sign of

encouragement and reinforcement of the validity of the

 

59Charles G. Trumbull, Science and the Chrisrian (New
York, 1924), p. 73

60"Fundamentalism's Light in This Dark World," The
Sundax_§shosl_11me§ 74 (July 9. 1932): 361-362

39

faith, testimonial articles were published by students who
had managed to hold on to the faith in the face of a
modernistic education.61 Other victorious testimonies could
likewise be found pertaining to soul-winning campaigns on
university campuses62 and special campus out-reach
ministries to those whose faith was coming under fire from
the enemy.63

"The League of Evangelical Students" was yet another
positive force on the campuses of major universities during
this time. The league argued that genuine scholarship is
necessary for Bible study. Christians do not have to
dispense with science and learning. Christians ought to be
able to give a defense of the faith when called on to do so.
Acceptance of the truth of the Bible is completely
reasonable. Bible believers should never be afraid of
modern scholarship. Obscurantism and anti-intellectualism

were repudiated by "The League of Evangelical Students."64

 

61Simon Littlefaith, "How I Kept My Faith During

College Years," The Sunday Scheol Times 73 (March 7,
1931): 134

62Paul Campbell, "Christ in a Canadian University,"

The Snnday Scheol Times 75 (March 25, 1933): 211-212; and
Paul Gratton Guinness, "Will College Students Listen to the

Gospel?" The Snngay School Times 77 (June 1, 1935): 373-
374, 383

63George T. B. Davis, "Giving God's Word to School and

College Students," he Sund S h me 75 (August 5,
1933): 495-496; and J. A. Morris Kimber, "Fighting College
Doubts," in V c orious i e: Messa es

conferences (Philadelphia: The Board of Managers of
Victorious Life conference, 1918, reprinted by Garland
Publishing, 1988), pp. 340-342.

“"Scholarship and Faith," Mood! Monthly 32 (December
1931): 208. .

40

But not all fundamentalists agreed that a Christian
young person could stand against the onslaught of
modernistic ideology. Some argued that college students
(Christian and non-Christian alike) do not think, but merely
hang on every word and godless notion their professors throw
at them. The question, "Does the average college student
think?", is thus answered, "No! he merely drinks --- from
the cup of blind credulity, which gives an intoxication that
relieves him from the acknowledgement of responsibility to
God."65 The fear that Christian young people were easily
led away from belief in the Bible was also illustrated in
cartoon advertisements such as one for the Standard
Publishing Company which depicts a boy studying the Bible
with a quote from Longfellow which says, "It is the heart,
and not the brain, that to the highest doth attain."66
Chicago Daily News cartoonist, Vaughn C. Shoemaker,
attempted to remind young Christian students of the
necessity of personal piety through the study of the Bible
in a cartoon entitled, "Students - -- How Wise Are You?"
The cartoon depicts two young men studying, one surrounded
by mountains of scholarly books, the other reading only the
Bible. The caption next to the student surrounded by books
states, "Books to prepare for life," while the caption next

to the Bible student says, "Book to prepare for eternal

 

65Verna Smith Teeuwissen, "Do College Students Think?"

neegy_uenrhly 38 (September, 1937): 12

“Advertisement for the Standard Publishing Company,
neegy_henrh1y 34 (October, 1933): 79

41
life."m The fear of modernism and biblical infidelity was
consistently reinforced for young people in advertisements
for Christian schools deemed safe by the fundamentalist
hierarchy. The main objective was to show how to "Avoid the
Menace of College Modernism."68 Lengthy lists of "safe"
Bible schools were also periodically published in order to
inform fundamentalists of where the authoritative word of
God was being taught.69 The suspicion that fundamentalists
had of modern learning worked itself out in organized

meetings they sponsored in the early years of the movement.

 

67Vaughn C. Shoemaker, "Students How Wise Are You?"

Eyangelieal_heaeen 7 (September 6, 1938): Cover feature.

68"A Challenging Opportunity to Avoid the Menace of
College Modernism." Advertisement for the Los Angeles
Baptist Theological Seminary in Watchman-Examiner 18 (May
22, 1930): 649; Wilbur M. Smith, "They Teach the Gospel in
Dallas," Revelation 2 (December 1932): 487; 514-515;
Trumbull expressed concern that many theological seminaries
deliberately trained students "to scoff at the idea that the
whole Bible is the Word of God--and thus they are trained to

scoff at God." See Trumbull, Prophecy's Light en Tegay, p.
94.

69"Bible Schools that are True to the Faith," The

Snngay Seheoi Times 72 (February 1, 1930): 63; James E.
Bennet, "Starvation by Philosophy," Moody Monthiy
(September, 1942): 7-9, 42-43; Charles A. Blanchard,
president of Wheaton College, encouraged Christians "not
only to have no fellowship with . . . infidel atheistic
education," but rather, "To seek out institutions which
endeavor to be faithful to the Word of God." Quoted in

William Vance Trollinger, G 's e: W'lli
ang hidwestern Fandamentalism (Madison: University of

Wisconsin Press, 1990), p. 39; William Bell Riley was very
concerned that there were few denominational colleges where
one could send their children with confidence that orthodox
Christianity would be taught. See Riley, The Menage 9i
fingerniem, p. 115; Wheaton College was considered a safe
school where parents could send their children without the
fear that they would become indoctrinated with ungodly
teaching. See "An Unafraid College," The Adviser (June 12,
1935), "A Newsletter from the Advisory Associates, Chicago.
IL." (Wheaton College Archives, Box 13, File 15.).

42
Prior to the Northern Baptist Convention meeting in Buffalo,
New York, June 1920, a number of fundamentalist ministers
assembled to establish the conference agenda. Included in
the agenda was a resolution "to investigate the teachings in
all secondary schools, colleges, and theological seminaries
seeking either financial support or the moral sponsorship of
Baptist churches in the bounds of the Northern Baptist

"” A desire to warn students about unsafe

Convention.
textbooks was also in the agenda of the fundamentalist
leadership as it was in a published program of a conference
on Christian fundamentals in Philadelphia (1919) entitled,
QQQ flarh Spoken, which attempted to identify modernism and
uproot it, books and all.71 Some were so angry about the

evil of modernistic textbooks that they attempted to build a

case for book burning.72 The consequences of not heeding

 

”The following two resolutions read, a) To investigate
the statement of beliefs submitted by the schools to the
teachers therein upon their employment. b) To give special
attention to the question of whether these schools and
individual teachers are still loyal to the great fundamental
Baptist truths as held by the denomination in the past, with
particular reference to the inspiration of the Word of God,
the deity of Christ, the atonement, the resurrection, the
return of the Lord, the spiritual nature of the church, the
necessity for a regenerated, baptized church membership, the
unchanged nature of the obligation of the ordinances of
baptism, and the Lord's Supper, and the imperative
responsibility of carrying out the Great Commission. Quoted
in Robert A. Ashworth, "The Fundamentalist Movement Among

the Baptists," The Sournai of Religion 4 (November 1924):
611-631.

'nKenneth K. Bailey, Seurhern White Prereeranriem in

rhe Tyenrierh Sentury (New York: Harper & Row, 1964), p.
49.

72"The Burning of the Books," Serving and Wairing' 23
(July 1933): 59.

43
the warning signs were devastating for some families, such
as in the case of an old minister and his wife whose son
went off to a denominational college a confessed believer
and came home four years later a "middle-aged. . . drunken

atheist bum."73

The concern for the waywardness of their
young men was but one problem fundamentalist parents faced
in their war with modernism. Concern was also expressed
over the corruption of their daughters by the communists.

As one brokenhearted father put it, "In our state colleges
and in the towns around them are shrewd gentry who have
their eyes on your daughter. You can't afford to laugh at
them--as I did," or as "a thousand other fathers who see
their daughters put on the road to hell--too late."74 The
road to modernism was not always perceived to be paved by
intellectual assaults against the faith of Christian young
people. More often than not, Christian young people fall by
the wayside as a result of indulging in sensual thoughts and
activities. Many of these activities included dancing, the
movie theater, cigarette smoking, marijuana smoking, booze,
and sex. Once one ceases to pray daily, study the Bible,

worship and meditate, he runs the risk of becoming "so

spiritually anaemic that he catches every germ of disordered

 

73"Bob Jones on Infidelity in Education, " The
Qhristian.£undansntalist 5 (August 1931): 63- 64

74J.G. Shaw, "Will the Communists Get Our Girls in
College?” Liherry (May 18, 1934): 12-15.

44

imagining which comes his way."75

Perhaps the greatest concern among fundamentalists, in
their suspicion of modern learning, was the reconciliation
of the Bible with science.76 Evangelicals utilized the
paradigms of Baconian science and Common Sense philosophy,
the two dominant scientific and philosophical paradigms in
the first half of the nineteenth century, as a basis for
defending the faith.77 Evangelicals in the late nineteenth
century appeared to be caught off guard when evolutionary
theory crashed onto the shores of American higher education.
Despite the struggles that evangelicals had with the impact
of enlightenmental rationalism and deism during the
eighteenth century, they had still managed to hold a

position of authority regarding theological and scientific

 

'”"A Christian College" Inaugural Address of President
James Oliver Buswell, Jr., June 15, 1926. Bullerin of
flheaton College 4 (November 1926): 1-8; John Carrara, The
Enemies 0: Youth (Fundamental Truth Publishers, 1939); J.A.
Morris Kimber, "The Attitude of the Surrendered Christian
Toward Motion Pictures," C e r he rd
grass 1 (March 1925): 97-101; and Reginald Wallis, Th§_N§!

nan, Talhe re Shrisrian Young Men (New York: Loizeaux
Brothers, 1931).

'”One notable exception to the rule were the holiness
and pentecostal groups that relegated to a secondary
concern, the issue of evolutionism. They were far more
concerned about soul winning and holy living. See Ronald L.
Numbers, "Creationism, Evolution, and the Holy Ghost
Religion: Holiness and Pentecostal Responses to Darwinism,"

8W 2 (Summer. 1992): 127-158-
77Theodore Dwight Bozeman, Eretesranre in an Age at

e c ° T e B o 'a ea a n ebellum
BeligienS_Thepghr (Chapel Hill: University of North

Carolina Press, 1977), pp. 3-31; and Mark A. Noll, "Common
Sense Traditions and American Evangelical Thought," in

Ameriean Quarterly 37 (Summer, 1985):
216-238.

45

issues. Despite the problems that Darwinism created for the
evangelical establishment there still existed an overcoming
confidence that "the gates of hell would not overcome the
Church." This, perhaps, helped to create an atmosphere that
eventually leant itself to a kind of intellectual apathy
among the evangelical intelligentsia. Another possibility
is that the American evangelical theological community in
the nineteenth century was more concerned about debating in-
house evangelical issues than in engaging in critical
dialogue with the developing intellectual trends of their
day.78

The generation of conservatives that brought forth the
fundamentalist movement after World War I, as we have
already shown, had little respect for any scholarship that
was not hinged upon the authority of the Bible. While it
was common place for fundamentalists to critique
evolutionary theory on biblical grounds, rarely were they
willing, or able, to do the hands-on scientific research
necessary for truly understanding it.79 This generation of
fundamentalists refused to consider the possibility that
there might be some truth connected to evolutionary theory.
The generation that preceded them, although not identified
as fundamentalists in their time, had a greater respect for

scientific investigation. The theologian, Charles Hodge,

 

"John D. Woodbridge. et. al., Ihs_§2snel_in_8nerica1_
o 0 me ' an e 'ca (Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 1982), p. 62. ‘

”Ibid., p. 64.

46
wrote an early rebuttal against Darwinism entitled flhap_ie
paryiniemz (1874). Hodge attempted to show that Darwin's
system is atheistic because it denies design in the
creation.80 Hodge's response to Darwinism was considered to
be the standard work by which all other critiques were
judged. Other evangelical respondents differed from Hodge
on the question of evolution. Henry B. Smith agreed half
way with Hodge arguing that there was at least some room for
evolution as long as it was under the control of God. Some
evangelical scholars attempted to carry evolutionary theory
further, thus allowing for even greater forms of
evolutionary development.81 Interestingly, George Frederick
Wright and James Orr were both proponents of varying forms
of theistic evolution, and both wrote articles for the
twelve volume set, The Sundamentals (1910-1915). In an age
when modernism was under such fierce attack by conservative
Christians, it seems inconsistent that these liberal views
were tolerated.82 This calls into question just how

attentive the post-World War I fundamentalists were to the

 

80Livingstone, paryin's Eergetten Qefendere, pp. 103-
104.

” These scholars included Asa Gray, James Orr, and
George Frederick Wright, see Woodbridge, The Gespel in
Ameriea, pp. 61-65; Jack Rogers and Donald McKim, The
Aprhority and Interpretation of the Bible: An hisrorieal
Appreaeh (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1979), p. 297; Glen
G. Scorgie, A Call for Qontinuity; The Theological
Senpripnrien at James Orr (Macon: Mercer University Press,
1988); and Livingstone, Sarwin's Forgotten Serenders.

82Livingstone, Darwin's Eergetten Qefendere, pp. 147-
154.

47

fact that The Fundamentals contained what they themselves
considered to be heresy. Despite the major differences
between evangelical scholars in the late nineteenth and
early twentieth centuries, it was a time in the history of
American evangelicalism when evangelical scholarship was
taken seriously.83

The Scopes trial of 1925 was considered by some to be
the final showdown between fundamentalism and modernism, a
confrontation that would not drive the final nail in the
coffin of fundamentalism, but rather reduced it to a
laughingstock.84 Negative characterizations of
fundamentalists as a backward, anti-intellectual
primitivists were popularized by writers like H.L. Mencken,
who wrote that fundamentalists "constituted, perhaps, the
most ignorant class of teachers ever to set up to lead a
civilized people." These same people get their training at
low level institutions which can be found "in every mountain
valley of the land, with its single building in a bare
pasture lot, and its faculty of half-idiot pedagogues and
broken-down preachers." Fundamentalism, from Mencken's
point of view, is not difficult to understand once you've
had a chance to scrutinize it. Whatever the fundamentalist

cannot understand he casts off as unintelligible. "He is

 

83Woodbridge,T The Gospel p. 64; and Noll, Seryeen
faith_and_§r1_1cism. pp- 11- 31-

84Joel A. Carpenter, "Contending for the Faith Once
Delivered: Primitivist Impulses in American Fundamentalism,"
in The Ameriean Qpeer to or rhe Primitive Shurch, Richard T.
Hughes, ed., (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1988),
pp. 99-119.

48
suspicious of it---afraid of it---and he quickly
communicates his fears to his dupes. . .they are specialists

'” Maynard Shipley, who entered

in alarms and bugaboos.'
into public debate with numerous fundamentalists on the
issue of evolutionary science, determined that "For the
first time in our history, organized knowledge has come into

conflict with organized ignorance."86

To say, based upon
these kinds of criticisms, that fundamentalists were
completely anti-intellectual and anti-scientific would be
somewhat short-sighted.87 Human reason and science were
legitimate to fundamentalists, but only under the authority
of the Bible. Upon this basis, fundamentalists constructed

their system of thought.88 Fundamentalism after the Scopes

trial found itself with far less credibility due to the

 

85Quoted in Maynard Shipley's The War on Modern

e: ort Histor of the undamenta is
Eyelution and Modernism (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1927),
pp. 114-115; Mencken referred to the Scopes trial
spectators as "gaping primates," and "anthropoid rabble" who
identified and supported Bryan the "inflammatory half wit."
See David H. Bennett, The Partv of Fear: From Nativier
Movements to the New Right in American History (New York:
Vintage Books, 1990), p. 207.

86Ibid., p. 4.

87It has been argued that the fundamentalists were not
ignorant about, or indifferent to the fruits of science and
technology. They drove cars like everyone else, they
utilized electricity, radios, and machine made goods such as
clothing. There was also a representation of credible
scientists among them. "What wounded them was the assualt
that science made on the ancient story from which their
sense of moral order sprang." See Neil Postman, Technepely;

The Sprrender of Culture te Teehnelogy (New York: Alfred A.
Knopf, 1992), pp. 49-50.

88Wenger, "Social Thought in American Fundamentalism,"
p. 113; and Shipley, The War, p. 5.

49

widespread coverage it had received. Marsden has shown that
the "bizarre developments in fundamentalist activities meant
that in the years after 1925 it became increasingly
difficult to take fundamentalism seriously." It is
difficult to attribute to the decline of post-1925
fundamentalism only one factor, yet, "It does appear,
however, that the movement began in reality to conform to
its popular image. The more ridiculous it was made to
appear, the more genuinely ridiculous it was likely to
become."89

In the years following the Scopes fiasco,
fundamentalists deferred to science merely to show that "the
revelations of the Bible" were not out of harmony with its
findings when correct thinking and observation were
applied.90 Contrary to popular characterizations that
fundamentalists believed that the Bible was a science book,
many fundamentalists openly acknowledged that the Bible was
not intended (by God) to be a science book, yet, where the
Bible speaks of science, it speaks truthfully. In an
article entitled, "Is the Science of the Bible Wrong?",
Earle A. Rowell points out that the Bible is not "concerned

to teach the details of science." Yet science would be far

more advanced if it had accepted the authority of the Bible

 

89Marsden, Fundamentalism and Ameriean Culrure, p. 191.

90William J. Barnes, "The Bible and Modern Science,"

Serying_ang_flairing 19 (January 1930): 308-310; and Harvey

Cox, Religien in the Seeular City; Toward a Posrmegern
Theplegy (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1984), p. 40.

50
for its starting premise. The bottom line was the fact that
modern science did not have the ability to answer the
ultimate questions of life. "The thousands of volumes of
science do not help the soul on its deathbed." The greatest
science of all, therefore, is "the science of salvation,"
which gives hope to those in despair and those who are
dying. Physical science is only alluded to in the Bible
insofar as it is useful for ministering and winning lost
souls.91 The book of Genesis, in the minds of some
fundamentalists, proves to mankind that nature has no power
of its own, but are only created "things" from God. The
book of Genesis, therefore, can only be seen as "the A B C
of science." Any conclusions of science that do not agree
with the book of Genesis cannot be considered scientific,
but only mere speculations.92 Themes centering around the
accuracy of the Bible on scientific matters were commonly
used to encourage the faith of fundamentalists who had been
put on guard against the insidious forces of modernism.
Contrary to those who would argue that the Bible was not a

science book, still others attempted to show how the Bible

 

91Earle A. Rowell, "Is the Science of the Bible Wrong?"
'mes 52 (November 3, 1925): 3, 12; Roland E.

Loasby, "The Bible Scientifically Accurate," Signs er rhe
Times 61 (May 22, 1934): 1, 14; Fundamentalists typically
argued that persistent prayer and Bible study will help one
to find God, not scientific investigation. see T. Richardson
Gray, "Faith Superior to Science," Moogy Monthly 34
(November 1933): 100; and John R. Rice, Verbal inspirarion
er rhe Sible and its Scientific Accuracy (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1943), pp. 2-28.

92James I. Robison, "Genesis and Intellectual

Freedom," Signe ef the Times 52 (October 6, 1925): 4-5.

51
was "the world's greatest text-book on science." The book
of Genesis was the most reliable account of creation, in the
mind of one apologist, who argued further that the book of
"Genesis is the only text-book on creation, and it is the
greatest authority on geology. There is no conflict between

the Bible and true science."93

The attitude of some
fundamentalist scholars sometimes appeared to be overly
confident with absolutist statements claiming that
scientific facts never contradict the scriptures. Whenever
you find that science does not harmonize with the Bible,
"stick to the Bible," for eventually, "time will vindicate
the Bible."94 Another way fundamentalists approached the
issues of modern science was to defer to the Bible directly,
showing, for example, "Paul's appeal to Timothy to avoid
oppositions of science falsely so-called is as powerful in

"% It was not uncommon to hear

1932 as ever.
fundamentalist leaders respond to modernists in a sarcastic,
ad hominem manner. This attitude, stemming in part from
intellectual intimidation, was also indicative of the
confidence they had in the authority of the Bible to answer

all modernistic claims.

William Bell Riley serves as the most flamboyant

 

93G.W. McPherson, he r's i the hurch (Yonkers,
N.Y., 1919), pp. 111-113.

94James E. Ely, Glimpses pf Bible Climaxes {rem rhe

Seginning re rhe Eng (Garden City: Businessman's Gospel
Association, 1927), pp. 135-136.

95"What is a Scientist?", Serving and Wairing 22
(June 1932): 32.

52
example of fundamentalistic wit and sarcasm in his debates
with prominent evolutionists. His opponents included
Maynard Shipley, President of the Science League of America,
Edward Adams Cantrell of the Civil Liberties Union of
America, and Charles C. Smith of the American Association
for the Advancement of Atheism.96 Riley had the skills to
play a crowd for all they were worth, often times in a very
entertaining fashion.97 Once in a debate with Charles
Smith, Riley took command, bringing the house down in
laughter after turning the tables on Smith, causing his
mockery to backfire.” Such antics, however, had a
backfiring effect on the image of fundamentalism itself.
Fewer and fewer in the greater academic community could take
fundamentalism seriously in light of these side shows. It
was precisely this kind of image and mentality that turned
University of Kentucky President, Frank McVey, away from
debating the evolution issue with J.W. Porter, Pastor of
Lexington First Baptist Church. McVey was determined, in
the name of academic freedom, to fight the Kentucky anti-

evolution legislation of 1922, and soon found himself the

 

”C. Allyn Russell, Voices of American Fundamenraliem;

Seyen Biographical Studies (Philadelphia: Westminster
Press, 1976), pp. 94-95.

97Ibid., pp. 88, 94.

98Apparently, Smith showed up to a debate in New
Orleans with a gorilla dressed up in a suit, wearing patent
leather shoes, and also holding a bottle of booze. Riley
whimsically retorted, "I came down here to meet Charles
Smith, President of the American Association for the
Advancement of Atheism. Since my arrival I find I have to
meet the Smith brothers." Quoted in Trollinger, Segle

Empire. p. 47-

53
object of Porter's wrath. It was suggested that he debate
with Porter, but declined the offer with the realization
that his opponent was able to stir up the emotions of the
uneducated crowd to whom he appealed.” Most of these
debates served the purpose of entertainment more than

education,”°

furthering the image of fundamentalists as
podunk agrarian, anti-intellectuals. Debate winners were
even determined by the volume of the applause from the
audience. Riley usually won because he made sure to fill
the debate halls with friends and supporters.”1

This kind of bombastic display was reminiscent of the
antics of William Jennings Bryan at the Scopes trial, and
the crowd-pleasing stunts of the evangelist Billy Sunday.
Sunday especially played the popular audience with his

1” Consistent

vaudeville acrobatics and emotional appeal.
with a long line of anti-educational fundamentalists, Sunday
reinforced his suspicion of modern learning by expressing
fierce antagonism toward modern scholarship. His official

biographer, William T. Ellis, described him as sitting "in

God's judgment seat in almost every sermon and frequently

 

9"’William E. Ellis, "Frank LeRond McVey: His Defense
of Academic Freedom," The Register er rhe Kentucky

Histerisal_§2215tx 67 (January 1969): 37-54-

100Russell, V ic s, p. 94.

101Ibid., p. 95.

“”Ler W. Dorsett, Billy Sunday ang the gegemptien er
Srpan_Ameriea (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), pp. 85-123.

54

'“m Threats of hell were also

sends men to hell by name.
thrown at students. "Thousands of college graduates are
going as fast as they can straight to hell. If I had a”
million dollars I'd give $999,999 to the Church and $1 to
education." Sunday was convinced that whenever there is a
conflict between scholarship and the Bible, "scholarship can
go to hell!"”‘

Integral to our theme is the fact that
fundamentalists constructed their world view around the
notion of the full and final authority of the Bible. Thus,
it is not difficult to see why the laity put their trust in
the scientific opinions of lesser trained fundamentalist
scholars, who, of course, held the Bible to be literally
authoritative. Because fundamentalists in the 19205 and
19305 had few, if any, legitimate scholars to turn to for
their defense, they learned to rely on the polemical
insights of popular scholars like Harry Rimmer, founder of
the "Research Science Bureau," Dudley Joseph Witney and L.
Allen Higley of the "Religion and Science Association," and
George McCready Price of the "Society For the Study of

,,105

Deluge Geology and Related Sciences. These

 

103William T. Ellis, Billy Sunday; The Man ape His
neeeage (Authorized Edition: L.T. Meyers, 1914), p. 123.

104Hofstadter. Antizlntellectualism. p- 122-

“”Mark A. Kalthoff, "Evangelical Scientists: The.
American Scientific Affiliation as the Twentieth-Century
American Interface Between Science and Christianity." A
paper presented at the Institute for the Study of American
Evangelicals conference on "Evangelicals, Voluntary
Associations, & American Public Life," (Wheaton College,
June 13-15, 1991), footnote 7.

55
organizations, though thriving and popular for a while,
ultimately failed to put fundamentalists on the road map of
credibility.

Perhaps the most outspoken of those mentioned above was
Harry Rimmer. A Presbyterian minister and apologist by
trade, Rimmer took it upon himself to establish the
”Research Science Bureau" in 1920 for the sake of refuting
evolutionary theory on a popular level. His Book, The
Theery ef Evelution and the Facts of Science (1935), served
this purpose, especially for the many Christian college
students who were surrounded by the forces of modernism.

The book, in Rimmer's words, was to be used as "ammunition
in defense of the truth."”6 Rimmer's confidence in the
authority of the Bible was the basis for his claim that with
every scientific discovery, the Bible can be shown to have
anticipated it. He argued this point when the X-Ray-
microscope was invented, using as his proof-text Hebrews
11:3. "By faith we understand that the worlds were made by
the word of God, so that things which are seen are not made
of things that do appear." In other words, the things which
are visible to the eye, are made up of things, when broken
down, that are invisible. The biblical writers could not
have known such scientific facts except by the Holy Spirit's

illumination.”7 It was precisely this kind of confidence

 

106Harry Rimmer, The so of volutio a s

pr_Seienee (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1935), prefatory note.

lmHarry Rimmer, "Current Science and the Eternal

Word," The Shristian Fundamentalist 5 (June 1932): 421.

56
that gave William Bell Riley the wherewithal to attempt to
prove the fallacy of evolutionary theory by way of

mathematics.”8

William Jennings Bryan also felt the freedom
to go into the ring as an eyewitness against evolutionism
regardless of his lack of professional training. He stood
behind the authority of the Bible and that was sufficient
enough in any arena. He denied allegations that he was too
incompetent to argue the case in favor of biblical
creationism, and often resorted to showing off his own
academic credentials to prove he was not an uneducated'prima
donna. He once stated that if people didn't stop calling
him an ignoramus he was going to have all of his degrees
printed on his business cards and "challenge any son of an
ape to match cards" with him.”9

It appears that fundamentalists like Riley, Rimmer, and
Bryan felt they had every right to speak out authoritatively
on issues of which they had little or no professional
training since they embraced the authority of the Bible and
had the blessings of the popular fundamentalist
constituency. Yet this was reciprocal. Fundamentalists,
like politicians, did the will of the people, but also-

molded the people's opinions. These same fundamentalist

leaders, when faced with difficult intellectual questions,

 

108William Bell Riley, "The Theory of Evolution Tested

by Mathematics." The_Qh.1stian.£un.amentalist 5 (June
1932): 425-432.

“”Quoted in Ronald L. Numbers, he a

Eyelprien pf Seienrific Creationism (New York: Alfred A.
Knopf, 1992), p. 43.

57
had the tendency "to play them out before a popular

audience."”°

Critics typically wrote fundamentalists off as
ignorant, uneducated yokels, but this simply was not the
case. Most fundamentalist leaders were educated enough to
legitimately keep themselves out of the ranks of the
ignorant, but their myopic shortsightedness often rendered
obsolete the little educational preparation they had gained.
Popular fundamentalist leaders knew perfectly well that the
success of their cause was wrapped up in their ability to
control the religious populous. Like well seasoned
politicians, fundamentalist leaders were keeping their
constituents well fed on a steady diet of conservative
nostalgia and the promise that everything would be all
right.

So then, fundamentalists during the 19205 and 19305
articulated a suspicion of modern learning that was based
upon the full authority of the Bible which they considered
the basis for all life and learning. They were suspicious,
in particular, of evolutionary science, atheistic
philosophy, and liberal interpretations of the Bible. The
authority of the Bible had already been dismissed as
scientifically and intellectually incredible. It was

precisely at this point that fundamentalists determined that

 

1”Nathan 0. Hatch, "Evangelicalism as a Democratic
Movement," in Eyangelicalism and Modern Ameriea, George
Marsden, ed., (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984), p. 79; For an
in depth analysis of the democratization process of American
fundamentalism, see Nathan 0. Hatch, The_hemperariaarien_efi
Ameriean_ghrierianiry (New Haven: Yale University Press,
1989), pp. 210-219.

58
any knowledge which is not based upon the Bible is not
"true" knowledge. By the 19205, fundamentalism had become a
popular movement that placed greater value in the biblically
informed opinions of the common man than in the speculations
of ungodly intellectuals. Historians have marked the 19205
as a time when fundamentalism faced its Waterloo at the
Scopes trial in 1925. The fundamentalists won the battle,
but ultimately lost the war thereby acquiring the negative
image of anti-intellectualism.

William Jennings Bryan embodied the principle theme of
fundamentalist populism in his own display of confidence in
being able to use the Bible, as an untrained layman, to
disprove the theory of evolution in court.111 Although there
were mixed opinions on the question of whether or not the
Bible is a science book, it can still be shown that
fundamentalists saw the Bible as scientifically accurate.
Fundamentalists would remain ambivalent about scholarship
through the 19305, exemplified by their almost total lack of
involvement in scholarly activity. The movement itself was
by no means put to rest, at least on a popular level. It
proved to be a rapidly growing movement as exemplified
through the growth of Bible schools, Bible conferences,
revivalism, missions, and radio broadcasting.112 The

intellectual activity among fundamentalists was found almost

 

111Postman, Technopoly, p. 78.

112Joel A. Carpenter, "The Renewal of American
Fundamentalism, 1930-1945" (Ph.D dissertation, The Johns
Hopkins University, 1984). .

59
exclusively in Bible schools and seminaries, but this
activity was in no way comparable to the activities of the
greater academic community. As we have already indicated,
fundamentalists were more concerned about preparing for the
second coming of Christ through an increased activity of
soul-winning, showing little care about the concerns of this
world. "What does it profit a man if he gains the world,
but loses his very soul?", or, as someone once put it, "Only
one life will soon be past, only what's done for Christ will
last!" God was concerned that all men come to Him through
Christ. Modern scholarship, in the minds of
fundamentalists, had tried to render this message obsolete.
Fearing the spread of the ungodly ideology of modernism,
fundamentalists attempted to warn their children about the
evils of modern learning and the necessity of holding fast
to the principles of the word of God. As an extension to
this warning, it was common to hear fundamentalists
encourage their young people to pursue full-time Christian
service vocations.

But the time for the reformation of fundamentalism was
at hand. The decade of the 19405 would play host to a new
generation of evangelicals who would make every attempt to
reform the anti-social, anti-intellectual image of American

3

fundamentalism.11 The founding of the National Association

of Evangelicals (NAE) in 1941 paralleled the growth of this

 

113George M. Marsden, e ormin undamental sm'

Seminary ang rhe New Evangelicalism (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1987).

60
newly emerging generation indicating an irenic move toward a
broader, less separatistic and more tolerant coalition of

evangelical Christians.114

The new evangelicals had a
specific agenda to renew evangelicalism's rightful place in
the marketplace of truth. Perhaps the most profound
indication of the change in attitude toward scholarship was
the significant increase in graduate work by evangelicals at
major universities during the 19405 and 19505, many of whom

attended Harvard Divinity School.115

The move toward
renewal, however, would not be an easy task for this new
generation of evangelicals. Their first task was to move
beyond the obscurantistic posture of their fundamentalist
predecessors, and attempt to reconstruct a classical
orthodoxy that could be defended with intellectual
credibility that could place them once again in the

marketplace of truth.

 

114

v e1 ca Action: A Re ort o e Or n‘z t
the National Assoeiation of Eyangelicals For Qnited Aetien.

Compiled and edited by the executive committee (Boston:
United Action Press, 1942); and James Deforest Murch,

er w' ut Com romise: A Histo e a '
Aeseeiatien of Evangelicals (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1956).

115Hatch, "Evangelicalism as a Democratic Movement,"

p. 79.

Chapter Two

el' e ud' ti e :
' 'ed A enda or C nf c in deals?

Nothing can be learned from general

wisdom, says the fundamentalist, for the

natural man is wrong in starting point,

method, and conclusion. . . . Since the

fundamentalist belittles the value of

general wisdom, he is often content with

an educational system that substitutes

piety for scholarship.1

By the end of the 19305, fundamentalism had been

reduced to a movement of utter insignificance, at least in
the eyes of American society at large. As we have already
seen, fundamentalists had separated themselves from a world
conquered by an insidious army of modernists. They had
given up trying to make an impact in higher educational
circles, most noticeable in their turn of attention to
biblically faithful seminaries and Bible schools. Their
world was a fortress in which the elect could safely await
the return of Christ, followed by the avenging wrath of God
on those who made war against them. It was precisely this
general attitude among separatist fundamentalists that
caused the new evangelical generation to recoil in dismay.
As we saw in chapter one, post-World War I fundamentalism
was a closed system that placed the authority of the Word of
God above all things. Though they have been accused of

being anti-intellectuals, it may be more proper to say that

 

1Edward John Carnell, T e Case or Orthodo e lo
(Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1959), p. 119.

61

62

they were selectively intellectual. Fundamentalists of this
generation saw intellectual pursuits as valid only if the
pursuits were contingent upon the authority of the Bible.
The following generation of new evangelicals were no less
committed to the authority of the Bible, yet they differed
because they sought to find truth in areas where no
fundamentalist dared venture. The term "new
evangelicalism," however, would not be the label given to
this emerging generation of reformers of fundamentalism
until 1947.2

The new evangelicals emerged from a tumultuous period
in American history. They, like millions of other
Americans, witnessed the dark days of the Great Depression,
the horrors of World War II, and the uncertain days of the
Cold War with its looming threat of atomic destruction.
Indeed, these recent events helped to mold the mindset of
the new evangelicals as they set out to reform
fundamentalism. They were a part of an American society
that felt many uncertainties about the future of the United

States’. For many new evangelicals the experience of World

 

2Harold John Ockenga was the first to publically refer
to the post-1940 generation as "new evangelicals." See
Harold John Ockenga, "From Fundamentalism, Through New

Evangelicalism, to Evangelicalism," in Eyangelical Reete: A
Trihute te Wilbur Smith. Kenneth Kantzer, ed. (Nashville:
Thomas Nelson, 1978), pp. 35-46; and Robert P. Lightner,

- ca 5 (Findlay: Dunham Publishing, 1962),
p.39.

3William Graebner, ub Ame
and_sulture_in_ths_1219§ (Boston: Twayneo. 1991); Loren

Baritz, 1 ° The eanin of Su cess r

63

War II (along with World War I) and the atomic age presented
to them the sickness of western civilization and the great
need to evangelize lost sinners.4

The seeds for the new evangelical movement were sown
in 1942 when the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE)
came into existence. Under the guidance of J. Elwin Wright
and Harold John Ockenga the NAE was to become a coalition of
conservative evangelicals brought together in an irenic
spirit of cooperation. They were convinced that the years of
separatistic negativism within fundamentalism had done more
damage than good in the venture to build Christ's kingdom.
They, like their fundamentalist predecessors, rejected the
liberal agenda of the ecumenical Federal Council of
Churches,5 but refused to separate from other evangelicals
whom stricter fundamentalists would lump in with modernists
in the ecumenical movement.

Perhaps the most explicit symbol of NAE commitment to a
spirit of cooperation was its rejection of a plan, on behalf
of the prominent separatist Carl McIntire and a few of his
colleagues, to get the NAE to unite with their already

established separatist American Council of Christian

 

Baritz, e° e i c e
“Wags (New York: Harper 5- Rovn 1990)-
‘Carl F. H. Henry, e a the de

(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1948)[1946]; Wilbur M. Smith, The
Atpmie Age and the Wore of Goa (Boston: W. A. Wilde, 1948).

5James DeForest Murch, Cooperation Withopt Sompromiee;

A nietery er the national Asseciation pf Evangelieale.
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), pp. 38-47.

64
Churches. The NAE council rejected the offer, which
resulted in the immediate withdraw of the American Council
representatives from the meeting.6 From here on the course
was set for a new evangelical spirit that would make itself
manifest in the political arena, religious broadcasting,
foreign missions, evangelism, home missions, stewardship,
Christian education, and social action.7 Closest to the
heart of the new evangelical coalition were the issues of
social action and intellectual credibility. It was in these
two arenas where the new evangelicals saw fundamentalism's
most inadequate spirit. Years of polemical in-house warfare
over the issues surrounding modernism had created for
American fundamentalists a ghetto mentality that not only
manifested itself in forms of anti-intellectualism, but in
anti-social mentalities as well. The new evangelical agenda
was best summarized in an article in Christian Lite magazine
entitled, "Is Evangelical Theology Changing?" The article
points out how fundamentalism had declined since the days of
scholarly J. Gresham Machen to a movement that became "the

catch-all for the lunatic fringe" after 1925. A new

 

6The American Council of Christian Churches, led by
Carl McIntire, was an extreme separatist group that would
eventually wage an all-out war against the NAE and the
emerging new evangelical coalition. See Evangelical Aetien;

. ;#-- -, ;- Oro- 32. on o a _-1..s=- T: -
WWW (Boston: United Action
Press, 1942), pp. 6-7.

jrpla; Carpenter, "The Renewal of American
Fundamentalism," pp. 184-221; Louis Gasper, The
WWW (Grand Rapids: Baker.

1981 [1963]; and Murch, Cooperation hithent Compromiee.

65
generation had emerged after World War II, desiring a more
positive impact. The identifiable earmarks of this new
generation included a willingness to study science more
seriously; take social responsibility seriously; tolerance
of different opinions on eschatology; renewed emphasis on
critical scholarship; the repudiation of dispensationalism;
and the willingness to converse with liberal scholars.8 ‘The
new evangelicals understood these problems and sought to
remedy them through preparing themselves intellectually for
the task of reforming fundamentalism.

The term "new evangelicalism" was first used by Ockenga
in 1947 at a convocation address at Fuller Seminary. This
new movement, according to Ockenga, was generated in
response to the fundamentalist abandonment of social and
intellectual concerns. What made the new evangelicals
different from the fundamentalists was their willingness to
apply the principles of the Christian faith to the social
and intellectual needs of the day. Ockenga made clear that
the new evangelicalism was not about separation but rather
"infiltration" so as to effect positive changes within the
evangelical community. Unlike fundamentalism, the new
evangelicalism would give a positive presentation of the
truth of the gospel, thereby bringing into union the

goodness of the social gospel and the truth of the "personal

 

8"Is Evangelical Theology Changing?". Qhristian.Life.
(March 1967): 16-19.

66
gospel."9 Ockenga, and his new evangelical peers, were
convinced that the new evangelicalism was intellectually
credible and could be defended on the same grounds. There
is no reason why evangelicals need to be afraid of science
or any other form of modern scholarship. Unquestionably,
evangelicals should apply the faith to every aspect of life.
Ockenga's speech was centered around six points with regards
to the background of the founding of the new evangelicalism.
First, it has been given a voice to be heard in the
denominations through the vehicle of the National
Association of Evangelicals. Second, the help of the World
Evangelical Fellowship which helps to bring together the
national groups. Third, the emergence of insightful
apologetic literature that promotes new evangelical values.
Fourth, the existence of seminaries like Fuller where
evangelical orthodoxy is taught along side of a relevant
social agenda. Fifth, establishment of the new evangelical
voice Shrietianity Today. Sixth, the leading spokesman for
the new evangelicaliSm, the evangelist Billy Graham.” Time
would tell, however, as to how unified the new evangelicals

would be in defining the scope of the new evangelical vision

 

9Ockenga, "From Fundamentalism, Through New
Evangelicalism, to Evangelicalism," p. 40; see also a
release of portions of Ockenga's 1947 convocation address at
Fuller entitled, "The New Evangelicalism," edited by Edgar
W. Pool. Folder 7, Box 16, Collection 8, Records of
Shrietianity_Tegay (hereafter cited as ST Records). Archives
of the Billy Graham Center, Wheaton, Illinois (hereafter
cited as GA).

101E130

67
for the reformation of fundamentalism. Many in the new
evangelical camp would be less than enthusiastic about
detaching themselves from fundamentalism.

The core of key players in the new evangelical
coalition were few in number, yet the movement itself gained
significant numbers during the 19405 and 19505. The list of
those who pursued professional academic credentials in the
new evangelical generation is lengthy and impressive because
it revealed a radical new commitment to intellectual
integrity. The number of new evangelicals who attended
Harvard Divinity School is especially impressive. Included
in this roster of Harvard graduates were the apologist,
Edward John Carnell (Th.D., 1948), who also completed a
Ph.D. in philosophy at Boston University in 1949; theologian
and former editor of Shristianity Today, Kenneth Kantzer
(Ph.D., 1950); theologian, Merrill Tenney (Ph.D., 1944);
church historian, John Gerstner (Ph.D., 1945); philosopher,
Harold Kuhn (Ph.D., 1944); theologian, Paul Jewitt (Ph.D.,
1951); New Testament scholar, George Ladd (Ph.D., 1949);
Fuller Seminary Provost and New Testament scholar, Glenn
Barker (Ph.D., 1962); Gordon-Conwell Dean and Professor,
Burton Goddard (Th.D., 1943); theologian, Roger Nicole
(Ph.D., 1967); theologian Samuel Schultz (Th.D., 1949);
Biblical studies scholar, George Turner (Ph.D., 1946);

Greek scholar, J. Harold Greenlee (Ph.D., 1947);

theologian, Jack P. Lewis (Ph.D., 1953); and church

68
historian, Lemoine Lewis (Ph.D., 1959).11
As the numbers of evangelical students grew at Harvard
Divinity School, it became clear to Dean William L. Sperry
that this kind of student "already had one theological
course in a conservative-to-fundamentalist seminary, and who
is now anxious to begin all over again another three years

of theological re-education."12

Why the sudden interest in
Harvard is not entirely clear, yet what is clear is that at
least some of those listed above attended Harvard strictly
for the intellectual challenge.” Years of intellectual
uncertainty and obscurantism had been burned into the
frontal lobes of this new generation and, as Rudolph Nelson
argues, "Young men who had progressed far enough on the
academic ladder to seriously contemplate graduate education
could hardly have avoided at least thinking of Harvard." “
Attitudinally, fundamentalists had always thought of Harvard
as the dwellingplace of Satan, echoing what Jack P. Lewis
said regarding what he and other evangelical students would

find at Harvard. They anticipated meeting the Devil

himself, but instead found "gentlemen of the highest

 

11Rudolph L. Nelson, "Fundamentalism at Harvard: The

Case of Edward John Carnell," Quarterly Reviey 2 (Summer
1982): 80-81.

12Tbig., p. 79.
13Rudolph Nelson, The Eating and Unmaking at an
WWW (Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 1987), pp. 57-59.
.Elhido. P- 57.

69
character who were kinder to us than we would have been to

"” Others in the new

them had the case been reversed.
evangelical coalition sought professional degrees elsewhere.
Harold John Ockenga earned a Ph.D in philosophy at the
University of Pittsburgh in 1939 and Carl F.H. Henry earned
his Ph.D in philosophy at Boston University in 1949.

Bernard Ramm earned both an M.A. and a Ph.D at the
University of Southern California. A number of new
evangelicals took an alternative course of study in
theology.

Dan Fuller, son of the famous radio evangelist Charles
Fuller, studied at Princeton Seminary, University of
California at Berkeley, and earned a Th.D from the
University of Basel in Switzerland. In theology, Fuller
along with Bernard Ramm and Donald Bloesch, represented a
move away from fundamentalist orthodoxy to a system more
sympathetic toward neo-orthodoxy. Each of them had studied
with Karl Barth, whom many in the new evangelical coalition
regarded as less than orthodox. This diversity was merely
the logical outcome of the earlier seeds of renewal that had
been planted in the early 19405. It is important to note at
this point that the new evangelicals developed their love
for academe in fundamentalist institutions of higher
learning. A number of key new evangelical leaders received

their initial intellectual training at institutions like

 

.21219-. P- 53-

7O
Wheaton College and Westminster Theological Seminary.
Perhaps the most influential teacher for the new evangelical
generation (especially for Wheaton graduates) was the
reformed apologist Gordon H. Clark. Carl Henry points out
that Clark "made a lasting contribution to a score of young
scholars who were to articulate Christian theism
aggressively in the contemporary milieu." Besides Carnell
and himself, Henry also cites other new evangelicals
influenced by Clark such as "Edmund P. Clowney, Clair Davis,
Billy Graham, Paul K. Jewitt, and Robert K. Rudolph." ”
The Influence of J. Gresham Machen and Cornelius Van Til
played a significant role as well at Westminster. Carnell
and Ockenga both studied at Westminster and gained a great
respect for reformed theology. Carnell said that the
influence of Clark was much greater on him than was the
influence of Van Til. Carnell and Van Til evidently had a
falling out in 1944 that never was to be resolved.17 The
anti-dispensationalism attributable to the new evangelicals
appears to have its roots, to some extent, in the reformed
influences of Clark, Van Til, and Machen. Despite the‘
impressive credentials that the new evangelicals were
attaining, there still appeared to be a gross lack of

academic concentration outside the discipline of theology.

 

16Carl F.H. Henry, "A Wide and Deep Swath," in The

so h of Gordon H. Clark: A Festsch i . Ronald N.
Nash, ed. (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1968),
p. 16.

17Nelson, The Making ang Unmaking, p. 45.

71
This comes as no secret since it appears that the first
order of business was to attempt to resolve the numerous
theological conflicts of their fundamentalist predecessors
at a more scholarly level. Some new evangelicals were
majoring in philosophy for the sole purpose of developing an
irrefutable apologetic.

The development of the new evangelicalism has been
identified, institutionally, with Fuller Theological
Seminary. George Marsden has argued that "The early Fuller
was in striking ways a fundamentalist institution with a
thoroughly fundamentalist constituency. Though
"evangelical" may have been the more respectable word to
use, few would have questioned the fundamentalist
identification."18 Most of the new evangelicals wanted to
stay true to the fundamentals of the faith without all the
superfluous baggage that made the movement unacceptable, yet
it is still not clear why they remained committed to a
partial identification with a term that communicated the
obscurantism they despised. Marsden shows that by the late
19505, tensions between fundamentalism and the new
evangelicalism were eventually played out in the halls of
Fuller Seminary, thereby resulting in the fundamentalist
withdrawal of support for the seminary because of their

fears of modernism.

 

18George Marsden, Eeferming Eundamentalism; Epller

Seminary and the Ney Eyangelicalism (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1987), p. 3.

72

Carl Henry's path-breaking work, The_Eneaey_Qeneeienee
e: hegern Eundamentalism (1947), is considered to be the
first major critique of the fundamentalist anti-intellectual
and anti-social mentality. Fundamentalists, in Henry's
analysis, had become so wrapped up in their own scrupulous
concerns over non-essential matters that they were unable to
develop an agenda for social reform. As a result, non-
evangelicals began to view fundamentalism as a movement
”which makes a world ethical view impossible."19 In
conjunction with the founding principles of the NAE, Henry
wanted to see a contemporary evangelicalism that would apply
the gospel message to the "global predicament" at large,
focus on those elements of agreement between evangelicals
before a watching world, and turn from the unbiblical lack
of compassion fundamentalism had developed.” The
uneasiness that Henry saw in American fundamentalism was, to
him, a positive sign. The result, he hoped, would be
something tantamount to a twentieth century reformation
inevitably "leading to a global renaissance within modern
secularism.“1

Henry's attack upon fundamentalist obscurantism went

much deeper in W
Theelegy (1957). Fundamentalism, Henry maintains,

 

19Carl F.H. Henry, The Uneasy Conscience of Modern
Epngamentaliem (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1947), p. 23.

.flhido. P- 57-
211214.. p- 64-

73
possesses the truth insofar as its "essential" doctrines are
concerned,22 but "suffered from its own inherent perils.“3
These perils include an historical and theological short-
sightedness, the lack of production of relevant theological
literature, and a refusal to recognize the great social
needs in culture. Henry bemoaned the fact that while some
conservative evangelicals and fundamentalists were honest in
their approach to scientific issues, most "American
fundamentalists expended their energies more in vocal
hostility to evolution than in the production of scholarly,
meaningful literature.“4 Henry believed that this kind of
fundamentalist obscurantism was a thing of the past in light
of the resurgence of a new kind of evangelical Christianity.
In times past it was common to hear of continual defeats of
fundamentalism and "of revealed religion demeaned as
fundamentalist cultism and fundamentalism disparaged in turn
as sheer anti-intellectualism." Evangelical theology, in
Henry's analysis, was reasserting itself with the kind of

"vigor and wideness surprising to most interpreters of'

 

22Essential doctrine, according to the new
evangelicals, included such things as the virgin birth , the
deity, substitutionary atonement, the death and resurrection
of Christ, the inerrancy and authority of the Bible, and the
eventual return of Christ. Non-essentials included movie
attendance, television, playing cards, studying at
unorthodox institutions of higher learning, smoking and
drinking.

23Carl F.H. Henry, Evangelical Eesponsibility in

contemporarx_lheologx (Grand Rapids= Eerdmans. 1957). p-
32.

Elhid.. p- 42.

74

contemporary religious life."25

Perhaps the most scathing
attack against fundamentalism came from the pen of E.J.
Carnell. Having been raised in a fundamentalist home in
Michigan, Carnell knew first hand what it was like living on
the inside of the movement. Carnell's controversial career
represented, in many ways, the overwhelming tension the new
evangelicals felt in their attempt to come to grips with
impact of the Age of Reason on the Church, as well as
overcoming the intellectual obscurantism of their
fundamentalist predecessors. Despite the severe criticism
that other new evangelicals were leveling against
fundamentalism, Carnell's critique was the most gripping and
iconoclastic that this new generation had produced. Rudolph
Nelson assesses Carnell's critique as most "influential in
shattering the legacy of fundamentalist withdraw from
modernity and insisting that evangelicals confront the

toughest issues of modern times."26

In 1956, Carnell wrote Shristian Sommitment; An
Apelegetie, which he felt would make a significant impact,
not only on the Church, but in the secular community as
well. The book was accepted for publication by a secular

press, thereby causing the new evangelicals to celebrate

 

‘”Carl F.H. Henry, "The Resurgence of Evangelical
Christianity," Christianity Teday 3 (March 30, 1959): 3-6.

”Nelson, The Makin and Unmakin , p. 8.

75
their coming of age intellectually.” The book referenced
few Bible verses but attempted to show that there was a
commonality of experience between believers and non-
believers. Carnell's desire in Chrietian Semmitment was to
make Christianity credible to a culture that had written it
off as incredible.” Included in this book was an
autobiographical overview that Carnell hoped would set the
tone for his general theme. He revealed his troubling
encounters with insomnia, especially as it affected him in
graduate school. Insomnia was the basis of his "omnipresent
sense of fatigue, the susceptibility to irritation, and the
grossness of an unrefreshed mind." All of this was a
mounting powder keg that Carnell says caused him to explode
in anger one night while studying for a language
examination. After the outburst, Carnell commenced to take
a long walk down the railroad tracks leading away from his
predicament. After a while he began to contemplate the
difference between his inner turmoil and the tranquility of
nature, pondering also his sense of finitude. Wanting
desperately to escape his turmoil he concludes, "Everything
I conceived became a burden; every anticipated obligation
threatened to impale me. Even so ordinary a responsibility

as conversing with others overwhelmed me with consternation.

 

”Marsden, Eeferming Eundamentalism, p. 181; see also
Harold John Ockenga, "Resurgent Evangelical Leadership,"

Qhristianit2_12dax (October 10. 1960): 11-15-
181515.. 10- 181.

76
Nor dare I conceal the fact that even suicide took on a
certain attractiveness."” All of this led Carnell to
conclude (as his thesis for the book) that "One's ability to
see reality is somewhat conditioned to the tone of one's

II 30

affections. Disappointment followed the publication of
what Carnell had hoped would be a major contribution to
evangelical apologetics. Some of his most outspoken critics
were from within the new evangelical camp. For one, Carl
Henry expressed his concern over Carnell's book in a letter
to Gordon Clark. "What distressed me most is the material
in the last chapter which suggests that a knowledge of
Christ is not necessary to salvation, and that God may
justify individuals apart from reliance upon substitutionary
atonement."31 Clark returned a letter to Henry intimating
his own concerns with the book, stating that he was not
certain that he wanted to go public in taking issue with
Carnell.” Later on, Carnell would receive a less than

enthusiastic review from Clark who pointed out that Carnell

appeared to be moving away from his previously held position

 

29Edward John Carnell, Christian Commitment: An
(New York: MacMillan, 1957), pp. 10-11.

21:216.. p. 11-

31Carl F. H. Henry to Gordon H. Clark, March 14, 1957.
Folder 12, Box 15, Collection 8, ST Records. GA.

”Gordon H. Clark to Carl F. H. Henry, March 16, 1957.
Folder 12, Box 15, Collection 8, ST Records. GA.

77

on the law of noncontradiction.33 He feared as well that
Carnell was becoming shaky on the notion of salvation in
Christ alone. Some months later, Henry, in sarcastic tone,
wrote Clark again quoting an abstract of an item in Theplpgy
Heme and notee, a Fuller Alumni newsletter, preceded by the
comment, "I thought you might get a chuckle out of an item
in Theelegy Newe ang Notes." The abstract was a high praise
for Carnell's Shristian Commitment, qualifying it as a work
that rates with that of the works of Kant and Aristotle.34
The neo-orthodox theologian, William Hordern, also found
fault with Carnell's book in a review he did in the

Hordern, whom some would have guessed would be more
supportive of Carnell, argued that Carnell appeared to
misunderstand thinkers such as Kierkegaard and Kant. He
felt that Carnell failed to see the problem because he
placed too much emphasis on mankind's intuitive sentiments,
thereby not taking into account human depravity and
consequent potential for error.35 The rejection he felt
from these kinds of criticisms, as well as his sense of

failure as president of Fuller Seminary was overwhelming for

 

33Apparently, Carnell had moved away from a previously
held philosophical position which stated that a thing cannot
be A and non A at the same time. Clark was concerned that
Carnell was beginning to abandon logic.

3"Carl F. H. Henry to Gordon H. Clark, November 12,
1957. Folder 7, Box 16, Collection 8, ST Records. GA.

3SMarsden, Reforming Fundamentalism, p. 184.

78
Carnell. Shristian gommitment was in many ways an example
of the tensions which existed in the new evangelicalism, in
attempting to make Christianity credible. This attempt for
Carnell, however, was not panning out the way he hoped and
thought it would. By 1959 Carnell's approach would turn in
a more critical direction with the publication of The_§aee
fer Qrtheger Theology. If fundamentalists had ignored
ghriatian_§emmitment, "this time he would be heard.”

Carnell was unconcerned about the negative responses he
received from various reviewers of his draft of the book,
and remarked once to Ockenga that his new book was going to
"separate the men from the boys theologically." It was
Carnell's conviction "that the hour to speak has come."36
For Carnell, fundamentalism began as a movement that sought
to preserve "the faith once delivered to the saints." Early
in the twentieth century, fundamentalism made a fatal
mistake, according to Carnell, in declining from a movement
to a mentality. Unlike the reformers, "the fundamentalists
failed to connect their convictions with the classical
creeds of the Church." The end result was that after the
fall of modernism, fundamentalism became a movement without
a cause. "Nothing was left but the mentality of
fundamentalism, and this mentality is orthodoxy's gravest

peril."37 The fact that historic fundamentalism had become

 

13112151.. p. 133.

37Edward John Carnell, s t 0
(Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1959), pp. 113-114.

79
a mentality was what caused Carnell to conclude that
"Fundamentalism is orthodoxy gone cultic." Fundamentalism
had become controlled by ideological thinking. This
thinking was intolerant, rigid, and dogmatic. "It exempts
itself from the limits that original sin places on history;
it wages holy wars without acknowledging the elements of
pride and personal interest that prompt the call to battle;
it creates new evils while trying to correct old ones."”
Carnell, unlike most new evangelical thinkers, did not
esteem Machen as a positive example of the intellectual
credibility of early fundamentalism. He argues that Machen
thought that the best way the clean up the evangelical
Church was to separate from the modernists. Machen,
according to Carnell, had disposed of the sins of the
modernists, but did not dispose of the sins of those who
were thankful they were separatists. Machen and his
followers believed that they were delivered from heresy.39
Carnell notes that Machen's style of separatism was "status
by negation, not precise theological inquiry."40 Gordon
Clark took the occasion to sharply criticize Carnell in a
letter to Carl Henry. With regard to Carnell's analysis of

Machen, Clark wrote,

As for Carnell, someone ought to tell him off. He has
taken to distorting the facts. He rebukes Machen for

 

13112151.. p. 114.
21511.. p. 116.
“311116.. p. 117.

80
having left the Church. When Carnell was a student, he
knew quite well that Machen was tried in ecclesiastical
court, denied the elementary justice of presenting his
defense, and excommunicated. Machen tried to stay in
the church; the church put him out. Now Carnell
distorts the facts, and apparently sympathizes with
the injustices.“1
Between this book and a couple of controversial

articles he produced for the Christian Centur ,”

Carnell
achieved his goal of causing the fundamentalists to sit up
and take notice. Fundamentalists went on a vehement counter
attack, as we shall see in the next chapter. What Carnell
may not have expected was the intense criticism that he
would receive from the ranks of the new evangelicals.
Carnell's friend and colleague Wilbur Smith feared that the
"Post-Fundamentalist Faith" article was a betrayal of the
cause of Fuller Seminary by encouraging both its liberal and
conservative enemies to have reason to celebrate.43 Andrew
W. Blackwood wrote to Carl Henry and said that he felt that
Carnell's Sase for Orthodox Theology spent "too much time
dealing negatively with orthodox people, and not enough time

setting forth clearly and kindly what evangelicals stand for

today." Regarding Carnell's Shristian Centnry article,

 

“Gordon H. Clark to Carl F.H. Henry, October 5, 1959.
Folder 12, Box 15, Collection 8, ST Records. GA.

42the two articles were published less than a year
apart, see Edward John Carnell, "Post-Fundamentalist Faith,"

The Shristian Century, (August 26, 1959): 971; and Edward
John Carnell, "Orthodoxy: Cultic vs. Classical," The

Christian_gsnturx. (March 30. 1960): 377-399.

43Wilbur M. Smith to Carl F. H. Henry, September 21,
1959. Folder 20, Box 16, Collection 8, ST Records. GA.

81
"Post-Fundamentalist Faith," Blackwood pointed out that the
fundamentalists in his center of influence were nowhere near
the kind of fundamentalists that Carnell describes. ‘
Blackwood also expressed disagreement with the idea that the
”younger conservatives," of which Carnell was a part, were
solely responsible for the positive condition of orthodox
theology. Such an understanding, according to Blackwood,
left older conservatives (such as himself) out of the
picture.44 Carl Henry responded to the controversy that
Carnell stirred up by remarking to Ockenga that hostility
was growing toward Carnell among the dispensationalists as
well as some of the Christianity Today editorial staff.
Henry relayed the fact that some reviewers were giving the
book negative coverage. For example, Philip Hughes regarded
The Sage tor Orthodox Theology as "a bad book" and Bernard
Ramm said the book gave "him the impression that the
liberals are in the true Church and the fundys outside."
Henry also mentioned to Ockenga that Dr. Blackwood resented
Carnell's article. The Qhrietian_§entnry article was
disappointing to some since Carnell had chosen to use "a
liberal organ to scorch fundamentalism, not liberalism."
Henry even suggests that Carnell's position is tantamount to

"one who soon becomes most at home on an inclusive faculty."

 

44Andrew W. Blackwood to Carl F. H. Henry, August 24,
1959. Box 35, Harold John Ockenga Papers (hereafter cited
as OP). Archives of the Ockenga Institute, Gordon-Conwell
Theological Seminary, South Hamilton, Massachusetts
(hereafter cited as GC).

82

Such a condition would be dangerous for Fuller Seminary.45
The extent of outrage over The_Saee_ter_erthegen_Theelegy
even reached the British evangelicals whom Henry said "had
fought, bled and died to make the term fundamentalism
respectable." British evangelicals felt as though their
achievements had been thwarted "by Carnell's snubbery of
fundamentalism in terms of the American Variety."46

This same sentiment was expressed by Harold Ockenga
upon publication of Carnell's second article, "Orthodoxy:
Cultic vs. Classical." Ockenga told Carnell that he had
received several letters of concern regarding his opinions
and theological direction. One letter expressed concern that
Carnell conceded points to the enemy in his book and his
articles. Another letter expressed concern that Carnell was
fishing for a position in a liberal school. Another
apparent friend accused Carnell of treason for taking his
criticisms to the liberals instead of publishing them in
more conservative magazines. So penetrating was Carnell's
impact that the noted British evangelical, Martin-Lloyd
Jones, even regarded Carnell as "lost to the evangelical

cause."“7 When one takes a look at the progression of

 

45Carl F. H. Henry to Harold John Ockenga, August 27,
1959. Box 35, OP. GC. Carl F. H. Henry to Wilbur M. Smith,
September 24, 1959. Folder 20, Box 16, Collection 8, ST
Records. GA.

“Carl F. H. Henry to Bernard Ramm, June 1, 1959; Carl
F. H. Henry to Bernard Ramm, January 11, 1960. Folder 12,
Box 16, Collection 8, ST Records. GA.

83
Carnell's thought, Jones's statement comes into sharper
focus. The negative response that Carnell receive from many
new evangelical sympathizers raises the question as to how
unified they were on the ideals of the new evangelicalism in
the first place. The new evangelical cause, to which many
claimed to be committed, often turned out to be interpreted
as the cause of fundamentalism.

This may have been problematic for Carnell because he
thought he was taking the new evangelicalism in the
direction it ought to go, only to find that his peers were
unwilling to let go of what he regarded as fundamentalist
baggage. This becomes especially clear in light of the
following statement by Ockenga to Carnell.

We owe our great debt to the fundamentalists for

preserving the faith when for fifty years the

modernists were in the saddle without any competition
philosophically, or practically. Scores of these
fundamental leaders have suffered desperately at the
hands of the modernist hierarchy in the denominations.

They were compelled to form independent schools and

many times independent Churches.8

Rather than attempt to respond to the letters Ockenga
received regarding his apparent move away from orthodoxy,
Carnell stated that "it is too soon to tell," and that it

would be best to "wait on the verdict of history" to see if

he was wrong in his differentiation between cultic and

 

47Harold John Ockenga to Edward John Carnell, May 6,
1960. Box 35, OP. GC.

18.111151.

84
classical orthodoxy.49 The numerous letters that Carnell
had written to Ockenga revealed a degree of trust in Ockenga
as a friend and colleague. Ockenga was pastoring in Boston
while Carnell was holding down the presidency at Fuller.
Ockenga would eventually step in as acting president after
Carnell's resignation in 1959. The distance between them may
have been a point of frustration, especially during times of
trouble at Fuller.

The new evangelicals appeared to be apprehensive about
going too far with their criticisms of fundamentalism.
Fundamentalism was perceived as a negative system of
thought, yet the new evangelicals often paid homage to the
fundamentalists for maintaining an "orthodox position during
a time of persecution and discrimination." The defense of
the faith by old guard fundamentalists was the same faith
being defended by the new evangelicals. "There may be a
difference of attitude but there is no difference in the
creedal content of their Christianity."” Carnell's disgust
with fundamentalism had at times an aroma of almost complete

rejection. The Case fer Orthodox Theology along with his
two Shristian Century articles went well beyond most new

 

49Edward John Carnell to Harold John Ockenga, May 14,
1960. BOX 35, OP. GC.

”Harold John Ockenga to Carl F. H. Henry, November 3,
1959. Folder 7, Box 16, Collection 8, ST Records. GA.
Apologetically, Ockenga said the older fundamentalists were
"driven by controversy and discrimination to various shades
of separatism." See Harold John Ockenga, "Resurgent
Evangelical Leadership," p.13.

85
evangelical criticism of fundamentalism. In 1960, Carnell
published The Kingdom ef love and the Pride of Life, which
proved itself to be more tempered in its analysis of the
fundamentalists. In fact, the index has no listing for the
topics of fundamentalism or evangelicalism, yet it does cite
the topic of separatism on one page. Of separatists Carnell
says that their "policies are crudely dictatorial."
Furthermore he says that "the way of the separatist is
seldom a happy one. Being out of fellowship with both the
church universal and the wisdom of the ages, the separatist
is prey to novelty and enthusiasm. . . .Rather than trying
to heal existing divisions in the church, he is busy

creating new ones."51

Carnell did not have the patience or
sympathy with fundamentalism that Ockenga, Henry, and to
some extent Ramm displayed. Ramm once pointed out that the
fundamentalists have failed to be an effective, challenging
force to the mind of modern man. Fundamentalists, Ramm
says, "simply Cannot be the voice of orthodoxy in our land."
Despite these remarks, Ramm still believed that it was the

new evangelical's responsibility to answer them in love and

kindness of tone.”

 

51Edward John Carnell, The Kingdom of Love ane the
Eriee_et_Lire (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1960), P. 116.

”Bernard Ramm to Carl F. H. Henry, December 4, 1955.
Folder 12, Box 16, Collection 8, ST Records. GA; In one
issue of Eternity magazine, the editors decided to print a
number of letters they received with regard to a book review
of Ramm' s controversial The Christian View of Science ane
Seriptpr_. The editors apparently commissioned a scholar
named Joseph Bayly to review the book. The review was

86

In the same vein as Ockenga, Henry tipped his hat to
the fundamentalists for maintaining a stronger connection to
orthodoxy than the liberals,” paralleling Ramm's contention
that "at least the fundies have a far more right to be
called a Church than the liberals and the neos."” Ramm's
controversial book, The Christian View or Seience ane
Seriptnre (1954), with its suggestion of theistic evolution,
certainly won him few friends in the fundamentalist
community, which was an indication that Ramm had moved away
from fundamentalism in his view of creation, but his
correspondence reveals an affectionate tie. The new
evangelical desire to maintain a connection with
fundamentalism was even reflected in a series of essays
entitled, "Fundamentals of the Faith," which, in the mind of

Frank Gaebelein, would "be an outstanding contribution to

 

critical of many of Ramm's conclusions as well as
praiseworthy. Most of the letters themselves were critical
of Ramm's thesis. Ramm's reply to the review and the
letters showed that he did not wish to pursue controversy. "
I don't think I will tackle any reply to Joe's review.
Admittedly the book is controversial, and I could spend the
rest of my life writing answers to reviewers. I don't wish
to start any cirle of replies to replies. If the book is
defective and opinion concurs at this point, then I should
agree to it and mend my mental ways. If it is a solid
contribution the book will make its own way. So let's leave
it with that." See "Reaction on Ramm: A Flood of Divergent
Opinion Continues to Swirl around His Book," Eternity 6
(October 1955): 19-19.

”Carl F. H. Henry to Bernard Ramm, December 9, 1955.
Folder 12, Box, 16, Collection 8, ST Records. GA.

54Bernard Ramm to Carl F. H. Henry, May 27, 1959.
Folder 12, Box 16, Collection 8, ST Records. GA.

87

the cause of evangelicalism.“5

The relationship of the new
evangelicalism to fundamentalism is somewhat analogous to
the relationship between a father and a wayward son
(fundamentalists saw the new evangelicals as wayward). The
son may have intense dislike (in some cases even hatred) for
his father, but it remains an unchangeable relationship
nonetheless. The son may also be looking for acceptance by
the parent even in the midst of intense rebellion. The
theology of the new evangelicals was constructed out of the
context of the earlier fights between fundamentalists and
modernists. As we have seen, the new evangelicals had a
desire to retain the scholarship of the old nineteenth
century Princeton model, yet, as Bolich points out, "they
did not mold their theology to the mission of the church. It
essentially remained a theology for controversy."56 The
number of professional graduate degrees earned by new
evangelicals during the 19405 and 19505, indicated that
there would be a significant increase in high level
evangelical scholarship. On the contrary, it appears that
the focus was once again on the needs of the local church.57

The intellectual agenda of the new evangelicals was clearly

 

55Frank E. Gaebelein to Harold B. Kuhn, October 20,
1964. Folder 2, Box 16, Collection 8, ST Records. GA.‘

56Gregory G. Bolich, Earl Earth & Evangelicalism

(Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1980), p. 45.

S7Hatch, "Evangelicalism as a Democratic Movement," p.
79.

88
set from the beginning, having its roots in the founding of
Fuller Theological Seminary in 1947.” The original goal
was to develop an institution where high quality scholarship
could evolve. In 1944, Ockenga brought together a group of
evangelical theologians for the purpose of discussing the
need for academically credible evangelical literature. The
evangelical movement was growing, but intellectually it was
reliant upon the academic literature of their fundamentalist
predecessors.” After meeting with the evangelist Charles
Fuller to discuss the need for an academically credible
institution that was faithful to the authoritative Word of
God, it was determined to go ahead with plans to build
Fuller Theological Seminary.” Ockenga's vision for Fuller
Seminary was that it could become the new Princeton "that
would recapture the glory and academic standing of the old

"61

Princeton. Dan Fuller recalled that his father was

 

”Joel A. Carpenter, "From Fundamentalism to the New

Evangelical Coalition," in Evangelicalism ane Eoeern
Ameriea. George Marsden, ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,

1984), pp.3-16; Daniel P. Fuller, Give the Winds a Mighty
yeiee; The Stery or Sharles E, Euller. (Waco: Word Books,
1972), pp. 193-210; Marsden, Reforming Fundamentalism, p.

24; Richard Quebedeaux, The Worldly Evangelieal . (San
Francisco: Harper & Row, 1978), p. 13; David F. Wells and

John D. Woodbridge, The Evangelicals: What Thev Believe, The
They Are, Where They Are Changing. (Grand Rapids: Baker,

1977), p. 13; Robert Wuthnow, The Restructuring er Ameriean
' ' c' t and Fait Since Wor War I. (Princeton:

Princeton University Press, 1988), p. 174.

59Ockenga describes this development in the forward to
Harold Lindsell, e tt e r the 'ble (Grand Rapids:
Zonervan, 1976).

601: j a .

89

interested in establishing an institution that was
comparable to "Cal Tech." Fuller Seminary was to become the
"Cal Tech of the evangelical world."62 The constituency
that supported Charles Fuller's radio ministry were not
interested in the work of the seminary, but rather more
concerned to supporting a program that was winning souls to
lChrist. Charles Fuller knew his audience well enough to
sense that they were suspicious of seminaries because of all
the emphasis on study.63

So it is legitimate to ask just how tuned in the
evangelical laity was to the vision and goals of the new
evangelicals. But Charles Fuller, who knew little about the
importance of intellectual credibility, understood enough to
go ahead with plans to build the seminary. His own
conviction, however, failed to make an impact on his
audience, many of whom were staunch fundamentalists. This
placed the new evangelical leadership in an elitist position
because they were the only ones who really understood the
issues and the needs. The populace, whom they were to lead,
were more content to hold onto the old ways of I

fundamentalism, exemplified in the anti-educational response

 

61Marsden, Reformin Fundamentalism, p. 24; Donald
Dayton points out that Westminster Theological Seminary has
been viewed as an attempt to preserve nineteenth century
Princeton theology. See Donald W. Dayton, Discovering an

Eyangelical_nsritags (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1988)[19761. p-
137.

62Fuller, Siye the Winds a mighty Voice, p. 211.
215191.. p- 212.

90

of Charles Fuller's audience as well as in the previously
discussed public outcry against Carnell's anti-
fundamentalist rhetoric. Exactly why the evangelical
populace failed to understand the agenda of the new
evangelicalism is not an easy question to answer. In the
same way it is difficult to answer the question why
evangelicals in today's generation fail to see the necessity
of intellectual credibility. The reason, according to 05
Guinness, is that the evangelical academic community is at
an "intellectual, social and cultural distance from popular
evangelicalism." He adds that, "Evangelicalism has
developed so great a gap between its ‘elites' and its
‘masses' that it appears and acts as socially disjointed."64
Applying this to the post-World War II generation of
evangelicals it is probable that the new evangelical
intellectual agenda failed to make an impact on the
evangelical community at large. The potential for high level
scholarship was present, yet new evangelical scholars
typically published more practical works for the sake of the
Church at large.

This chapter, for the most part, has focused on the new
evangelical perspective of E. J. Carnell, not because his
repudiation of fundamentalism is very different from the

perspectives of Carl Henry, Harold Ockenga, or Bernard Ramm,

 

6"Os Guinness, "The American Hour, the Evangelical

Moment," Theelogieal Stndents Eellewship Belletin 10
(November-December 1986): 24.

91
but more for the intensity and compelling drive behind his
criticisms. New evangelicals like Henry and Ockenga
appeared to be less willing to break their ties to
fundamentalism, as exemplified in their defense of the_
preceding generation of fundamentalists. The intensity
behind Carnell's repudiation of fundamentalism reflected the
necessity he felt for unloading its baggage. For Carnell,
fundamentalism no longer meant orthodoxy, but cultic
orthodoxy that should be left to its own destruction. From
this presupposition, Carnell moved forward with the agenda
he felt was necessary for the success of the new
evangelicalism. The criticism that Carnell received from
his peers marked a unique tension within the movement, a
tension that he probably did not expect. Agreeing with
Henry's renunciation of fundamentalism in The Uneasy
Seneeienee of hoeern Fundamentalism, and Ockenga's 1947
convocation speech regarding the failure of fundamentalism,
Carnell may have felt that he was only adding extra punch to
the already existing anti-fundamentalist writing of his
peers. So the reaction to Carnell's strong repudiation of
fundamentalism signaled the beginning stage of new

evangelical disunity.65 Since it can be shown that the new

 

65Marsden mentions the division among the Fuller
faculty as a result of Carnell's controversial inaugural
address in which he argued for tolerance of others who
differ theologically, and for academic freedom. Carl Henry,
Charles Woodbridge, Wilbur Smith, and Harold Lindsell
confronted Carnell and encouraged him to change his mind on
the issues raised in his address. Carnell did not back down.

See Beferming Enndamentalism, p. 149.

92
evangelicals were all unified around the necessity of
changing the negative impact of fundamentalism on the Church
and in the world, it appears that the breaking point was the
division between those who were willing to dispense with
fundamentalism and those who wished to remain identified
with it.

The intellectual agenda of the new evangelicals was in
many ways inconsistent with the Charles Fuller's goal to
build the "Cal Tech" of evangelicalism. Fuller wanted to see
an institution created exclusively for the training of
pastors and missionaries, whereas the new evangelicals were
interested in tackling a wider range of academic issues than
would be necessary for the training of missionaries and
pastors. There certainly was an intellectual renewal with
the coming of the new evangelical generation, but the
question has never thoroughly been answered as to why this
renewal never seemed to get past issues surrounding
theology. The number of new evangelical theology degrees are
numerous as are the number of philosophy degrees (used‘
almost exclusively for apologetics),but where were the
musicians, the artists, the historians (besides Church
historians), scientists, literary scholars, and the like?
Perhaps the most telling example of the conflict of vision
within the new evangelical movement is an account of an
encounter between Harold Ockenga and Wilbur Smith. Ockenga
apparently met Smith in Chicago in 1947 to discuss the

possibility of Smith's coming to teach at Fuller. Smith

93

told Ockenga that he had no formal academic training and
that he had no right in such an undertaking. "I have led
you wrongly," Smith said, "I do not have a single earned
degree." Ockenga's reply was most telling with regards to
the conflict of intellectual vision. He commenced to assure
Smith that it was all right because what was needed at
Fuller was practical teaching from the truths of the
Scripture. "The idea is to train young men to be able to
preach, to emphasize the great verities of the Word of God,
to lead people to Christ. You are best able to be a model to
such a new breed of preachers and to inspire them."66

If the new evangelicals felt they had resolved the
historic tensions that their fathers could not hurdle, why
didn't they move on to bigger and better things? The 19605
and 19705 witnessed a vast change from new evangelicalism to
a more broadly defined evangelicalism. By the time the 19705
rolled around, it was clear that many of the issues
confronted by the new evangelicals, and for that matter the
preceding fundamentalist generation, were once again
emerging. Two of the most popular were the issues of
inerrancy and creationism. Where, then, was the greater
intellectual agenda of true integration of faith and
learning on all levels? The new evangelical intellectual
vision that was articulated by Henry, Ockenga, Ramm and

Carnell had gone far off course by the 19605. The "Cal

 

66Quoted in Marsden, Reformin F ndamen a is . P- 35.
footnote 5.

94

Tech" of evangelicalism became nothing more than another
seminary to train pastors and missionaries. The movement
that was to unveil to the world great works of evangelical
scholarship on all levels found itself instead unveiling in-
house polemical treatises on issues of relative non-concern
to the greater academic community. The struggles and
tensions within the new evangelicalism were reflected the
fact that many new evangelicals chose to retain a close
identity to fundamentalism in spite of all the rhetoric
about its failures and the great need to reform it. Many new
evangelicals brought this tension upon themselves because
they wanted the best of both worlds: an identity with
fundamentalism on the one hand, and a progressive new
evangelical agenda on the other. For Carnell, the most
appropriate course of action was to sever all ties to
fundamentalism since the label carried a negative
connotation of separatism. Preserving the fundamentals of
the faith was not the issue for Carnell, for he was able to
distinguish between the mentality of fundamentalism and the
historic doctrines of its foundation.67

The new evangelicalism, in spite of its successes,
failed to live up to many of the intellectual expectations
set forth by its leaders in the late 19405 and 19505. This

was to a large extent due to the lack of unity for the new

 

67Carnell, The Case Eor Ortheeox Theolegy, p. 113;_and
Edward John Carnell, "Fundamentalism," A Handbeoh er

0 (New York: World Publishing Company,
1958): 142-143.

95
evangelical agenda. This lack of unity was most visible in
the way that many new evangelicals repudiated the anti-
fundamentalist criticisms of Carnell. The already existing
criticisms of fundamentalism by Henry, Ockenga, and Ramm may
have given the appearance that all would go well once
Carnell unveiled his own, but this was not the case. Oddly
enough, Carnell was not the first in his generation to draw
fundamentalist blood. In fact, Ockenga and Henry were
acutely harsh in their criticisms of fundamentalism long
before Carnell spoke out on the subject.” How then, can we
make sense of their scrutiny of Carnell? Perhaps the best
way to make sense of this is to look at Carnell as unique
because he understood the necessity of letting go of the
troubling image of fundamentalism (the mentality of
fundamentalism) as the first step toward a workable new
evangelicalism.

The internal struggles within the post-World War II
generation did not make the new evangelicalism a total.
failure, but it did result in a divided group that found
itself returning to many of the same issues that preoccupied

the minds of their fundamentalist predecessors. New

 

68Harold John Ockenga, "Can Fundamentalism Win

America?" christian Life ane Times 2 (June 1947): 13-15;
Joel Carpenter recounts one of Ockenga's diatribes against
fundamentalists and their divisive agenda. Fundamentalists,
according to Ockenga, were plagued by "an utter incapacity
for cooperation." He attacked Carl McIntire for attacking
the new evangelicals who refused to join "a new hieraracy of
intolerant bigots." see Carpenter, "The Renewal of American

Fundamentalism," p. 229. and Henry, The Uneasy Conseienee.

96
evangelical intellectuals were consumed with resolving the
intellectual issues that their fundamentalist predecessors
failed to resolve. They succeeded insofar as they brought
the debate up a couple of notches intellectually, but they
ultimately failed to keep themselves from repeating the
divisive theological controversies. The new evangelicals
would have more to worry about than their own internal
inconsistencies. Their repudiation of fundamentalism would
bring out weapons from the fundamentalist arsenal that would

inflict heavy casualties on the new evangelical agenda.

Chapter Three

The War Against Apostasy: Fundamentaliet
eppoeition te the flaw Evangelicalism

The New Evangelicalism is a theological
and moral compromise of the deadliest
sort. It is an insidious attack upon the
word of God. No more subtle menace has
confronted the church of Christ since
the Protestant Reformation in the days
of Luther and Calvin.1

 

The fundamentalists of the 19505 had come quite a
distance from the first generation who put together the
twelve volume set, The Fundamentals (1910-1915). What many
of them failed to understand was that the pre-World War I
generation, which included the likes of A. A. Hodges, B. B.
Warfield, Francis Patton, and J. Gresham Machen were not
separatists of their variety, but in fact highly trained
intellectuals who attempted to preserve biblical orthodoxy.
The variety of fundamentalists under question in this
chapter had little regard for intellectual rigor and were
more concerned with maintaining their own notions of
biblical purity. This purity manifested itself as second
and third order separation. First order separation was
first known in 1923, stemming from the practices of the
Baptist Bible Union, and in 1932, by the General Association
of Regular Baptists. First order separation in the 19205 and
19305, was the practice of separating from liberal

theologians and sinful behavior. Second order separation

 

1Charles Woodbridge, The New Evangelicalism

(Greenville: Bob Jones University Press, 1969), p. 7.

97

98

became widely known by the 19505 and 19605 as
fundamentalists began to react against the rise of the
evangelist Billy Graham and the new evangelical movement.
The fundamentalists who practiced this form of separatism
believed that they were taking a biblically based stand
against the apostasy of the new evangelicalism. The new
evangelicals, including Graham, were compromising with known
liberals who had scorned the truth of the gospel. It was Bob
Jones Jr.'s contention that the Bible commands Christians to
separate from those who associate with others who practice
impure doctrine. Billy Graham, no less, fit this category
in the way that he hobnobbed with apostates. Third order
separation came into existence during the 19705, teaching
that true Christians should not only separate from non-
separatists, like Graham, but also from those who refuse to
separate from those who are non-separatists.2

The conflicts that arose during the fundamentalist-
'modernist controversies in the 19205 and 19305 prompted many
fundamentalists to think seriously about separatism. The
main culprit, in the minds of fundamentalists, was the
Federal Council of Churches. The most able foe of the
Federal Council was the militant separatist Carl McIntire,
who in 1941 became the first president of the opposing

American Council of Christian Churches. McIntire argued

 

2G. A. Reed, "Separatism," Qietionary of Shrietianity
in_Ameriea (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1990), pp.

1074-1075.

99
that the Federal Council had infiltrated evangelical
Churches with its diabolical theology that denied the tenets
of historic Christianity.3 ‘Using II Corinthians 6:14-18‘Ias
the main text to support separatism, McIntire concludes that
”God's people cannot support or be a part of a fellowship
with unbelievers, such as is represented in the modernist
Federal Council."5 The American Council found itself at
odds with the National Association of Evangelicals for
United Action, which came into existence in 1942 under the
leadership of J. Elwin Wright. Before its founding,
however, there was some consideration given to the
possibility of the NAE joining arms with the American

Council. On October 27, 1942, representatives from both

 

3Another militant foe of the Federal Council of
Churches was Chester E. Tulga who published the following
three booklets in a series entitled, "The Case Against."
The Sage against the Federal Souncil of Churches (Chicago:
Conservative Baptist Fellowship, 1948); The Case Against
the World Council of Churches (Chicago: Conservative Baptist

Fellowship, 1949); The Case Against the National Couneil Qf
Sherehee (Chicago: Conservative Baptist Fellowship, 1951).

‘"Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what
do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what
fellowship can light have with darkness? What harmony is
there between Christ and Belial? What does a believer have
in common with an unbeliever? What agreement is there
between the temple of God and idols? For we are the temple
of the living God. As God has said: ‘I will live with them
and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they will
be my people. Therefore come out from among them and be
separate, says the Lord. Touch not the unclean thing, and I
will receive you. I will be a Father to you, and you will be
my sons and daughters, says the Lord Almighty.' (New
International Version).

5Carl McIntire, Tyentieth Century Reformation
(Collingswood: Christian Beacon Press, 1946), p. 193.

100
groups met at the Moody Bible Institute to discuss the
possibility of a coalition. Wright and his colleagues
decided that the American Council's agenda was too militant
and not in keeping with the positive image that the NAE
wanted to project. The meeting ended with a permanent split
between the two groups. McIntire recounts that Wright's
attitude had changed from general agreement with the
American Council's agenda to one of opposition.6 The stage
was now set for bitter struggle between fundamentalists and
the emerging group of moderates who were responsible for the
founding of the new evangelicalism. The first and foremost
concern for fundamentalists was the problem of apostasy,
which from biblical texts such as 2 Thessalonians 2:3 means
"the falling away." This concern among fundamentalists
applied nicely to the new evangelicals who had made clear
their willingness to dialogue with modernists.

During the 19405, prominent fundamentalists like Bob
Jones Sr., and John R. Rice were connected to the National
Association of Evangelicals.7 The outspoken desire for
cooperative efforts by the NAE leadership would eventually
drive remaining fundamentalists to the separatist camps.

Compromise was something that the separatists could not

 

61bia., p. 199.

George M. Marsden, "The State of Evangelical Christian

Scholarship," Shris stian Scholar's Beviey 17 (June 1988):
347- 360; David O. Beale, I P

_n__ur_u1t_of_£uritx1_8m_rican
Eengamentaliem_Sinee_l_Se (Greenville: Unusual Publications,
1986), p. 258.

101

handle, nor did they want to be associated with those who
practiced it.8 .A number of fundamentalist leaders expressed
their contempt for the new evangelical agenda. The intense
criticisms that were levelled against the new evangelicals
bore a striking resemblance to the kinds of criticisms that
earlier fundamentalists charged to the modernists in major
denominations. Many second generation fundamentalists of
the 19405 and 19505 did not go so far as to accuse the new
evangelicals of being unsaved or of being modernists
themselves, whereas first generation fundamentalists were
not so generous in their descriptions of modernists. They,
for all practical purposes, were children of the devil, bent
on apostasy.9

As was previously mentioned, Carl McIntire's American
Council of Christian Churches (ACCC) had separated from the
National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) because the NAE,
according to McIntire, was a group of moderate

Compromisers.” After the break, which established a

 

8Separatists often refer to separation from
"worldliness," which usually involved tobacco, alcoholic
beverages, card playing, movie theater attendance, petting,
dancing, and associating with unsaved companions. See Robert

L. Sumner, Separation Erem Sin and Werldlinese (Wheaton:
Sword of the Lord, 1955); and Ernest Pickering, Eiplieal

Separatien; The Struggle Eor a Eure Church (Schaumburg:
Regular Baptist Press, 1979), pp. 127-139. Strict
separatists even raised the question of whether such
amusements as bowling, chess and monopoly are acceptable for
Christians. See John R. Rice, Amusements fo C °

Bight_er_flremg2 (Wheaton: Sword of the Lord, 1955), pp. 3-
48.

9T. J. McCrossan, The Bihle: Its Christ and Medernism
(Wheaton: Sword of the Lord Publishers, 1929), pp. 62-77.

102
permanent division between separatist fundamentalists and
the new evangelicals, McIntire began to devote much time and
energy to the denunciation of both the NAE and the new
evangelicalism. Most of McIntire's attacks were printed in
his fundamentalist periodical, the Shristian Beacen. It was
McIntire's goal to sound forth a new reformation to clean
the Church of its apostasy. He criticized the NAE for
joining hands with apostates while at the same time claiming
to embrace the fundamentals of the historic Christian
faith.11 The gospel, once delivered, could not be
compromised.

The new evangelicals expressed some desire for unity
with fundamentalists. Carl Henry, for example, attempted to
show his support for unity in his Uneasv Conscience er
nedern Enndamentalism (1947). This work, though critical of
fundamentalism, was also meant to help reconcile the broken
relationship between evangelicals and fundamentalists.

Regarding the need for a unified voice, Henry says, "The

 

”McIntire, Tyentieth Century Reformation, pp. 198-205;
It should be noted that it appears that McIntire was hurt

deeply by the rejection of his plan for the unification of
the NAE and the ACCC by the NAE organizers. This is
evidenced clearly in numerous anti-NAE articles and
editorials in his Shrietian Beaeen in which he continually
recounts the events surrounding the split between the two
groups. See "We Told You So," Christian Beacon 27 (May 10,
1962): 1, 8; and "Not Mud, Not a Shovel--But the Truth,"
Shrietian_Eeaeen 28 (September 19, 1963): 4-5.

11"The Worst Sin Today," Shristian Beacon 21 (January
17, 1957): 4, 8; and Chester E. Tulga, The Qectrine e:

Separatien in These Times (Chicago: Conservative Baptist
Fellowship, 1952), pp. 3-64.

103
force of the redemptive message will not break with
apostolic power upon the modern scene unless the American
Council of Churches and the National Association of
Evangelicals meet at some modern Antioch, and Peter and Paul
are face to face in a spirit of mutual love and

"12

compassion. But the call for unity by the new
evangelicals ultimately led nowhere. As long as separatists
like McIntire resisted the agenda of the new evangelicals,
it would be impossible for unity of any kind to come
about.”

The primary example of new evangelical compromise,

according to fundamentalists, was "Ecumenical Evangelism."”

Billy Graham was the most visible target for fundamentalists

 

12Carl F. H. Henry, The Uneasy Conscienee of negern
' , p. 81; Henry later called for even more

unity among evangelicals stating, "I think the time has come
for evangelicals to lower the fences that divide them--
fences between the American Council of Christian Churches
and the National Association of Evangelicals and
evangelicals in the National Council of Churches. . . .Some
friends of mine in the divergent groupings have already
warned that any such plea will be stillborn. But I dare to
believe that some evangelicals long to see God do a new
thing. Our divisions have now become a scandal, and they are
a barrier to effective fulfillment of the Great Commission.
If you do not think so, produce the evidence of success."
See Carl F. H. Henry, "Demythologizing the Evangelicals,"

Shrietianity_Teeay 12 (September 13, 1968): 13-15.

”Mark Silk, "The Rise of the ‘New Evangelicalism':
Shock and Adjustment," in William R. Hutchison, ed., Eetyeen
the Times; The Travail of the Protestant Establishment in
Amerieay_lgee;lgee (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1989), pp. 278-299.

1“Chester E. Tulga, The Case Against Modernism in
Eyangeliem (Chicago: Conservative Baptist Fellowship, 1952),

pp. 9-60.

 

104
in this war. In response to an article that Edward Carnell
wrote for Christianity Today” regarding the question of
whether or not Graham would be able to win the city of New
York for Christ, McIntire countered with the observation
that Graham would in no way slay the giant, as Carnell says,
but instead join arms with him. Graham's association with
known apostates rendered obsolete the notion that he was a
defender of Christian orthodoxy.” McIntire took the
occasion to criticize Graham on his 1961 Philadelphia
evangelistic campaign as well. He acknowledged that there
was a time when Graham received full support and blessing
from fundamentalists. All of this changed, however, when he
began to cater to the whims of apostates and modernists.
Fundamentalist leaders like Bob Jones and John R. Rice were
no longer able in good conscience to support what they

considered to be ecumenical evangelism.”

 

”Edward John Carnell, "Can Billy Graham Slay the
Giant?" Shrietianity Today (May 13, 1957): 3-5.

16"Goliath and Graham," Shristian Beacon 22 (May 30,
1957): 1,8; McIntire also pointed out in this article the
way that Carnell shamefully cited the Revised Standard
Version for his scriptural references. It has been suggested
that Graham's cooperative efforts in the New York crusade
resulted in a "definitive split" between fundamentalists and
new evangelicals. See George M. Marsden, "Unity and
Diversity in the Evangelical Resurgence," in David W. Lotz,
ed., n s a e ° C st ' 'n merica 9 -
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989), p. 69.

17Bob Jones University even made it known through
advertizing that they were opposed to the new
evangelicalism. In one magazine advertizement they state,
"Today when so much is being said about the ‘new
evangelicalism' Bob Jones University still stands for the
‘Old Evangelicalism' - For the evangelicalism that is

105

In no time at all, separatist fundamentalists began to
identify Graham as a major leader in the ecumenical
movement.18 Furthermore, how could any committed Christian
respect a man who allows on his platform known blasphemers
such as Bishop James E. Pike? How could any committed
Christians sanction Graham's use of the Revised Standard
Version? As a result, McIntire concluded that Graham not
only was a major figure in the ecumenical movement, but also

in the building of a one world Church.19

Graham supporters,
on the other hand, let it be known that they were
enthusiastic about his efforts "And that throughout the
Philadelphia area are grateful hearts, lifted in praise to

God for the ministry of His servant."20

McIntire's approach
was not entirely focused on informing his constituency about
Graham's compromising activities. He even wrote to Graham
to plead with him to take a biblical stand on separation
from unbelievers. The letter addressed March 15, 1962,
confronted Graham about being photographed with the

Archbishop of Canterbury whom McIntire believed to be one of

the most blatant modernist unbelievers of the day. After a

 

scriptural." Moody Monthly 59 (March 1959), inside cover.

18Carl McIntire, "Ecumenical Evangelism," gagigtign
Beacon 26 (July 13, 1961): 2-3,8; James Alexander Stewart,
"The Evangelicals and the World Ecumenical Movement," Part

I, 2919; 44 (November 1965): 8-9, and Part II, Vgige 44
(December 1965): 7-9.
212131.. p- 8-

20"In Appreciation of Graham's Crusade," EEEEDLLX
(November 1961): 8.

106

lengthy exhortation to acknowledge the error of his ways,
McIntire called on Graham to immediately repudiate the World
Council of Churches}1

Graham's research associate, Robert O. Ferm,
articulated a clear polemic in favor of Graham in his book,
QQQDQIQELYQ Eyangelism: ls Billy Graham Right 9; Ergng?
(1958), quoting from a letter written by Kenneth de Courcy,
editor of the London based magazine, The lntelllgenge
Digest, to McIntire. He pointed out to McIntire that
fundamentalist criticism of Graham was based in large part
on jealousy. Those who criticize Graham do it openly "which
only causes the world to laugh and ridicule at the further
divisions among the Lord's people."‘22 Graham's response was
to remain silent against his critics. Instead, it was his
conviction that he would preach the gospel to anyone,
anywhere, at anytime, as long as he could‘preach "the

"23

doctrines of historic Christianity. McIntire devoted most

 

21"McIntire Pleads with Graham to Take Scriptural Stand
of Separation From Unbelievers," Christian Beacon 27 (March
29, 1962): 5, 8; McIntire was even confident enough to say
that Jesus himself was a "Kind of separatist
fundamentalist." in Erling Jorstad, "Two on the Right: A
Comparative Look at Fundamentalism and New Evangelicalism,"

LQEDQIQD Quanterly 23 (May 1971): 107-117.

22Robert O. Ferm, Coo erat ve van el'sm: s B

W (Grand Rapids= Zondervan, 1958). p-
89.

”William G. McLaughlin Jr., Billy anhnn: geyiynllgt
(New York: Ronald Press, 1960), pp. 227-

Mm

228; Billy Graham, "Fellowship and Separation," Eternlty 19
(January 1968): 14-16; Graham was also known to answer
other critics, besides fundamentalists, who questioned such
things as his over emphasis on social issues, his

107

of his attention to criticizing the NAE as a whole and key
figures like Graham as sideline targets. The cooperative
efforts on behalf of the NAB were identified by McIntire as
a "Middle-of-the-Road" position. The NAE desired to stand
outside of the modernist camp in commitment to the historic
fundamentals of the Christian faith. In essence, they
neither wanted to be associated with modernism, nor did they
want to be associated with separatistic fundamentalism.
Their desire was to remain between the two extremes and make
every effort to infiltrate the camps of the modernists in
order to win them over. What troubled McIntire was that the
NAE consistently failed to condemn the Federal Council of
Churches, and even tolerated some of its own leader's
defense of it.24

In comparing the NAE with the ACCC, McIntire describes
it as a group of Middle-of—the-Roaders with little focus and
commitment. Members of the NAE "get together for a meeting,
but it is difficult to bring the same individuals back
together again." The ACCC, on the other hand, are committed

and active with over eighty three member denominations that

 

organization's finances, and follow-up to those converted at
his crusades. See Billy Graham, "In Answer to My Critics,"

12 (September 1961): 16-19, 40; and Billy Graham,
"Fellowship and Separation," Qgglglnn (August 1961): 1, 14-
15.

24"Consistent Middle-of—the-Roaders," gnnlgninn_figgngn
26 (February 1962): 4.

108
make up the International Council of Christian Churches.25
Other new evangelicals fell prey to the scrutiny of
McIntire, including one of the most controversial of them
all, Edward John Carnell. Carnell was one of the few new
evangelicals to receive severe criticism from both the
fundamentalists and, as we have already seen, from his new
evangelical peers. After Carnell took part in a panel to
question the theologian Karl Barth at the University of
Chicago, he made the claim that he was forever changed by
the experience. McIntire referred to Carnell as "a man
without foundations." To the dismay of McIntire, Carnell
said that "whatever Barth may lack in the way of doctrinal
consistency he compensates for by his Christian
graciousness." McIntire was confounded that Carnell had

written that watching Barth walk down the isle of an

 

25"The Road Back," Christian Beagon 27 (November 1962):
1, 8; "Down the Middle," Christian Beacon 28 (May 9, 1963):
1, 8. By way of comparison it's interesting to note that in
1960 the number of ACCC affiliate Church appears to be much
lower than the affiliate number of eighty-three given by
McIntire in 1963. It should be noted that the 1960
statistics were reprinted in 1965. See J. Oliver Buswell,
Jr., "The American and International Councils of Christian
Churches," Cnristianity Today 9 (January 29, 1965): 9-11;
Carl Henry made the charge that "The American Council
professes to speak for many more members than McIntire has
ever been able to confirm to the press, and the ACCC leaders
have learned to exploit the mass media far out of proportion
to the movement's numbers." Carl F. H. Henry, Bygnggllgglg
at the Brink 9f Crisis (Waco: Word Books, 1967), p. 105;
The embellishments of numbers of members went from 250,000
to 8 million. The 8 million member number was apparently in
an article in Newsyeek (Dec 2. 1968), reflecting "the gross
distortions for which McIntire has often been cited." See
Robert T. Coote, "Carl McIntire's Troubled Trail," Brgrniry
20 (May 1969): 28-29, 34-38.

109
auditorium was a religious experience. McIntire reasoned
that Barth was a liberal "who has done so much to ruin the
faith of men in the infallibility of the scriptures, the

"“ McIntire went so far as to

inerrancy of the scriptures.
say that Carnell could no longer be referred to as an
evangelical. In the same breath, Fuller Seminary was
targeted as a former Bible believing institution that has
upset the Bible believing faith of many good men rather than
encouraging and strengthening them in the inerrant Word of
God.27

Many fundamentalists despised the mediating position of
the new evangelicals for its elusiveness and noncommittal
attitude toward modernism. The militant separatist, and
founder of the General Association of Regular Baptists,
Robert T. Ketchum, referred to new evangelical middle-of-
the-roaders as being more difficult to confront than the
modernists. Modernists at least know and admit where they
stand, whereas the new evangelicals commit to nothing in
particular with the exception of ecclesiastical unity. This
kind of unity, Ketchum says, is centered around the desire
for "peaceful coexistence." Harold John Ockenga, was
accused by Ketchum of placing peaceful coexistence above

doctrinal purity. This kind of peaceful coexistence was

similar to the peaceful coexistence of which liberals and

 

26"A Man Without Foundations," Christian Benggn 27
(June 14, 1962): 1, 8.

321219110. 8.

110
communists spoke. But Ketchum was very careful to say that
he was not accusing the new evangelicals of being
communists.28 He accused the new evangelicals of drawing
first blood in the war with fundamentalism. Ketchum
identified the militant conflict with the new evangelicals
saying, "We're not playing tiddlywinks any more, we're in a

shooting war from here on out!"29

It was precisely this
kind of family feuding that ultimately kept the new
evangelical agenda from developing into an intellectually
respectable movement. Instead, all their energies were
focused on resolving the theological disputes of their
fundamentalist predecessors, as well as keeping their heads
down in the shooting war itself. The basis for a great deal
of the fundamentalist criticism of the new evangelicals was
an article in gnristian Life entitled, "Is Evangelical
Theology Changing?" The article was based upon a
questionnaire that was sent out to a number of evangelical
Christian leaders in the United States. Included in the
list were prominent new evangelicals such as Vernon Grounds,

Carl Henry, E. J. Carnell, Kenneth Kantzer, Harold Kuhn,

Bernard Ramm, and Cornelius Van Til.3o The article

 

”Robert T. Ketchum, "Present Day Trends," a taped
message given at a General Association of Regular Baptist
conference, 1961. Tape Archives, William Tyndale College,
Farmington Hills, Michigan.

21215:.

30"Is Evangelical Theology Changing?" shrisfian_Lifs
(March 1956): 16-19.

111
reflected the conviction among those surveyed that
evangelical theology was changing from an ineffective
fundamentalist orthodoxy to a more relevant new evangelical
theology.31 Ketchum critiqued the article by drawing an
analogy between jazz music, which he argued is a shift in
emphasis in the beat, and the new evangelicalism which has
shifted its emphasis theologically.32 The new evangelicals
march to their own beat, according to Ketchum, and have
attempted to shift the emphasis away from doctrinal purity
to peaceful coexistence. Ketchum scolded his long time
friend, "Charlie Fuller," along with Harold Ockenga for
allowing this shift in emphasis to continue. With Bible in
hand before a captive audience Ketchum thundered, "If every
born again believer who believes this book, and Ockenga does
believe it so far as I know. How long before he becomes a
modernist, if he doesn't watch his company, Is a
guarantee.[sic]"33 Alva J. McClain, President of Grace
Theological Seminary, reacted to the Christian Life article
by accusing it of being weak journalism because it only gave
brief snippets of comments taken out of context, which did
not allow the reader to understand the statements in proper
context. Furthermore, it seemed as though the editors of

the magazine were "allergic" to the use of the term

 

31Irid.

32Robert T. Ketchum, "Present Day Trends."

,flnig; and Louis Gasper, The Fundamentalist Moyemenr,
lBBQ-1256 (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981 [1963]), pp. 119-120.

112
fundamentalist. McClain was troubled that Billy Graham was
cited as being opposed to the term fundamentalist. Graham,
says McClain, "would have been better advised (if he was
advised) to have accepted it and then to have defined
carefully its true and historical meaning." Accepting the
title "fundamentalist" would in no way have endangered
Graham's stature, but rather it "would have saved from
distress and perplexity thousands of his devoted supporters
who have (rightly or wrongly) identified the cause of
evangelical Christianity with the fundamentalist

movement."“

McClain's assessment appears to put the cart
before the horse insofar as it makes the term evangelical
subordinate to the term fundamentalist, a term that had only
a recent past. McClain's argument against the new
evangelicalism is that in its desire to dialogue with
liberals it appears to be afraid of being opposed to things
that are wrong. "Hobnobbing too closely to the enemy,"
McClains says, "has always cost the cause of Christianity
much more than it ever gained."35

The voice of fundamentalist discontent with the new
evangelicals could be heard from other fundamentalist

journals as well. The Swgrg gf the Lord, published by the

militant crusader, John R. Rice, featured a lengthy polemic

 

34Alva J. McClain, "Is Theology Changing in the

Conservative Camp?" Brethren Missionary Herald (February 23,
1957): 123-124.

2mm” p. 124.

113
by Dr. Richard V. Clearwaters against the new evangelicals.
The article opens with a defense of fundamentalism as a
movement that has provided the basis for the old
evangelicalism. The old evangelicalism is based on the Word
of God, but the new evangelicalism is based on human
experience at the expense of doctrine. The new
evangelicalism is a movement that has shied away from the
term "fundamentalism." Furthermore, the new evangelicals
"like to worship at the shrine of science, which is ‘ever
learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the
truth' and yet the scientists in many instances disregard
and even mock the Bible as a divine and exclusive

revelation."36

Clearwaters perceived the new evangelicals
to be mere reactionaries to fundamentalism "and are aiding
and abetting a bad cause." Modernism, he says, is winning
the battle and the new evangelical theology is really
nothing more than the old modernism in different clothes. In
essence, it is a "new liberal evangelical theology."37 The
problem Clearwaters had with the likes of new evangelicals
such as Bernard Ramm and Vernon Grounds was that they
confuse the great creeds of the Church and Reformation

Protestantism with the evangelical faith of the New

Testament. It is the Bible that justifies and defines

 

36Richard V. Clearwaters, "The Bible; The Unchanging
Evangelical Volume (Intended as an answer to the Qnrlgrlnn

Life article, March, 1956)" Sword of the Lord 22 (May 4,
1956): l-2,5,6,7.

3']ij :0

114

evangelicalism, not tradition. Fundamentalist critics
generally agreed that the new evangelicals were guilty of
having an overly friendly view of science; tolerance toward
diverse views on eschatology; hostility toward
dispensationalism; intellectual arrogance; being overly
concerned with social agendas; wavering on the question of
biblical inspiration; and being willing to dialogue with
liberals. These were the observations, of course, that
Clearwaters gleaned from the Christian Life article.38 On
another occasion, Clearwaters concluded that the new
evangelicalism had created a double divisiveness in the
evangelical tradition. The new evangelicalism was
responsible for dividing fundamentalists into two different
groups: "Fundamentalists and conservatives," and dividing
modernists into two different groups: "Modernists and
liberals."39 The New evangelicalism was "A movement born of
Compromise, a movement nurtured on pride of intellect, and a
movement growing on appeasement of evil."40

Much of this scrutiny was in reaction to various new
evangelical criticisms of fundamentalism. Vernon Grounds

once sarcastically quipped that "Fundamentalism is too much

 

38I!: j g

39Richard V. Clearwaters, "The Double Divisiveness of
the New Evangelicalism," Central C. B. Quarterly 1 (Summer
1958): 1-6.

“lnid.

115
fun, too much damn, and too little mental!"41 In response,
Clearwaters reminded Byord of the Lord readers that Grounds
was in many ways a traitor to the cause of fundamentalism,
one who used to be associated with the American Council of
Christian Churches, as well as the General Association of
Regular Baptists, but had now turned his face toward the new
evangelicals. In addition, Grounds was seen as standing in
sympathy with those who were once his enemies, and "hurling
his cudgel at enemies of liberalism who were once his
friends." From the teaching podium of the Conservative
Baptist Theological Seminary, Grounds defended the new
evangelicalism with eager vitality. He was concerned about
defending himself and the seminary against the
fundamentalists. While certainly a defender of the ideals of
the new evangelicalism, he said that he was only acquainted
superficially with the leaders of the movement.42 The new
evangelicals were not learning what fundamentalists learned
from battling with modernists long ago, namely, that
compromise with apostasy is not an option. New evangelicals
have arrived at the half way point between fundamentalism
and liberalism through the process of "gradualism." This
kind of gradualism led one prominent fundamentalist to

conclude that the new evangelicalism is nothing more than

 

“Quoted in Clearwaters, "The Bible: The Unchanging
Evangelical Volume," p. 6.

”Vernon Grounds, "Old-Fashioned Faith and Neo-
Fundamentalism." An unpublished paper from the Conservative
Baptist Theological Seminary. Official Date unknown.

116
the "new neutralism."“

It is difficult to place the blame for this war of
words on any one person or group within the fundamentalist
and new evangelical camps, yet it is clear that shots were
fired from both directions. Grounds, Henry, Ockenga, and
Ramm certainly did not believe that they were going to make
fundamentalists rejoice at what they were publishing. _In
the case of Carnell, however, it is apparent that he wanted
to get their dander up. As we have seen, he accomplished
this through two controversial articles in the Chrisrlan
genrnry and his book, The Case For Orthodox Theology.“ The
more that the new evangelicals took shots at the
fundamentalists, and visa versa, the more bogged down the
two groups became in a war of words that ultimately took the
new evangelicals in a direction they never really wanted to
go. Rather than releasing to the world great works of new
evangelical scholarship, along with a proactive social
agenda, the new evangelicals were instead initiating a war
with fundamentalists, reminiscent of the fundamentalist-
modernist controversy.

Neutrality was something that the new evangelicals

 

”William A. Ashbrook. Eyangsligalismi_1hs_usu
ngnrrgligm (Columbus: Calvary Bible Church, 1970); Ashbrook,
”Evangelicalism: The New Neutralism," anrral Q, B,

anrrgrly 2 (Summer 1959): 31-32.

“Edward John Carnell, The Case for Orthodox Thenlngy
(Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1959); "Post-
Fundamentalist Faith," Christian Century (August 26, 1959):
971; "Orthodoxy: Cultic vs. Classical," Christian Cenrnry
(March 30, 1960): 377-399.

117

hoped would allow them to work with both sides of the
theological fence. Infiltration into the liberal camp was
part of the new evangelical plan. But, infiltration would be
impossible were they to align themselves with the
separatists. But neutrality had its down side in the minds
of many fundamentalists for it rendered aid to the enemy
rather than allowing them the opportunity to infiltrate.45
This placed the new evangelicals on the outside of
fundamentalism, where they seemed to be at home, yet C.
Stacey Woods argued that the new evangelicals ought to
rejoin the fundamentalists thus observing that "we are the
children of the original fundamentalists and we should stand
together and make common cause in the defense of the
historic gospel."46 The new evangelicalism, Woods points
out, is nothing more than an emasculated faith with little
doctrinal conviction.47

The critics of the new evangelicalism were not always
from within the militant separatist camps of McIntire,
Jones, or Rice, but also among those of a more moderate
persuasion. With moderates, the issue of ecclesiastical

separation was not the main problem, but more often than not

 

45Robert Lightner, "The New Evangelicals---Bystanders
of the Faith, " Blscerner 6 (July-September, 1969): 4-10; and
Charles Woodbridge, am us Crusa x m n e

Bgrinrnrg (Greenville: Bob Jones University Press, 1970),
pp. 5.230

46C. Stacey Woods, "Why I'm a Fundamentalist and not a
Neutral Protestant," Voice 42 (October 1963): 9.

4711;11.

118
it was the lack of attention the new evangelicals gave to
the Church itself. Edward J. Young, for instance, was
concerned that the new evangelicals wanted to build the
Church with very little reference to it. He acknowledged,
along with the more militant fundamentalists, that they are
not discreet enough about who they associate with at
evangelistic meetings. The new evangelicals place
considerable emphasis upon the intellect and education and
"stresses just about everything except the all-important
doctrine of the church, and the need for vigorous contending
for the faith." Rhetorically Young asks, "Is then the new
evangelicalism the answer to the present-day situation?" To
which he answers with an emphatic No, coupled with the
conclusion that if he had to choose between the new
evangelicalism and fundamentalism, he would choose
fundamentalism.48 Dallas Theological Seminary President,
John F. Walvoord, a moderate who was able to stay clear of
much of the conflict between the fundamentalists and the new
evangelicals, attempted to persuade the new evangelical
community to reconsider returning to the descriptive term of
fundamentalism. He expressed the concern that "Old-fashioned
fundamentalism seems to be disappearing." This
disappearance, he wrote, can be found in Christian

periodicals as well as in the comments of religious figures

 

48Quoted in John W. Sanderson, Jr., "Neo-Evangelicalism

and its Critics," Sunday School Times 103 (January 28,
1961): 66, 74, 82.

119

like Billy Graham and Vernon Grounds.49 Walvoord's plea to
return to the term fundamentalism reflected his desire to
maintain an attachment to the historic fundamentals of the
faith. Evangelicals must resist the temptation to criticize
fundamentalism since so many find it the fashionable thing
to do. Walvoord admitted that evangelicals may very well
need a new descriptive term, but until that day, "let us not
dodge our sacred responsibility to stand squarely on the
fundamentals of Christian faith revealed in the infallible
Word of God."50

One if the most interesting moderates was the anti-
communist crusader, Billy James Hargis. Hargis was
unapologetically a fundamentalist and the founder of the
"Christian Crusade" ministry and the Chrisrian Crusade
magazine. In 1961, an apparent rift between the staff of
Christianity Today and Hargis resulted from what Hargis
argued was the publishing of libelous material against him
in cnristianity Today. To make things even worse, the‘
Beneten_gnreniele reprinted a portion from the Q1 article
which read, "We have no sympathy with wild generalizations
whether made by McIntires, Hargises or others." This
outraged Hargis who promptly demanded a printed apology from

both the editors of Christianity Todav and the Houston

 

”John F. Walvoord, "What's Right About
Fundamentalism?" Eternity 8 (June 1957): 6-7, 34-35.

“Ibig., p. 35.

120

Qhreniele.51 But Hargis proved himself to be a moderate
fundamentalist in his statement of support to L. Nelson Bell
for Billy Graham.

I have never, in writing or otherwise, opposed Billy

Graham. Billy has won many souls to Christ. I thank

God for any man who wins souls for Christ. Neither

have I criticized you or Christianity Today.52
This was a stunning confession from a fundamentalist who had
on his advisory board militant separatists such as Bob Jones
Jr. and Bob Jones Sr.53 Whether or not other
fundamentalists, including Bob Jones Jr. and Sr., knew about
his accepting position on Graham and Christianity Todey is
not certain. What is certain, however, is that by 1968,
tensions between Hargis and the Christianity Today staff
drove the relationship more closely to complete

separatism.54 Christianity Today asked General William K.

Harrison to review a book that was written by John H.

Redekop entitled, The American Far Right; A Case §tndy e:
Billy James Hargis and Christian Crusade (1968). Harrison

 

51Billy James Hargis to J. P. Clements, June 27, 1961.
Billy James Hargis to L. Nelson Bell, July 12, 1961. Folder
64, Box 17, Collection 8, QT Records. GA;

52Billy James Hargis to L. Nelson Bell, July 12, 1961.
Folder 64, Box 17, Collection 8, QT Records. GA. Bell was
executive editor of Christianity Today from 1956 to 1973,
and Billy Graham's father-in-law.

53This is a list of members who served on Hargis'
advisory board in 1961. Folder 30, Box 1, Collection 8, QT
Records. GA.

54Hargis, who was once supportive of Billy Graham,
spoke out against him on his radio program on April 12,
1966. He attacked Graham for not separating from apostasy.

See Jorstad, The Politics of Doomsday, footnote 25, p. 73.

( llt-ILI‘S‘p.

121

concluded that Hargis was in many ways as dangerous to the
United States as the communists. Hargis reacted violently,
once again accusing Qhristianity Today of publishing
libelous material against him and the Christian Crusade
ministry. The QT editors attempted to reason with Hargis
that this was a book review and not an editorial or article.
Book reviews should be taken up with the reviewer, not the
publisher. Hargis did not agree with this interpretation,
however, and a bitter war of words began to flow between the
two groups, resulting in a final break between Hargis and
Qnrierianiry Today.55

The desire to maintain the unity of believers became an
all-encompassing debate in the fundamentalist and new

evangelical camps.56 This debate was motivated out of the

 

55L. Nelson Bell to Billy James Hargis, August 28,
1968; Harold Lindsell to Billy James Hargis, September 24,
1968; Billy James Hargis to Harold Lindsell, October 3,
1968; Harold Lindsell to Billy James Hargis, October 8,
1968; Harold Lindsell to Rev. Francis R. Hill, October 16,
1968. Folder 64, Box 17, Collection 8, CT Records. GA.

56The new evangelicals called for the unity of
believers centered around the desire to attain the mind of
Christ in obedience to the Word of God. "A Plea For
Evangelical Unity," Qnristigniry Today (March 13, 1961): 24-
25; Elton M. Benigenburg, "Separatism is Not Scriptural,"
Brerniry 14 (August 1963): 16, 18-22; Unity among the new
evangelicals was important, but not at the expense of
tolerating unholy behavior. See Vernon Grounds, "Separatism
Yes, Schism No," Eternity 14 (August 1963): 17-22; The new
evangelicals believed that they should be on guard against
unsound doctrine, but the question of separating from other
believers due to doctrinal impurity cannot be supported by
the New Testament. See George Eldon Ladd, "The Evangelical's
Dilemma: Doctrinal Purity vs. Visible Unity," Bterniry 13
(June 1963): 7- 9, 33; and Stephen W. Paine, "Beparatign" ie

Ssnarating_zxangslioals (Boston: Fellowship Press. 1951).
pp. 3-43.

122
concern to remain committed to the health of the local and
collective Church at large, substantiating the position of
Edward J. Young. Unity among believers did not seem hopeful
in the minds of fundamentalists, only unity among "true"
believers. For McIntire, unity was only possible if it
involved member churches in the ACCC or at least those
churches that agreed with the position of the ACCC. Any
other kind of unity would involve unity with ecumenical

apostates of the World Council of Churches.57

This sharp
disagreement between the new evangelicals and the
fundamentalists on the question of the unity of believers
helped to widen the gap between them even more. The new
evangelicals were willing to make certain concessions in
order to attain unity while staunch fundamentalists refused
to even give the matter any serious thought. The hope for
any kind of unity between the forces of fundamentalism and
new evangelicalism had been fading away fast since the 1942
break between the ACCC and the NAB. By 1957, however, the
division between the two groups was at an irresolvable

breach58 thus leaving room only for the two groups to sell

their agendas to their constituencies, or, in the case of

 

57Carl McIntire, "Biblical Christian Unity," enrierinn
Beeeen 27 (April 26, 1962): 1,8; and Chester E. Tulga, Tne

Beerrine er tne Church in These Times (Chicago: Conservative
Baptist Fellowship, 1953), pp. 7~61.

58Butler Farley Porter, Jr., "Billy Graham and the End
of Evangelical Unity" (Ph.D dissertation, University of
Florida, 1976); George W. Dollar, A Bistory ef

Eundamsntalism_in_5msrioa (Sarasota: Daniels Publishing.
1983 [1973]), p. 204.

123

the fundamentalists, to win conservative evangelicals over
to the fundamentalist side.59

The new evangelicals, although more apt to criticize
fundamentalists on an academic level, did not appear to go
after their fundamentalist critics with the same kind of
ferocity with which they were being fought.60 Carnell, as
we have shown, certainly went after the fundamentalists with
guns blazing, yet with the exception of his two gnrierien
genrnry articles, never in the kind of popular tabloid
manner as exemplified by Carl McIntire or John R. Rice.
Carl Henry, though critical of the fundamentalist withdrawal
from social responsibility, made the attempt to reconcile
the differences between fundamentalists and new evangelicals
in some of his editorials in Christianity Today.61 He did,
on one occasion, blast McIntire and the ACCC for what he
referred to as "Yellow Journalism" against the new
evangelical movement, with his Christian Beacon as "a

N 62

religious smear sheet in the worst tradition. As was

 

59Jorstad, Tne Politics of Doomsday, p. 44; Ockenga and
McIntire were once close friends, but by 1947 were competing
against each other in a battle over fundamentalist
leadership. See Marsden, Reformin F ndamentalism, p. 28.

60This point has proven to be generally true, yet, on
one occasion McIntire's entire ministry was brought under
intense scrutiny. McIntire was exposed as a manipulator and
power monger who was ultimately responsible for a number of
scandelous rifts within his own ministry. see Coote, "Carl
McIntire's Troubled Trail," pp. 28-29, 34-38.

61Henry, "Demythologizing the Evangelicals."

.EQT editorial quoted in Jorstad, The Politics gf
DQQE§Q§11 p0 44;

sh:
wi‘
fu
th
Wi
la
ex
"1

A:

124

shown in the previous chapter, Harold John Ockenga along
with Henry, often spoke sympathetically of their ties to the
fundamentalist tradition with an occasional reference to
their desire to be counted as one of them. As supportive as
Wilbur Smith was for the new evangelicalism, even he
lamented the fact that the days are long gone when
evangelicalism had a faithfulness to the Word of God like
"the now defunct World Christian Fundamentals
Association."63

Despite these occasional attempts at good charity on
behalf of the new evangelicals toward the fundamentalists
and fundamentalism, it was apparent that too much damage and
division had been done for any realistic reunion between
these two bitter rivals. While the new evangelicals have
admitted that by the late 19605 the so-called new
evangelicalism had been swallowed up by a more broadly
defined evangelicalism,64 fundamentalists continued to make
reference to "new evangelicals" and "new evangelicalism"

well into the 19805.65 The essence of the new evangelical

 

63Wilbur M. Smith to Carl F. H. Henry, April 4, 1961.
Folder 20, Box 10, Collection 8, QT Records. GA.

64Ockenga, "From Fundamentalism, Through New
Evangelicalism, to Evangelicalism," pp. 35-46.

“ See H. F. MacEwen, "New Evangelicalism," Befernerien
Beyiey 21 (April 1974): 120-141; Rolland D. McCune, "An
Analysis of the New Evangelicalism: History," Qenrrel_Binle
Quarterly 19 (Spring 1976): 2-17; Carlton Helgerson, "The
Challenge of a New Religion: Neo-Evangelicalism," Part I,

tra B'ble uarterl 21 (Spring 1978): 3-17, Part II,

Qenrrel Binle Quarterly 21 (Summer 1978): 9—19; Dell G.
Johnson, "W. B. Riley and the Developing New

age

COI

prc

119‘

8V

pr

SC

fu

mmszERc§1

EEf‘ItEl‘la!

125
agenda was intimately tied to the fundamentalist-modernist
controversy that had been fought by their fundamentalist
predecessors. It is from this frame of reference that the
new evangelicalism must be understood.“ The new
evangelicals were eager to bring to evangelicalism a
proactive social agenda and intellectually respectable
scholarship, yet once immersed in battle with the
fundamentalists, dreams for such a reality gave way to what

is tantamount to a survival mode, not just for the new

 

Evangelicalism," Qentral Bible Quarterly 21 (Fall 1978): 2-
28; James T. Shaw, "Neo-Evangelicalism," Reformation Beyien

24 (April 1979): 96-104; Morris McDonald, "Contemporary
Trends in New Evangelicalism," Reformation Beview 25
(January 1980): 17-45; Wilson D. Kirkwood, "The New
Evangelicals and the Biblical Doctrine of Separation: Book
Review," Beformation Review 26 (April 1981): 105-114; and
Curtis Hutson, New Evangelicalism: An Enemy of
Enngamentalism (Murfeesboro: Sword of the Lord Publishers,
1984), pp. 3-38

66Douglas A. Sweeney, "Fundamentalism and the Neo-
Evangelicals," Eiges et Historia 14 (Winter/Spring 1992):
81-96. Sweeney's analysis, although perceptive, fails to go
far enough in its conclusion that the "new evangelicalism
will not be perceived accurately until historians begin to
reckon with the enduring effects of the fundamentalist-
modernist controversies on the evangelical tradition." The
enduring effects, as this study is attempting to show, were
best seen in the intense warfare that the new evangelicals
were having with the fundamentalists. This warfare was a
resurrection of the fundamentalist-modernist controversy,
only the new evangelicals were now seen as the modernists
(or at least leaning in a modernistic direction).
Furthermore, this polemical in-house fighting helped to
stifle the new evangelical agenda both socially and
intellectually. Their energy was primarily being spent in
defending themselves as well as attempting to resolve the
theological controversies of their fundamentalist
predecessors at an intellectually more credible level.
History has yet to show that they have accomplished the
later.

126
evangelicals, but for the fundamentalists as well.67 All of
this, combined with the new evangelical compulsion to settle
the theological debates of the preceding generation at a
higher level, kept the new evangelicalism sidetracked from
their initial goals stemming from 1947.68 Despite the
fact that the new evangelical intellectuals had become
bogged down by their attempts at undoing the previous
generation's theological blunders, and by their warfare with
militant fundamentalists, they still managed to go on with
an intellectual agenda that would most definitely show signs
of improvement with a higher quality of theological
scholarship, yet their role as intellectuals in the
evangelical community would not easily move beyond issues of
theology to the broader intellectual agenda of which they

originally aspired.

 

67Volie E. Pyles, "Bruised, Bloodied, and Broken:'
Fundamentalism's Internecine Controversy in the 1960s,"

Eigee er Historia 18 (October 1986): 45-55.

68Among these goals were the building an educational
institution of what Charles Fuller referred as the "Cal
Tech" of the evangelical world. The "Cal Tech" became Fuller
Seminary rather than a center for high level scholarship at
the university level. Another goal was the production of
intellectually sophisticated works of new evangelical
scholarship, which ultimately became a more sophisticated
line of polemical treatise of little interest to the greater

academic community. See Marsden, Reforming Fundamentalism,
pp. 65-68.

Chapter 4

IflE IHIELLEQIUAL AGENDA OF THE HEW EVANGELICALS

The Protestant Reformation was launched

by a cadre of intellectuals, but the

latter-day heirs of the Reformation

sometimes seem determined to do

everything they can to live down the

past. . . .The Christian intellectual of

the twentieth century has no such sense

of belonging. He is no longer in the

vanguard, he is more often on the

defensive.1

An overview of Christian history will reveal clearly
that Christians have been anything but anti-intellectual.
Fundamentalism in the twentieth century is by no means an
adequate representation of the intellectual breadth of
historic Christianity. As we have already shown,
fundamentalists in the 19205 and 19305, rather than being
anti-intellectual, were selectively intellectual, hanging
all matters of intellect subordinately on the hinge of
biblical authority.
The tradition from which American fundamentalism

evolved was uniquely intellectual. The reformers of the
sixteenth century, for example, held the conviction that a

life of scholarship could not be severed from the function

of ministry, nor ministry from scholarship.2 Calvin

 

1Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Intellectual (New
York: Harper & Row, 1965), p. 113.

2Edward LeRoy Long Jr., "Ministry and Scholarship in
the Reformed Tradition," in Daniel B. Clendenin and W. David

Buschart, ed., Scholarship, Sacraments and Seryiee;

's ° a t 'es in Protestant Traditi Essa o
QI_B§IQ_IDQER§QD (Lewiston: Edwin Mellen Press, 1990), p.3

127

128

himself viewed scholarship and learning as necessary
vehicles by which to arrive at faith. He was opposed to the
kind of religious thinking that separated the believer from
scholarship.3 ‘The Puritans of the seventeenth century
carried on the scholarly heritage of the Reformation as was
demonstrated in the founding of Harvard College in 1636. In
fact, a number of religiously affiliated colleges were
founded before 1770, including William and Mary, Yale,
Princeton, Rutgers, Brown, Columbia, and Dartmouth.4 IMany
of these institutions were founded for the purpose of
encouraging the integration of piety and intellect at the
highest levels.5 .

As we saw in chapter one, the evangelical influence in
American higher education had been seriously eroded by the
time that Darwinism and the European university took root in

the late nineteenth century. The secularization process was

 

3lbid.

4William C. Ringenberg, The Christian College: A
Biargry Qf Protestant Higher Education in America (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984), p. 39; and Frederick Rudolph, The

Anerigan lelege and Univereitv: A History (New York:
Alfred A. Knopf, 1962), pp. 3-22.

5Thomas LeDuc, Biety and Intellect ar Amhersr Qollege
(New York, 1946); Louise L. Stevenson, §cholarly Meana re

Byangelical Ends: The New Haven Scholars and the
s mation of Hi her Learnin ' America 1 -
(Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1986); Mark
A.Noll, Brinceton and the Republic, 1768-1822: Tne Searen
'stia Enli htenment i the Er of mu Stan
Bmi_n (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1989); and
Robert S. Shepard, God's People in the Ivory Tower; Beligien

in The Early American University (Brooklyn: Carlson
Publishing, 1991).

 

 

129
now in effect in American higher education.6 The scholarly
pre-fundamentalists of the early twentieth century tried to
regain lost territory, but ultimately failed to stem the
tide of theological change toward liberalism. It was hoped
that The Eundamentals (1910-1915) would provide the
intellectual push needed to state the case against
modernism, but it only resulted in further intellectual
alienation and isolation, and the democratization of
evangelicalism into popular fundamentalism. The new
evangelicals of the following generation saw the need for
intellectual renewal and prepared for it by earning Ph.Ds
from major American universities. The fundamentalism out of
which they had come was predominantly dispensational
premillennialism, yet they were now being exposed to the
reformed perspectives of B. B. Warfield, J. Gresham Machen,
Robert Dick Wilson, Cornelius Van Til, and Gordon Clark. As
a result, the new evangelicals wanted to restore to
evangelicalism the glory of the old Princeton theology.
Indeed, as one historian has argued, those scholars who have
attempted to bring intellectual credibility back to American
Evangelicalism have been for the most part representatives

of the reformed tradition in America.7

 

6Bradley J. Longfield, "From Evangelicalism to
Liberalism: Public Midwestern Universities in Nineteenth-
Century America," in George M. Marsden and Bradley J.

Longfield, eds., The Secularization of the Academy (New
York: Oxford University Press, 1992), pp. 46-73.

7George Marsden, "The State of Evangelical Christian
Scholarship," p. 348. It is important to note that the

130

The perceived intellectual needs of which the new
evangelicals spoke were primarily centered around the
theological issues stemming from the late nineteenth century
through the controversial years of the 1920s and 19308.
These issues included biblical inerrancy, evolutionary
science, and higher criticism of the Bible. The last major
attempt by conservative evangelicals to defend Orthodox
Christianity against these modernistic intrusions was with
the publication of The Fundamentals. As scholarly as some
of the entries were for the twelve volume set, they still
failed to make an impact on the greater academic community.
The next generation of new evangelicals would attempt an
intellectual comeback with greater success than the
preceding generation. The intellectual preparation that the
new evangelicals undertook to renew the obscurantistic image
of fundamentalism reflected their image of themselves as the
rebuilders of western civilization. Carl Henry wrote about
the failure of fundamentalism to understand the demise of

western civilization due to its refusal to engage the mind

 

reformed tradition is by no means the sole standard by which
American evangelicalism is to be interpreted. Others have
attempted to argue that wrongly interpreting evangelicalism
exclusively through the reformed paradigm leaves unaccounted
for the Wesleyan-holiness elements of the Church. In other
words, if evangelicalism is defined according to the
reformed paradigm, then the Wesleyan-holiness paradigm has
to be understood as something other than evangelical. See
Donald W. Dayton, "Some Doubts about the Usefulness of the
Category ‘Evangelical,'" in Donald W. Dayton and Robert K.
Johnston, eds., The Variety of Ameriean Evangelicalism
(Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1991), pp. 245-
251.

131
of modern man on a scholarly level.8 The modern mind of
western civilization was at a crossroads, according to
Henry. Having recently come through the calamity of World
War II, Henry says, "Now that the debacle of 1914-1945 has
come, it is apparent how destructive is the sickness of our
age." Out of this madness comes the perspective, stemming
from three hundred and fifty years of skeptical philosophy,
that nature has replaced God as an ultimate being and that
man is no more than an animal.9 The new evangelicals,
therefore, saw it as their God-ordained responsibility to
rebuild a philosophically corrupted western civilization.
This task would be accomplished through the production of
scholarly books and articles dealing with the tough issues
of the day. But what exactly would be their focus of
attention?

As we have seen, a number of new evangelicals attempted
to escape the stigma of fundamentalism by studying at the
nation's most prestigious universities, fifteen of them at
Harvard.10 Theologian and former editor of Cnristianity
Tagay, Kenneth Kantzer, had a rationale for attending
Harvard that is perhaps the best example why so many others
in his generation made the same decision. He points out

that within the world of evangelical higher education there

 

8Henry, The Qneasy Conscience.

9Carl F. H. Henry, The Remaking of the Modern Ming
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1948 [1946]), pp. 19-27.

10Nelson, "Fundamentalism at Harvard," pp. 79-98.

132
were no accredited schools of which to speak. There were no
quality libraries, no quality faculty, and no quality
tradition in terms of scholarship. The liberal schools, on
the other hand, had quality libraries, quality scholars,
accreditation, and good academic reputation.11

The main academic focus of attention for these
scholarly fundamentalists was on theology and apologetics.
The fundamentalist tradition in which they had been trained
offered them little encouragement of gaining the adequate
intellectual tools to rebuild western civilization. But the
great intellectual zeal that this generation exhibited as
they returned from the universities showed little return on
at least two fronts. First, rather than attaining their
Ph.Ds and entering the mainstream academic community, they
returned to teach in the theological seminaries and Bible
schools in the evangelical subculture. Second, the kind of
scholarly material they published was either at a popular
level or a return to the same polemical issues about which
their fundamentalist predecessors fought.”

The mandate to rebuild western civilization through
high level academic work was a vision that placed the new
evangelicals on the right track, yet their propensity of
focusing their attention on the needs of the local church

failed to prove to the academic community at large that they

 

11Mark A. Noll, Berween Fairh and Critician, p. 97.
12Ibid., pp. 98-99.

133

were truly serious.13 A number of scholarly publications,
however, demonstrated the ability of the new evangelicals to
deal adequately with theological and philosophical issues.
Defending the faith once delivered was the main task of the
new evangelicals.14 While not all those within the new
evangelical intelligentsia were trained apologists, it is
still clear that making evangelical Christianity credible
before a watching world was the main agenda for this
generation. Apologetic literature was by no means unique to
this generation. Numerous apologetic books from the
nineteenth and early twentieth centuries were published in
defense of evangelical orthodoxy against modernism. The
scholarly examples of Charles Hodge, A. A. Hodge, B. B.
Warfield, and J. Gresham Machen most likely lingered in the
minds of the new evangelicals as they set out to reconstruct
a new scholarly Christian world view. But, the overall
outdated quality of this scholarly material left them with
inadequate intellectual ammunition.

As we have shown, the majority of the scholarly
activity within the new evangelicalism was focused on

theological issues.15 The quality of their theological

 

13Hatch, "Evangelicalism as a Democratic Movement," p.
79.

14Harold John Ockenga to Edward John Carnell, February
6, 1951. Box 35, op, cc.

15This was often evidenced by the publication of lists
of choice evangelical books. "Choice" evangelical books
usually meant books concerned with biblical studies and
theology. See "Choice Evangelical Books of 1962,"

134
scholarship was certainly a step up from the intellectually
mediocre scholarship of their fundamentalist predecessors,
yet based on their publication record, there is little
evidence that they moved beyond the theological conundrums
that haunted the previous generation. But within the circle
of the new evangelicals there was a great deal of confidence
that they were making intellectual in-roads with their
publishing. Secular presses were now engaging evangelicals
and helping to place them in the academic mainstream.
Secular press editors gave the new evangelicals assurance
that there has been no conspiracy against publishing
evangelicals, only that the quality of scholarship among
evangelicals had been so poor.16 The increase in publishing
with secular presses came about when intellectual changes
began taking place within evangelicalism. The new
evangelicals showed an openness toward dialogue with non-
evangelicals, a contempt for separatism, and desire for
higher quality education.17 The new evangelicals had a high
opinion of their academic accomplishments, often referring
to the "world shaking" evangelical literature that was
rolling off the presses.

Several accomplishments were made in terms of new

 

cnristianity Today 7 (February 1, 1963): 13.

16"Upturn in Evangelical Publishing," Chrisrianiry
Tagay 2 (February 17, 1958): 20-21.

17Harold John Ockenga to Carl F. H. Henry, November 3,
1959. Folder 7, Box 16, Collection 8, QT Records. GA.

135
evangelical publishing during the 1950s and 19605. Perhaps
the most significant was the six volume "Contemporary
Evangelical Thought" series that was edited by Carl Henry.
This series was published between 1957 and 1969 with the
intention of furthering evangelical convictions on a variety
of theological issues. Published by Channel Press, the
first volume, Contemporary Evangelical Thought (1957), was
to be a pace-setting volume for the whole series. Prominent
evangelicals scholars contributed chapters on subjects
dealing with the Old Testament, ethics, apologetics,
education, and evangelism. The table of contents in this
volume shows clearly that the main focus of attention for
the evangelicals was theology. In fact, this volume is the
only one in the series that even hints at any scholarly
diversity outside of theology. The titles of the other five
volumes communicated a clear concern for theological

scholarship. Revelation and the Bible (1959); Basic

 

Qnrietian Doctrine (1962); Christian Faith and Modern
Tneelegy (1964); Jesus of Nazareth: Savior and Lord (1966);
and Banganentals of rne Faitn (1969). The last volume is
reminiscent of the twelve volume set of The Bundanenrale
that was published between 1910 and 1915. Interestingly, the
content of this work shows a striking similarity to the
content of the original twelve volume set. The original
twelve volume set dealt with such issues as biblical
inerrancy, the historicity of the resurrection, the deity of

Christ, the second coming od Christ, and evolutionism versus

136
creationism. The later publication by the new evangelicals
dealt with the same issues, yet with an up—to-date flavor.
The theological concerns of the new evangelicals were
essentially the same as those in the preceding
fundamentalist generation.

Much of the success that the new evangelicals enjoyed
through publishing was due to the efforts of the William B.
Eerdmans Publishing Company in Grand Rapids, Michigan. The
influence of Eerdmans paralleled the influence of the Dutch
Reformed perspective on American evangelicalism. The Dutch
Reformed community had remained out of touch with the
mainline evangelical denominations which had been torn by
the fundamentalist-modernist flap.18 The nineteenth century
revivalist tradition out of which fundamentalism emerged was
not well received by the numerous Reformed denominations.
The Dutch Reformed supported serious scholarly work with a
strong philosophical orientation that the evangelical world
had not recently experienced.19 Following World War II,
Eerdmans began publishing a number of significant new
evangelical works. One of the first to be published was Carl

Henry's Bemaking the Modern Mind in 1946 followed by his
Qneaey ansgienee 9f Modern Bungamentalism in 1947. In the

 

18By mainline denominations I mean such groups as the
northern Presbyterians and Baptists, various non-
denominational community Churches, many Methodists and
Wesleyan Churches. Some Lutheran and Episcopalian Churches
were involved in the fundamentalist-modernist controversy,
but not to the degree of others mentioned above.

19Noll, Berneen Faith and Criticism, pp. 100-101.

137

years to follow they published Carnell's anrggnerien_re
Qnrierian Anelogetics (1948), the commentaries of John
Calvin in English, and Geerhardus Vos's Biblical Tneglegy.2O
Eerdmans' later publication of Bernard Ramm's A_Qnrierian
yiey ef Seience and Scripture (1954) marked a unique passage
of the new evangelicals into recognizing the need and
validity of scientific inquiry for the study of theology.
This book was an attempt to encourage Christians to accept
"true advances" in scientific knowledge and not uninformed
theological biases.21

The amount of publishing that the new evangelicals were
doing got the attention of their more liberal theological
counterparts. Arnold W. Hearn from Union Theological
Seminary observed that the new evangelicals were finally
producing literature that showed they had become more open
to arguing their case in ways relevant to the mind of modern
man. Their publications demonstrated a wider interest in
theological issues, a greater respect for philosophy, an
honest acceptance of the results of science, social ethics,
and the arts.22
Self-assured statements that evangelicals were taking their

place in the world of higher education were also being

 

”lbib., p. 101.
“Ibla., p. 95.

22Gasper, The Fundamentalist Movement, pp. 115-116.

138
published on a regular basis in evangelical periodicals.23
There were some in their ranks, however, who were honest
enough to criticize the new evangelical leadership for
intellectual mediocrity. It was argued that if there was to
be any significant progress in the intellectual status of
evangelicalism, then it had to come about with a growing
educated leadership. The task of an educated leadership is
to repent of its lack of involvement in the intellectual
arena and to assume the responsibility of moving forward
with a new scholarly agenda.24 This educated leadership is
finally moving ahead with "a mass of modern, useful

publications and enlightened teaching.“5

Critics argued
that this endeavor was of vital importance since it would
allow evangelicals the opportunity to more adequately deal
with the surrounding culture.26 Bernard Ramm asked the
question of his generation, "Are We Obscurantists?" His

answer was targeted more toward critics outside of

evangelicalism who had a tendency to view evangelicals in

 

”"The Evangelical Thrust," Christianity Today 6
(February 2, 1962): 28-29; In one issue of QT twenty five
religious leaders were interviewed on the question of
crucial junctures with Christianity. A number of them
concluded that the most important development was the
renewal of high level evangelical scholarship. See "Modern
Christianity's Crucial Junctures," Christianity Today 8
(October 11, 1963).

24E. M. Blaiklock, "The Task of Educated Leadership,"

cnrisrianiry Today 7 (February 15, 1963): 5-7.
zslbid.

26James Forrester, "Imperatives in Higher Education,"

Christianitx_lodax (May 10. 1963): 7-8-

139

the same light as they viewed fundamentalists. As non-
thinking obscurantists.27

The extensive publishing agenda of the new evangelicals
was successful in demonstrating their growing theological
sophistication, but the much of the subject matter of their
publications reflected a rehashing of the same theological
issues of the fundamentalist-modernist debates. While the
new evangelicals had become more sophisticated with their
credible Ph.Ds and willingness to dialogue with liberal
scholars, issues such as inerrancy and creation-science
seemed to find their way to the forefront of their academic
concerns.28 By the 1970s, the debates over the issues of

biblical authority and faith and science would become

 

27Bernard Ramm, "Are We Obscurantists?" Qnrierianiry
Today 1 (February 18, 1957): 14-15.

”The following articles are a select example of the
massive literature published on biblical authority and
creation-science. H. Daniel Friberg,"The Word of God and
‘Propositional Truth," Qhristianity Today 7 (July 5, 1963):
19-21; Daniel P. Fuller, "How Modern Theologians Interpret
the Bible," Brernity 14 (September 1963): 31-35; Robert H.
Mounce, "The Art of Interpreting Revelation," Eternity 17
(February 1966): 21-22, 39, 41; Robert H. Mounce, "Clues to
Understanding Biblical Accuracy," Eternity 17 (June 1966):
16-18; Klaas Runia, "The Modern Debate Around the Bible,"
Qnrisrianity Today 12 (July 5, 1968): 12—15; Walter E.
Lammerts, "Growing Doubts: Is Evolutionary Theory Valid?"
Qhristianity Today 6 (September 14, 1962): 3-6; Albert Hyma,
"Darwinism or Christianity," Qhristianity Togay 6 (September
14, 1962): 7-9; Martin J. Buerger, "Scientists and God,"
Qnrierianiry_ngay 8 (August 28, 1964): 6-8; Lawrence Kulp,
"Must We Be Afraid of Science?" Eternity 14 (May 1963): 16-
18; Vannevar Bush, "Where Science Must Be Silent," Ererniry
16 (October 1965): 8; Bernard Ramm, "Science Vs. Theology--
The Battle Isn't Over Yet," Eternity 16 (October 1965): 16-
20, 43; and "Does the Bible Conflict with Modern Science?"

Qnrisrianity Today 10 (January 21, 1966): 3-6.

140
watershed issues for many evangelicals.

No matter how many evangelical seminaries were making
their impact on seminary education, the new evangelicals
were still concerned that "the number of first-class
seminaries is still too small."29 The overall intellectual
concern for the new evangelicals was continually stated as
concern for building and nurturing top rate scholars within
evangelical seminaries.

There are few scholars who can claim the academic.

competence or authority of their non-evangelical

counterparts. The production of such scholars in the

future depends on fuller concern for our seminaries.3o
This statement fails to identify the academic vocations of
the non-evangelical counterparts to which the evangelical
scholars fail to measure up. The above mentioned
counterparts are most likely their liberal theological
counterparts, yet this contradicts the new evangelical claim
that they were going to impact modern society on all levels.
Why was it necessary to rely on the seminaries for the
production of up-to-snuff evangelical scholars when the
secular academic world was making an impact in areas outside
theology? The preoccupation with theological education was
an intellectual barometer that pointed toward a codependent
relationship with fundamentalism.

Despite their enthusiasm over the improvement in

theological education, it was also acknowledged that there

 

29"The Evangelical Thrust," pp. 28-29.

3011g j 2.

141

was an overemphasis on apologetics. Arguably, there is a
place for apologetics "but a theology which is always ‘
concerned to meet some trend, or to establish its own
validity, is vitiated from the start and is unlikely to
reach its goal." Evangelical theology should be able to
stand on its own and not have to give an account to
disciplines outside theology, but instead call them into
account. Evangelical theology continues to remain defensive
toward other schools of theology and to disciplines outside
the realm of theology.31 This particular attitude on behalf
of the new evangelical intellectuals is reminiscent of the
way in which the early twentieth century fundamentalists
perceived themselves in relation to the modernists of their
day. Fundamentalists were vehement about calling the
modernists into subordination to their biblically informed
opinions, obstinately closing themselves off to criticism.

But the intellectual and social issues the new
evangelicals were concerned about were in no way an
indication that they had successfully created a relevant
intellectual strategy for dealing with issues outside the
realm of theology. Whenever intellectual challenges
confronted the new evangelicals, the theologians were
usually the ones called upon for the answers. This comes as
no surprise given the fact that the theologians were major

representatives in the new evangelical movement. Yet by the

 

31ibid.

142
19608, a substantial number of non-theological intellectuals
were writing for Qnrierianiry_ngay and Brerniry magazines,
thereby offering some hope that the new evangelicals were on
their way to making an impact both intellectually and
socially. Much of what the new evangelicals wanted to prove
was the compatibility of Christianity with rigorous
intellectual inquiry. One pertinent example was a higher
education issue of Christianity Today which featured gospel
testimonies from Christian scholars "of devout evangelical
persuasion" in some of America's most prestigious
universities. This list included Robert B. Fischer,
Professor of Chemistry, Indiana University; C. C. Morrill,
Department of Veterinary Pathology, Michigan State
University; Richard D. Campbell, Assistant Professor of
Chemistry, State University of Iowa; James H. Roberts,
Professor of Physics, Northwestern University; James H.
Shaw, Associate Professor of Biological Chemistry, Harvard
University; John A. McIntyre, Physics Department, Yale
University; and Rene de Visme Williamson, Professor of
Government, Louisiana State University, to name just a
few.32 To augment the testimonies of the professors, QT
also included the testimonies of Christian students to get a

glimpse of how they exercise their faith on secular

 

3“Testimonies of Professors," Christianity Today 7
(February 15, 1963): 8-12; and "The Image of the Secula
Collegian," pp. 13-14. .

143

campuses.33

Unlike the fundamentalists of the 1920s and 1930s, new
evangelicals were in favor of Christians being involved in
the secular academic arena. One scholar suggested that
evangelicals need to be less fearful of confronting
intellectuals on secular campuses. "Secularization need not
be anti-Christian, and the Christian need not fear it. It
may even be beneficial to Christianity and to the
dissemination of Christian thought."" The main theme that
new evangelical intellectuals liked to broach was the idea
of the integration of Christian faith and learning, or
better known as the Christian world view.35 The foundation
for the integration of faith and learning has its footings
in Dutch Reformed theology, particularly in the thought of
the theologian and statesman Abraham Kuyper (1837 - 1920).
Kuyper's Calvinistic Christianity sought to engage not only
religion but also politics, the arts, and economics. He
often made reference to the engagement of, "every sphere of
life." His Calvinism "created a life and world view,"

,3

designed to fit "every department of life.’ The new ‘

 

33"Testimonies of Students," Christianity Togay 7
(February 15, 1963): 15-17.

34C. P. S. Taylor, "Christian Opportunity on the
Secular Campus," Christianity Today 12 (September 27, 1968):
3-6.

3"’John W. Snyder, "Christians in the Academic Arena,"

Qhrierianiry_Tegay 13 (October 11, 1968): 10-11.

36James D. Bratt, Dutch Calvinism in Modern Aneriea
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984), pp. 14-33.

144
evangelicals, though not entirely Dutch Reformed in their
thinking, agreed with Kuyper's thesis that Western
civilization was in a battle between competing worldviews.37
Carl Henry followed Kuyper's lead. "As never before,
humanity is confronted by two world-views, two life-views,
the divergences between which are quite plain in every

department of interpretation."38

Henry, like Kuyper, agreed
that there were two distinct ways of looking at the world;
One, through the lens of revelational philosophy, the other,
through the lens of anti-theistic philosophy. As a major
leader in the development of the new evangelicalism, Henry
set an early precedent for intellectual and cultural
involvement for his generation.” The motivation behind the
intellectual excitement of the new evangelicals was in large
part due to the new emphasis on developing a "Christian
worldview." Periodicals like Christianity Today and
Brerniry existed for this very reason with regular
publication of articles dealing with Christian social

responsibility, education, economics, philosophy, the arts,

theology, and Church life.4o

 

37Marsden, Understanding Bandamentalism and
Evangelicalism, p. 108.

38Henry, Remakin the Moder Mind, 238-239.
39Henry, The Uneasy Conecience.

40It has been suggested that in spite of 's
Tagay's rhetoric about evangelical social responsibility,
there were often less than socially responsible articles and
editorials published in its pages. By the late 1960s, the
magazine appeared to take a more conservative stand against

145

Despite the security that the new evangelicals felt in
their pursuit of an intellectual agenda, the concern that
modern learning is potentially dangerous to students and the
church was still on their minds. Higher education was seen
by some as a kind of "Frankenstein's monster" that possessed
a mythology all its own. The myth of human progress, the
"natural goodness of man," the myth of egalitarianism, and
the cult of scientism.41 Warnings from new evangelicals
about the intellectual dangers on the secular university
campuses were reminiscent of the ways in which early
twentieth century fundamentalists warned of modern learning
in their day.42 These concerns were not as widespread among
the new evangelicals as they were among the fundamentalists,
yet the generation that followed the new evangelical

movement43 continued to accept at least some of the

 

many of the precepts of social action. See Robert Booth
Fowler, A New Engagement: Evangelical Political Thought,

6 - 976 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), pp. 43-60. The
following articles are a sample of the various topics that
some new evangelicals published: Rudy Nelson, "The Cultural
Barrenness of Today's Evangelicals," Eternity 10 (November
1959): 18-20; Alvin Plantinga, "Analytic Philosophy and
Christianity," Qnristianiry Today 8 (October 25, 1963): 17-
20; Grant Reynard, "Christians and Art: A Painter's View,"

' ' oda 8 (January 31, 1964): 3-5; "Philosophers
and the Faith," Christianity Today 12 (February 2, 1968):
28-29.

41Calvin D. Linton, "Higher Education: The Solution-or

Part of the Problem?" Christianity Today 12 (February 16,
1968): 3-8.

42John Redekop, "Will Faith Survive College?" Brerniry
21 (June 1970): 15-17, 42.

43I have designated this generation to be primarily
evangelicals from the baby boomer generation. This

146
fundamentalist rhetoric against higher learning.“ The
new evangelicals showed a great deal of concern about the
health of evangelical liberal arts colleges. They encouraged
evangelical colleges to produce scholars and scholarship to
meet the intellectual needs of the day, but the context was
more often in reference to creating apologists and good
apologetic literature. One Christian college professor asked
his students, "Where are the books? Isn't there anyone in
orthodox ranks today good enough to write an acceptable
textbook on theology, Church history or apologetics? Why
must we use a textbook written about the turn of the

'“ The new evangelicals recognized the fact that

century?'
evangelical liberal arts colleges had problems that were not
going to easily go away. One significant problem was whether

or not it was the purpose of the Christian College to

 

generation failed to embrace much of the vision that Carl
Henry, Billy Graham, and Harold Ockenga developed after
World War 2. See Augustus Cerillo, Jr. and Murray W.

Dempster, Salt and Light; Evangelical Political Tnougnr in
Mogern America (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1989); and Richard

Quebedeaux, T e oun Eva el'c 5: Rev ut o 1
(New York: Harper and Row, 1974).

“This is most evident in the local church than among
evangelical scholars. Evangelical scholars most prone to
suspicion of higher learning are those associated with the
more conservative end of the evangelical spectrum. Most
separatist fundamentalists to this day hold an acute
suspicion of secular higher learning.

45"A Place for Scholarship," Moody Monthly 60 (June
1960): 11. The scholars held up as examples in this
editorial were theologians like Machen, Orr, and Wilson.
Once again a return to the theologians for the resolution of
intellectual problems. See also, "Of Making Many Books,"

Brerniry 6 (September 1955): 6.

147
produce good scholars or good Christians. It was understood
that ideally there should be a balance between both
extremes, yet for some reason evangelicals have a difficult
time resolving the tension.46 Outside critics argued that
the evangelical colleges are inferior intellectual ghettos.
If this is true then perhaps it would be more beneficial to
promote a Christian witness on the secular university
campus. To avoid the problem of ghettoization evangelical
colleges need to start communicating to its students a
vision for education that contains both the scientific
method and revealed truth. "A Christian faculty must
recognize that academic witness to the truth is fully as
important as ringing doorbells."“ Since 1940, evangelicals
had expanded various ministries on secular college campuses
for the purpose of individual evangelism. Under the guidance
of C. Stacey Woods the InterVarsity Christian Fellowship
emerged in 1940 as both a ministry to the unconverted
college student and as a haven of rest for Christian
students on the secular campus. Woods believed that the
secular university was the safest place for the Christian

student as long as he is in the will of God. It is also a

 

46The following article goes two years beyond the time
frame of this particular study. James Chapman, "Christian

Colleges Need to Shape Up," Eternity 21 (June 1970): 23,
30.

47"The Crisis of the Christian Colleges," Qnriegianitx
Tagay 6 (August 31, 1962): 28-31; and David L. McKenna,
"Evangelical Colleges and the Race for Relevance,"

WW 8 (February 28. 1964): 13-17-

148
field of opportunity for those students to be a witness to
the non-believer.48 The Campus Crusade for Christ ministry
emerged in 1951 under the leadership of Bill Bright. Campus
Crusade was less concerned with engaging secular
intellectuals than it was with evangelizing students in a
manner not unlike that of Billy Graham. Bright himself
decided while a student at Fuller Seminary that the needs of
the world are too great than to waste time with intellectual
preparation. He determined that he would lay aside his
studies and pursue the evangelization of students.49
Ironically, Bill Bright has since established the
International School of Theology for the purpose of training
Campus Crusade staffers. The development of these campus
ministries was not directly related to the new evangelical
intellectual agenda, yet they tied into the expressed desire
to make the gospel more relevant to the needs of American
culture. Regardless of the expressed concerns over the state
of the evangelical colleges, very little had been done to
move beyond the theological issues that occupied the minds
of the new evangelical leadership. As we have already shown,
the unresolved theological issues of the previous

fundamentalist generation kept the new evangelicals locked

 

“For an outstanding history of the InterVarsity
Christian Fellowship, See Keith and Gladys Hunt, Eor cnriet
and the Universit The Stor of InterVarsit

Be ellpys hip pf rh e U. S. A. / 1940 - 1990 (Downers Grove:
InterVarsity Press, 1991).

49Marsden, Reforming andamentalism, p. 90.

149
into a mindset that catered almost exclusively to
theological scholarship.

In the early 1960s, there was a glimmer of hope that
the new evangelicals would be able to extend their
intellectual vision into the realm of university education
and scholarship. Talk of a major evangelical research
university began as early as 1955 with plans to build it on
the campus on Gordon College in Massachusetts. Billy Graham
was elected as a trustee, and a committee was assembled to
begin plans to start the process.50 Wilbur Smith informed
Carl Henry that Billy Graham not only wanted to establish a
university at Gordon, but eventually he wanted to build
three more throughout the country.51 Interest in building a
research university was discussed in a number of articles.
In an editorial Carl Henry said that he felt that the time
had come for the building of an evangelical university. The
intellectual state of the modern mind makes the need for
such a university mandatory.52 The time frame for the
opening of classes was to be September 1963,53 but the idea

for such an institution "never got beyond the talking

 

50Harold John Ockenga to Edward John Carnell, October
10, 1955. Box 35, cc. OP.

51Wilbur Smith to Carl Henry, February 5, 1962. File
20, Box 16, Collection 8, QT Records. GA.

52"Do We Need a Christian University?" Qnriarianisx
Teflay 4 (May 9, 1960): 5.

53"Do We Need a Christian University?" Tne_§pangarg 50
(June 13, 1960):13.

150
stage." It's not entirely clear just why the evangelical
research university never got off the ground. Marsden
argues that there may have been things within the
evangelical and fundamentalist communities that were
considered more important. One major problem that
evangelicals have fallen victim to is the problem of
fragmentation. Evangelicals have divided into so many
different groups that it is difficult to pull the people and
resources together to make something like a research
university work.54 Many evangelical denominations had their
own Bible colleges and liberal arts colleges that existed
for no other reason than to support the denomination.55
Often times the graduates of many of these denominational
schools return with Ph.Ds to teach in their alma maters.
There are a number of reasons why support for an evangelical
university failed to take form. First, was a lack of
cohesion within the group that was spearheading the project.
It was feared, for instance, that Billy Graham would somehow
wind up as the university's president, thus taking him away
from his real calling as an evangelist. Second, wealthy
contributors like J. Howard Pew and Maxey Jarman were not

enthusiastic about putting their money into a university

 

54George M. Marsden, "Why No Major Evangelical
University? The Loss and Recovery of Evangelical Advanced
Scholarship." in Joel A. Carpenter and Kenneth W. Shipps,

eds., Making Higher Education Christian: The History and

Mission of Evangelical Colleges in America (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1987), pp. 294-303.

55lpig.

151
project. Pew was considering putting his money into a
seminary project instead and Jarman was suspicious of higher
learning and feared the modern academy's slippery slope into
liberalism. He was more in favor of Bible schools. Third,
the evangelical liberal arts colleges were fearful that a
research university would steal their finest scholars. Some
evangelical college administrators suggested that it might
be better to develop graduate programs at the already
existing colleges. And, finally, there was a concern that
evangelical convictions would not be upheld at a Christian
university. As a result, the evangelical research university
never came to fruition.56 Carl Henry later commented that
the amount of money it would take to run a Christian
university, particularly in the area of scientific research,
would be too high. It was his vision, however, to see great
inroads in the area of the philosophy of science.57 The
non-existence of an evangelical research university is in
some respects the major indicator of the ultimate lack of
value that the new evangelicals placed on their intellectual
agenda. Nathan Hatch put it best in his analysis of the
intellectual commitments of evangelical colleges since World
War II.

In recent years evangelicals have come to raise the
alarm about the pervasive secularism of modern

 

5611;: :0

57Carl F. H. Henry, Conversations with Carl Henry:
Qnrierianity for Today (Lewiston: Edwin Mellen Press, 1986),
p. 73.

152

intellectual life and its repercussions in legislation,

ethics, and jurisprudence; yet they have done almost

nothing to address the root problem. The battle for the
mind cannot be waged by mobilizing in the streets or on

Capitol Hill, nor by denouncing more furiously the

secular humanists.58
The intellectual agenda of the new evangelicals was
quintessentially a theological agenda that catered to the
pastoral needs of the Church at large with its emphasis on
theological issues. Few would dispute the fact that the new
evangelicals made significant strides in the field of
theology and apologetics, yet the lack of progress in
disciplines outside of theology showed that the new
evangelicals did not fully understand the concept of the
integration of faith and learning that had inspired the
creation of the Free University of Amsterdam by Abraham
Kuyper in the Netherlands.

Engaging culture at the highest intellectual levels
seems to presuppose that the new evangelicals had a
responsibility to prepare for such a venture. Whether or not
they understood the ultimate responsibility of this task is
yet to be seen. The continual warfare with separatist
fundamentalists and the ongoing attempts to reconcile the
issues of the fundamentalist—modernist controversy certainly

kept the new evangelicals from gaining an even greater

intellectual vision. As we showed in chapter two, E. J.

 

58Nathan 0. Hatch, "Evangelical Colleges and the
Challenge of Christian Thinking," in Joel A. Carpenter and

Kenneth W. Shipps, eds., Making Higher Education Chris srian;
The Misrory and Mission of Evangelical Cplleges in America

 

(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), pp. 155-171.

153
Carnell was a unique intellectual in the community of new
evangelical scholarship. He found it necessary to dispense
with fundamentalism in order to make the new evangelical
vision work. Although he was a theologian-philosopher by
trade, Carnell was the kind of intellectual visionary who
could transcend the world of theology and see the importance
of engaging the mind at every level possible. His vision
alone makes the story of the new evangelicals worth
understanding. In many ways he was an outsider among his
people, yet his intellectual vision was a demonstration of
the depth and potential of the new evangelical intellectual

agenda.

Chapter 5

H NT LLECTUAL VISION 0F EDWARD 0 N L
Most seminaries are at the mercy of the Christian
community for yearly operating funds. And since
money connotes power, a fear of this power may
induce an administrator to conform his educational
policies to the will of those who control the
finances . . . . Freedom to teach according to the
dictates of one' s conscience is an inalienable
right. It cannot be given nor should it be
removed, by man.

Prior to the first scholarly apologetic written by
Carnell, was Wilbur Smith's Therefore Stang published in
1945.2 This book preceded the official founding of the new
evangelical movement, but in many ways laid the foundation
for a number of aspiring apologists in the new evangelical
generation. Smith had no formal academic training, yet he
was still held in high regard by many for his writing and
vast knowledge. His book, however, was not accepted as the
kind of critical work that was necessary for the new
evangelical cause. He once lamented to Carl Henry his
disappointment that no one contended with his book in a
chapter on apologetics in a book edited by Henry entitled
Qpnrenperary Evangelical Thought (1957). Henry told Smith

that the reason his book was not contended with was that it

 

1"The Glory of a Theological Seminary," Inaugural
Address of Edward John Carnell, President of Fuller
Theological Seminary, 1954-1959. Delivered May 17, 1955.
(Fuller Theological Seminary Alumni Association, Pasadena,
California).

2Wilbur M. Smith, Therefore Stand: A Plea for a

et c in the r sent Crisis of Evan c

Qhrieriani_y (Boston: W. A. Wilde, 1945).
154

155
was more concerned with "Christian evidences rather than
philosophical apologetics."3 This statement tells us a
great deal about the intellectual direction that the new
evangelicals were moving. No longer would they be satisfied
with scholarship without credentials.4 Carnell's
Ingreguetion to Christian Apologetics (1948) came on the
heels of his appointment at Fuller as an Associate Professor
of Systematic Theology. He had been a professor of
philosophy and religion at Gordon College and Divinity
School in Boston since 1945. He came to Fuller with the
zealous desire to help build the new evangelical vision of
Ockenga. Upon learning of his clearance to come to Fuller
he told Ockenga, "This is a great moment in my life because
I sincerely feel that I have a real contribution to make to

the new evangelicalism."5 His book was originally titled

The Begie er Qpnservative Christianity,6 but had been

 

3Carl F. H. Henry to Gordon H. Clark, April 26, 1957.
Folder 12, Box 15, Collection 8, QT Records. GA.

4The rules were sometimes changed as was indicated by
the willingness of Ockenga to overlook Wilbur Smith's lack
of educational preparation for a position at Fuller. See

Marsden, Beferning Eundamentalisn, p. 35, footnote 5.

5Edward John Carnell to Harold John Ockenga, February
27, 1948. Box 35, OP, GC. In another letter to Ockenga,
Carnell wrote that he and his wife were "continuing in
earnest intercession upon our going out west, that God will
give us humility, skill, and drive as we take our part in
the unified movement to define the New Evangelicalism in
this generation." Edward John Carnell to Harold John
Ockenga, March 21, 1948. Box 35, OP, GC.

6Edward John Carnell to Harold John Ockenga, September
12, 1947. Box 35, OP, GC.

156
changed by the time it was published in 1948, perhaps due to
editorial suggestions. Carnell's apologetic thesis begins
with an analysis of human predicament in the world. He can
choose to commit suicide; ignore his situation; admit his
situation and learn to get along with it; or he can search
to see if there is meaning to his life. The Christian, says
Carnell, has chosen to "challenge the whole interpretation
of nature itself, to see if there is not rational meaning to
the basic movement of things."7 Carnell recognized that
there were two different philosophical extremes: rationalism

8 The Christian must settle somewhere in

and empiricism.
between these two options.9 ‘The Christian world view,
according to Carnell, can be defended with as much
credibility as modern science. His book also dealt with the
problem of evil, the nature of faith, the question of
biblical criticism, proof for the resurrection of Jesus,
Christian faith and science, and the possibility of

miracles. There is little question that Carnell made an

impact with this book, at least on the evangelical

 

7Edward John Carnell, An lntroduerion te Christian

5° P i oso hica De e se of t e r ' -
Theiepie_£airh (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1948), p. 353.

8Evangelical apologists have been divided between two
basic camps. The Presuppositionalists and the
Evidentialists. Presuppositionalists embrace a
rationalistic model, while evidentialists embrace the
empirical model.

9Carnell, An introduction, p. 7.

157
community.” Eerdmans Publishing Company elected the book
for its $5,000.00 Evangelical Book Award. It was selected
by a "unanimous decision of the judges for its outstanding
excellence and its sound and vigorous evangelical Christian
approach."11 Carnell's joy over this award gave him extra
zeal to pursue research on a number of other topics, one of
which was his reworked Harvard dissertation, The_Theelegy_er
Beinhelg Miebuhr. This work was to be the first in a

"three-volume work on neo-orthodoxy."12

Carnell's passion
for research and writing came through in his correspondence
with Ockenga. He told Ockenga on several occasions of his
desire to produce scholarly books for the cause of the
kingdom. One important and timely area, for example, was on
the question of the inspiration of the Bible. Carnell had
established plans to do a work called "A Philosophy of

Plenary Inspiration." He planned to fire his "best

apologetic guns on the subject."13 This book was never

 

”The book was at least impressive enough to go through
four different printings. Carnell mentioned that he had
spoken at a U.C.L.A. Inter Varsity meeting where he sold
seven copies of his book. This gives some indication that he
was known to some extent. See Edward John Carnell to Harold
John Ockenga, December 6, 1948. Box 35, OP, GC.

11"Professor Edward John Carnell is Winner of $5,000.00
Eerdmans Evangelical Book Award," Berdmans Quarterly
9252122: (Spring. 1948)-

12Edward John Carnell to Harold John Ockenga, January
18, 1948; and Edward John Carnell to Harold John Ockenga,
December 6, 1948. Box 35, OP, GC.

13Edward John Carnell to Harold John Ockenga, December
4. 1951. Box 35, OP, GC.

158
published (or written) for reasons unknown, though his time
consuming presidency at Fuller Seminary may have sidetracked
him from the project. Carnell, like no other new
evangelical in his generation, possessed a certain
restlessness regarding the need to be continually
researching and publishing. His repertoire of subjects
included a book on television entitled, Televisipn: Beryanr
er Maeter? (1950). This book was a good example of how
evangelicals were attempting to deal with current issues.
Television was still in its infancy when Carnell wrote the
book, but for the sake of his own subculture, he thought
that "evangelicals need guidance on the question."“ The
television book was also an example of Carnell's popular
writing, though he never let his intellectual focus get away
from his greater agenda to remake the modern mind at the

highest levels.” Other books by Carnell include a

Rhileeophy of the Christian Religion (1952); Chrisrian
Qpnnirnenr (1957); The Case for OrthodoR Theology (1959);
The_Ringgpn of Love and the Pride of Life (1960); and The

Burgen of Soren Kierkegaard (1965). While most of his

magazine articles were directed at a more popular audience”

 

1"Edward John Carnell to Harold John Ockenga, January
11, 1949. Box 35, OP, GC.

1‘c’Edward John Carnell to Harold John Ockenga, June 11,
1949. Box 35, OP, GC.

16He wrote for a variety of popular Christian
periodicals like MoodyiMonthly, Christianity Today, His,
Qhrietian Cenhury, and the Watchman-Examiner.

 

159

the books were a part of Carnell's desire to make a
significant impact on the life of the mind in America. But
Carnell's zeal seemed to subside between the years of 1948
and 1952. In the preface to the fourth edition of An
lnrregnetion to Christian Apologetics, Carnell wrote that
when a scholar publishes his first book, he is filled with
"academic pride," thinking "that he has made a ‘great'
contribution to contemporary literature." His attitude
changes a great deal once the second edition is printed. He
comes to realize that his insights have not made much of an
impact on the world, and that critical reviews have exposed
inconsistencies in the book. The author no longer expects
to be famous or identified as a profound thinker. By the
time the third and fourth editions arrive, the author has
resigned himself to the realization that rather than having
"national prominence," he accepts "complete obscurity."
Carnell even mentioned that "the author's best friends have
not troubled themselves to read the publication."17

He does not mention just who those best friends might
be who have failed to read his book, but there may be some
indication in his correspondence with Ockenga. On at least
two different occasions when Carnell sent Ockenga a copy of
two of his books, Ockenga responded by saying that he was

only "able to finger the book and glance at its titles and

 

17Carnell, An Introduction to Christian Apolpgeties, p.
9.

160

format."” For the other book he admitted only to reading
the first chapter and glancing "over the headings and the
general plan of the book." This was in reference to
Carnell's A Philosophy of the Christian Religion in which he
said that it "is not a book one would sit down and read
through from beginning to end, yet I most certainly am going
to read snatches of it as I get a chance and try to go
through the whole book in the reasonable future."”

Carnell's zeal in the early days of his academic career
may have been attributable to the typical energetic
excitement that most young aspiring scholars experience.
There are often grand visions that they will make an impact

in their field. His degenerating sense of intellectual

value, while somewhat linked to his emotional struggles”,

 

”Harold John Ockenga to Edward John Carnell, February
6, 1951. Box 35, 09, cc.

19Harold John Ockenga to Edward John Carnell, January
31, 1952. Box 35, OP, GC.

20Carnell suffered from an emotional collapse in the
last decade of his life. He underwent extensive
psychotherapy, including at least seven shock treatments.
Edward John Carnell to Harold John Ockenga, March 15, 1962;
Edward John Carnell to Harold John Ockenga, June 25, 1961.
Box 35, OP, GC; The exact reason for his breakdown is not
known, though some have questioned whether his struggles
were linked to his personal struggle with Christianity. See
Nelson, The Making and Unmaking, pp. 112-115, 171-172;
Carnell alludes to his strict upbringing as the reason for
his emotional struggles. In a letter to Ockenga he says, "I
never realized that it was possible to suffer with such
intense inwardness, while at the same time giving the
outward impression that all is well. Sometimes anxiety rolls
over me with the force of a terrible tidal wave. The problem
stems from my childhood, of course, for I was raised in an
atmosphere where my ability to make and live with decisions
was impaired." Edward John Carnell to Harold John Ockenga,

161
may also be a common experience for many scholars once
they've put some years of experience behind them. While
there may be a degree of merit to this in Carnell's case,
there is some question of whether his sense of obscurity was
partially based on his discouragement with the academic
shortsightedness of many of his colleagues.

Ockenga had been the acting president of Fuller from
its founding in 1947 until 1954, when Carnell was elected to
the office of president. He felt no regrets that he had to
temporarily lay aside his academic activities. All of this
was for the sake of building a top rate academic
institution. Carnell believed that he had the necessary
tools to bring about an intellectual revolution at Fuller.
Realizing what was involved in this venture, he assured
Ockenga of his ability to get the job done.

It is probably the last chance in our generation to

gather a group of scholars in one company of fellowship

for the cause of evangelical work. If we drop the ball
here, well, gloom is ahead. As I told the faculty,
therefore, I consider myself a sacrifice, in a sense,
for the school. Preferring to remain in the cloistered
walls of scholarship, I am glad to bring whatever gifts

and wisdom I have to bear on the office of president. .

. .Convinced that spmeone must head the school who

knows education, theology, and the art of diplomacy, I

could not in honesty let another do a task that I had
been called upon to perform.21

 

January 23, 1961; Edward John Carnell to Harold John
Ockenga, January 12, 1961. Box 35, OP, GC.

21Edward John Carnell to Harold John Ockenga, October
10, 1954; Carnell enthusiastically foresaw that his "Tenure
in office will have achieved the important goal of lifting
the morale of the seminary and of holding the school on a
course of steady scholarship. Decisions have been made and
policies set which will go far in making a sound educational

162

It was also Carnell's desire to maintain an atmosphere
that was conducive to the spiritual growth of the students.
Combining the highest level of academic excellence and
spiritual life was, in Carnell's opinion, representative of
the purposes of the founders of Fuller.” Throughout his
presidency, Carnell continued to voice his opposition to
fundamentalism. He took comfort in the fact that the
seminary's educational philosophy owed its allegiance to the
wisdom and leading of Ockenga. Apart from Ockenga's
leadership, Carnell said, "this school could have very
easily have been sold into the hands of fundamentalism."23
Carnell expressed this same sentiment to Gordon Clark. "The
situation was such that I simply could not sit back and
watch the school go into the wrong hands by default."”
This perspective did not keep him from concluding that
fundamentalism was still represented at Fuller. He
acknowledged that in all of the discussions among the
faculty, there are represented a "plurality of points of
view." On the one side there were the usual "old guard"

fundamentalists which included Charles Woodbridge, Carl

 

philosophy here in the future." See Edward John Carnell to
Harold John Ockenga, September 22, 1955. Box 35, OP, GC.

22Edward John Carnell to Harold John Ockenga, November
2, 1954. BOX 35, GP, GC.

23Edward John Carnell to Harold John Ockenga, May 23,
1955. BOX 35, GP, GC.

24This is a quote from a letter Carnell wrote to Gordon
Clark on October 25, 1954. Quoted in Rudolph Nelson, The

Mahing and Qnmahing of an Evangelical Mind, p. 86.

163
Henry, Wilbur Smith, and Gleason Archer. "They are
solicitous," says Carnell, "in detecting any departure from
the fundamentalist position." On the other side were the
more progressive of the Fuller faculty who were interested
in asking the hard questions "which go beyond the lines of
contemporary fundamentalism."25 Carnell, no doubt, included
himself among the more progressive group since he would not
identify himself with the fundamentalists.

As president, Carnell wanted Fuller to maintain the
highest standards regarding the credentials of its faculty.
They not only had to be quality academic credentials, but
the faculty themselves had to show promise of scholarly
productivity in their given fields. On top of their
scholarly promise, Fuller faculty members should also
possess the ability to teach. This concern was echoed by
Carnell when he was encouraged to pursue hiring J. Edwin Orr
as Professor of Evangelism. Carnell told Ockenga that Orr's
big ego may not work well with the Fuller faculty. It did
not matter to Carnell that a teacher (such as Orr) be
exciting but "he must be able to teach." He goes on to say
that "Teaching is an art in itself. Otherwise the man will
just tell lovely stories about his campaigns, not getting

down to business about evangelism in theory and practice.”6

 

‘”Edward John Carnell to Harold John Ockenga, November
9, 1955. Box 35, OP, cc.

26Edward John Carnell to Harold John Ockenga, October
22, 1954. BOX 35, GP, GC.

164
Both Carl Henry and Harold Lindsell had reservations about
Orr as a scholar based upon their remembrances of him as a
student at Northern Baptist Seminary. Carnell later relayed
to Ockenga that Lindsell had suggested that Orr may have
earned his doctorate through "questionable strategies."27
There was a difference of opinion between Carnell and
Ockenga on the qualifications of Orr for the Chair of
Evangelism at Fuller. This may have been indicative of the
fact that Carnell's perspective was shaped by having
consistent contact with the academic world whereas Ockenga's
time was taken up with the task of his pastoral duties at
Park Street Church in Boston.”

As an institution that would be a center for high level
evangelical scholarship, Fuller Seminary was equipped to
produce the intellectual "blueprints" that would restore
western civilization to its biblical foundation.” The
confidence that Carnell displayed toward the great academic
activity of Fuller was at times overshadowed by a sense of

disillusionment that the faculty were not producing the

 

”Edward John Carnell to Harold John Ockenga, December
2, 1954; In an earlier letter, Ockenga told Carnell that he
did not perceive Orr as "egotistical or arrogant." Orr's
education included a Ph.D from Oxford and a Th.D from
Northern Baptist, and his doctrine was sound. He believed
that Orr was scholarly and well liked by students. see
Harold John Ockenga to Edward John Carnell, November 30,
1954. BOX 35, GP, GC.

2815 j g.

”Edward John Carnell to Harold John Ockenga, October
22, 1954. Box 35, OP, GC.

165
great academic works that were anticipated. No one felt
this burden more than Carnell.
I am distressed about the fact that not all of our men
are conscientiously devoting two months each summer to
research in their respective fields. . . .Some of the
men are going out on Bible Conference circuits and are
not even giving evidence of opening a single scholarly
book during the whole summer. To me this is as much a
violation of the contract with the institution as it
would be if the men refused to teach their eight
hours.”
Carnell felt that the institution deserved the best from its
faculty and that there was no excuse for the neglect of
their academic responsibilities by booking outside speaking
engagements. The greatest violator, according to Carnell,
was Charles Woodbridge. Apparently, Wooodbridge was spending
more time speaking and ministering in a local Church than he
was in his classes at Fuller. Carnell was so vehement about
the situation that he wanted to find a way to immediately
dissolve the relationship between Woodbridge and the
Church.31 Even Charles Fuller criticized Woodbridge for
spending too much time in outside activities. Carnell
believed that Dr. Fuller's criticism of Woodbridge resulted
in hurt feelings between the two, yet Fuller was not
"unjustified in his criticism. Charlie Woodbridge has not

characteristically risen to the research opportunities given

him at the school."32 This was especially painful for '

 

”Edward John Carnell to Harold John Ockenga, November
28, 1955. Box 35, OP, GC.

”lbig.

166
Carnell who, after his enthusiastic willingness to lay aside
his academic activities for the presidency, began to bemoan
the fact that the faculty, who were given the opportunity to
produce scholarly work, were squandering it on non-academic
activities.” This intellectual negligence reflected the
greater desire, on the part of a number of new evangelical
scholars, to focus their attention on the pastoral needs of
the Church at large, rather than the intellectual
undercurrents of the day.34 The frustration that Carnell
exhibited over this problem showed that he had a
professional attitude about scholarly credibility that many
of his peers failed to possess.

The concern over the lackadaisical attitude toward
scholarship among some of the Fuller faculty was only one
problem that Carnell faced in the battle to make it a center
of intellectual credibility. Another major problem for
Carnell was the issue of dispensational premillennialism.
Dispensationalism had crept into American evangelicalism
after the 1870s through the teachings of the Church of
Ireland clergyman, John Nelson Darby (1800-1882). Darby was

the creator of what some scholars have referred to as a new

 

”Edward John Carnell to Harold John Ockenga, December
2, 1954. Box 35, 09, cc.

”Edward John Carnell to Harold John Ockenga, March 19,
1956; Edward John Carnell to Harold John Ockenga, April 25,
1956. BOX 35, GP, GC.

34Hatch, "Evangelicalism as a Democratic Movement," p.
79.

167
kind of "futurist premillennialism" called
dispensationalism. It was called dispensationalism because
it divided biblical history into time periods, or
dispensations. Dispensationalists believed that all "last
days" events will come to pass prior to Christ's second
advent.” Dispensationalism spread like wildfire in America
through the Bible school movement and the Bible Conferences
that had been established by conservative evangelicals. The
most famous of the dispensational popularizers in America
was C. I. Scofield who put together the Scofield Reference
Bible in 1909. Scofield's system divided biblical history
into seven distinct dispensations such as "innocence,
conscience, human government, promise, law, grace and
kingdom."36 Up until about the 18605, American evangelicals
had been more familiar with postmillennialism which saw the
role of the Church in society as having an active
participation in the building of the kingdom of God on

earth.37 By the time that Scofield had established his own

 

”Timothy P. Weber, Living in the Shadow of the geeeng
Qpning; American Premillennialism. 1875-198; (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1983), pp. 16-17; Clarence B. Bass, Baehgrgnnge
he Dispensationalism: Its Historical Genesis and
EQQlesiastical Implications (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1977
[1960]), pp. 48-63; Frank, Less Than Con uer s, pp. 69-74;

C. Norman Kraus, Dispensarionalism in America: lrs Rise ang
Beyelopnenr (Richmond: John Knox Press, 1958), pp. 26-30;

Daniel P. Fuller, Gospel and La : Contrast or Continuun?:

The Herneneutiee pr Bispensationalisn and Qovenant Theplegy
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), pp. 8-17; and Vern S.

Poythress, Understanding Dispensationalists (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1987), pp. 9-18.

”Timothy P. Weber, "Dispensationalism," in Daniel G.
Reid, ed., Qictionary of Christianity in Ameriea, p. 358.

168
system of premillennialism, American evangelicals had pretty
much given up the postmillennial mandate for cultural
involvement for a mandate to evangelize the world before the
second coming of Christ. This mandate had theological
support in the Scofield Reference Bible itself. Out of this
came fundamentalism's anti-intellectual, anti-social mindset
that the new evangelicals repudiated in their generation.
Dispensationalism had become attractive to American
fundamentalists since it helped them to make sense of the
Scriptures for the purpose of practical application. Two of
the more negative features of dispensationalism were that it
tended to overemphasize the supernatural aspects of the
Scriptures to the extent that it overlooked its historical
importance, and that it was attractive to those who were
suspicious of scholarship.” Dispensationalists like Lewis
Sperry Chafer and C. I. Scofield were untrained in the field
of theology and biblical studies. Scofield was a lawyer
who, after his conversion to Christianity, became a lay
scholar with no professional academic training. Chafer, who
only had three years of academic study at Oberlin College,
remarked in the preface to his multivolume systematic
theology that "The very fact that I did not study a
prescribed course in theology made it possible for me to

approach the subject with an unprejudiced mind to be

 

37Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture, p. 86.

38Noll, Between Faith and Criticism, pp. 58-60.

169
concerned only with what the Bible actually teaches."”
These were the words of the founder and president of Dallas
Theological Seminary”, which was further evidence of the
fact that many fundamentalist institutions of higher
learning were not serious about quality scholarship. It was
for these reasons that the new evangelicals wanted to move
away from dispensational premillennialism. Most of the new

evangelicals who rejected dispensationalism remained

 

”lbig., pp. 59-60; The late Bernard Ramm, who played
a significant role in the development of the new
evangelicalism, did a comparative analysis of the academic
backgrounds of Lewis Sperry Chafer and Karl Barth. Barth
has been the object of a great deal of criticism by American
evangelicals, particularly those from the dispensational
premillennial camp. What Ramm attempts to do is to point
out the lack of intellectual credibility of Chafer, whom
many evangelicals look to as one of the best examples of
evangelical theological scholarship. By way of comparison,
Chafer had only three years of college at Oberlin; Barth
studied at the universities of Bern, Marburg, Berlin, and
Tubingen. He was also awarded over eleven doctorates from
major universities. Chafer had no linguistic training,
whereas Barth knew Latin, Greek, and Hebrew. He spoke Swiss
German, German, English, French, Italian, and Dutch. Chafer
had not studied philosophy, but Barth had extensive study in
philosophy with Hermann Cohen and Paul Natorp. He interacted
with the philosophies of Kant, Kierkegaard, Jaspers, Sartre,
and Heidegger. Chafer only interacted with Church history
through secondary sources, but Barth studied the Church
Fathers in their original language. Ramm also compares the
number of times that Chafer and Barth cited Scripture in
their respective theological writing. Chafer only cites
Scripture eight hundred times in his Bystematic Theology
compared to the over fifteen thousand citings in Barth's

threh_BpgnariQ§. See Ramm, After Fundamentalism, pp. 206-
209.

”Dallas Theological Seminary is considered to be one
of the main bastions of dispensational theology. Lewis
Sperry Chafer helped to popularize dispensationalism through
his published systematic theology.

170
committed to moderate forms of premillennialism.41 Much of
what turned the new evangelicals off to dispensationalism
was its obsession with eschatology which caused its
followers to get caught up into trivial, divisive arguments
about the end times. This was in part what caused the
fundamentalists of the 1920s and 19305 to fall into
intellectual obscurantism. The new evangelical repudiation
of dispensationalism was the cause of at least some of the
struggle they had with fundamentalists. It was made clear
from the beginning of the new evangelical movement that
dispensational premillennialism needed to be traversed if
there was to be a renewal within evangelicalism. A number
of new evangelicals argued that there needed to be more
versatility of theological opinion about premillennialism.
Carl Henry, who is a premillennialist, was one of the first
in his generation to point out that dispensational
premillennialism among fundamentalists has caused
divisiveness and a turning away from the more serious issues
that needed to be addressed.” Dispensational theology had
failed to show evangelicals how to adequately integrate

faith and learning, thus resulting in "a costly historical

 

“Millard Erickson, The New Evangelical Theplogy
(Westwood: Revell, 1968), p. 124; George M. Marsden, "From

Fundamentalism to Evangelicalism: A Historical Analysis,"
in David F. Wells and John D. Woodbridge, eds., The

Eyangeliealeg Mhat They Believe, Who They Are, There They
Are_Qhanging (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1977), p. 149.

”Henry, The Uneasy Conscience, pp. 48-57.

171
toll.""3 George Eldon Ladd, Professor of New Testament
theology at Fuller, was another new evangelical critic of
dispensationalism, especially the related issues of the
second coming of Christ. Dispensationalists had popularized
a view which taught that Christians would be raptured away
from the earth before a time of horrible suffering known as
the great tribulation. Ladd opposed this teaching by
arguing that Christians would have to go through the
tribulation.“ What made Ladd's scholarship a cut above
most of the preceding fundamentalist scholarship was that he
utilized the fruits of modern biblical scholarship in order
to draw his conclusions.” Ladd's concession to the
methodology of modern biblical scholarship certainly gave
him and the new evangelical movement more intellectual
credibility, but it did not help in winning the affections
of the fundamentalists. Carnell's assessment of
dispensationalism was tied to his scathing analysis of
separatistic fundamentalism. "Dispensationalism filled the
vacuum created by the loss of the historic creeds."
Dispensationalism, which Carnell associated with
fundamentalism, had "withdrawn from the general theological

dialogue." The dispensationalist is convinced that his

 

”Henry, v e 'cal es onsib' 't Contem o

IDQQlQQY. P- 35-

“George E. Ladd, The Blessed Hope (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1956); and George E. Ladd, Crucia ues ons

rhe Mingdon pf God (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1952).
”Weber, Living in the Shadow, p. 241.

172

system is more secure than it really is, hence, he spends
his time fighting over minor issues. Dispensationalism,
argues Carnell, has made eschatology out to be as important
as the "substitutionary atonement."” Carnell's dislike for
dispensationalism was related more to its abuse by
fundamentalists who thought of it as the "only" viable
hermeneutical option. He had no problem seeing it as one
out of many possible theological options available in the
marketplace of truth. At Fuller Seminary, dispensationalism
was neither disapproved or approved, but open for critical
investigation. The faculty under Carnell's leadership, were
free to interpret theology as they saw fit. He only wanted
them to be honest with all the facts. In a letter to a
concerned constituent of Fuller, Carnell pointedly said that
"We are pluralistic here at Fuller. . . .We do not believe
that any one theology exhausts the mind of God."47

Carnell wanted to build an academic empire with which
the world would have to contend. He feared that Fuller
would fall into intellectual mediocrity if it continued to
embrace in its creed a commitment to premillennialism.48
But because of its ties to Charles Fuller's radio ministry,

"The Old Fashioned Revival Hour," the seminary was going to

 

46Carnell, The Case for Orthodox Theolo , pp. 117-119.

"Edward John Carnell to Harley R. Walker, November 24,
1954. Box 35, OP, GC. '

48It should be clarified that Carnell's problem was not
so much the issue of premillennialism in and of itself, but
rather the "dispensational" version of premillennialism.

173
be indefinitely shackled to a premillennial position.
Tackling the problem, Carnell "persuaded Dr. Fuller to sign
a paper (which is in the seminary vault) releasing the
institution from any moral obligation to continue its
premillennial stand after the cessation of the Old Fashioned
Revival Hour." This was good news to Carnell since he was
convinced that it was a dreadful mistake for the seminary to
be locked into a premillennial commitment.” Apparently,
Dr. Fuller never signed the paper for Carnell's tone had
changed in just a few months. He told Ockenga that "The
prospect that the seminary is eternally bound by the creed
is an unhappy one from my point of view." He even said that
Dr. Fuller insisted "that the seminary be committed to
premillennialism." Fuller seminary would never "be a first-
rate institution until it enjoys the same liberty in
eschatology that classical seminaries have enjoyed
hitherto."50 Part of the problem for Carnell was that
Charles Fuller did not possess the technical know-how to
deal with the questions of the premillennial issue. He
could not seem to communicate to Dr. Fuller the fact that
many of the great evangelical predecessors like Warfield,
Hodge, and Machen would not be allowed to teach at Fuller

since they were not premillennialists. The early Church

 

”Edward John Carnell to Harold John Ockenga, October
14, 1955. Box 35, GP, cc.

50Edward John Carnell to Harold John Ockenga, January
18, 1956. Box 35, op, GC.

174
Fathers and ninety percent of all the great reformers would
not even be welcome at Fuller. Premillennialism, for
Carnell, affected one's ability to be a top-rate scholar.
He felt that premillennialism limited one's ability to see
beyond its reductionistic presuppositions. Carnell referred
to Charles Woodbridge as an example of a premillennialist
who "will never in all time be a first-rate historian."
Fuller seminary was forced to hire a "mediocre
premillennialist instead of a top-rate Church historian who

"” Carnell's discouragement

is noncommittal on the subject.
over the premillennial issue even caused him to say that he
would not be interested in continuing as the school's
president if it was going to remain committed to
premillennialism exclusively. He did "not think a first-
rate seminary can be built on a dispensational view of
eschatology."”

Carnell's concern over the academic mediocrity of his
peers also weighed heavily on his mind through the critical
years of the new evangelical renaissance. Before his
election to the office of president of Fuller, Carnell
articulated a clear distinction between his own philosophy

of education and that of his peers. Thinking it best to

withdraw his own name from consideration for the office of

 

51Edward John Carnell to Harold John Ockenga, March 7,
1956. BOX 35, GP, GC.

”Edward John Carnell to Harold John Ockenga, March 19,
1956. Box 35, OP, GC.

175
president, Carnell told Ockenga that the Fuller faculty
wanted the new president to be a kind of "evangelical Dale
Carnegie to be a front and public relations man; one who
would be ‘promotionally good for the school; and one who
could soak the rich." He was convinced that the faculty did
not want the president to be an educator first, but a fund
raiser and public relations man. "They want a man who will
spark their fantastic dreams of being America's leading
evangelicals."

Clearly, Carnell perceived himself as an outsider among
his peers because of his vehement opposition to their ideas
about education. He often brought up the fact that the
Fuller faculty only talked about publishing "world shaking
literature" rather than actually proving it. Between the
years 1947 and 1954, says Carnell, "not one man on this
faculty has published as much as one article in a scholarly
journal; let alone publishing a book with a major house.
This faculty has an amazing sense of its own virtues. If I
were president, I would only irritate them; for I refuse to
be party to their fantastic schemes." Carnell was very
clear to point out that he was on a different wave length
than most of his new evangelical peers. "It is apparent to
me, therefore, that I defend a different philosophy of
education than do most of my colleagues." His analysis
included a scathing indictment against Wilbur Smith, Carl
Henry, and Harold Lindsell. Carnell said that Smith "does

not think things through very well," and "lives in a dream

176
world of imagination of scholarship." Carl Henry, had too
high of an opinion of Carl Henry, and Harold Lindsell, a
great man though he is, "blabs too much."” Despite these
pointed criticisms, he still managed to eventually become
the president of Fuller.

Ockenga had been the acting president until Carnell's
election in 1954. This was a big responsibility for Ockenga
since he was simultaneously pastoring the Park Street Church
in Boston. Carnell's election to the office of president
did not come about painlessly. In his work on Fuller
Seminary, Marsden discusses how strained Carnell's
relationships became after he was elected president. This
was particularly true in his relationship to Carl Henry.
Henry was older than Carnell and had seniority as a faculty
member, yet this did not keep Charles Fuller and Harold
Ockenga from placing the presidential crown on Carnell.
Marsden raises the question as to why Carnell was chosen
over Henry. Henry had administrative experience as the
seminary's first dean, and he was an experienced newspaper
editor. Dr. Fuller and Ockenga asked Henry what he thought
of Carnell for the presidential choice, to which Henry
replied that it would be in the seminary's best interest to
keep Carnell as a much needed full-time faculty member
rather than place him in a situation that would demand an

experienced fund-raiser and administrator. Henry thought

 

53Edward John Carnell to Harold John Ockenga, September
15, 1954. Box 35, op, cc.

177
that an outsider like Frank Gaebelein would be an excellent
choice for president. If the board on the other hand was
going to settle on an insider, Henry thought Charles
Woodbridge would be the best choice. Harold Lindsell and
Wilbur Smith were both opposed to Carnell's appointment to
the office of president. Smith was especially upset and told
Charles Fuller that he believed that Carnell's lack of
experience and attitude were potential problems.54 The
negative reaction to Carnell's appointment was more a
concern over his lack of experience as a fund-raiser and
administrator than it was for his controversial theological
outlook. Carnell also realized that he was not cut out to
be the president of Fuller. His sense of failure as a fund
raiser and a leader in the seminary was inflamed by his
failing emotional health. He told Ockenga that he was "a
misfit as a president," and that because of his academic
temperament he had "no natural desire to command, to assume
authority." It was clear that Carnell wanted out of the
presidency.” Carnell had apparently attempted to resign
his office in 1957 but withdrew his resignation from the
board of trustees. Much of what caused Carnell to resign
was the stress he experienced as a result of the war between

fundamentalists and new evangelicals.” He was tormented as

 

54Marsden, Reformin Fundamentalism, pp. 141-143.

”Quoted in Marsden, Reforming Rundamentalism, p. 173.
2112151.. no 174-

178

well by the fact that he was not able to pursue the life of
scholarship he so longed to live. Carnell resigned after
commencement exercises in May 1959. He would return to his
full-time teaching responsibilities in January 1960.57
Harold Ockenga would for a second time become Fuller's
acting president until David Hubbard's election to office in
1963. Carnell's most controversial years came well after his
presidential appointment. He would remain at Fuller until
his untimely death in 1968.58

As we saw in chapter two, Carnell became the most
outspoken critic of the separatist fundamentalists who had
turned their backs on the sacred task of engaging the modern
mind. Strong reaction against Carnell was not limited to the
constituency who supported Fuller Seminary. Many of
Carnell's colleagues believed that his ideas had done a
disservice to the new evangelical cause and to the cause of
the seminary. The key players within the new evangelical
movement were showing signs of being internally divided, not
only over doctrinal issues but also over the question of
whether or not they should maintain a commitment to
fundamentalism. Marsden has shown that the debate over

militancy that drove a wedge between themselves and the

 

57Nelson, The Making and Unmaking, p. 106.

”It has been speculated that Carnell committed suicide
by an overdose of barbiturates. The official death
certificate indicates an overdose but as to an intentional
suicide there is significant disaggreement. See Nelson, The

MaRing and Qnmaking.

179
separatist fundamentalists was now the debate within their
own ranks. "One person's evangelical could be another's
fundamentalist."59 Carnell's intellectual vision was itself
the basis for a great deal of the controversy within the new
evangelical subculture. His repudiation of fundamentalism
(chapter two), though linked to his controversial
intellectual vision, was unsettling more so for its shaking
of the traditions of fundamentalism.

Carnell's intellectual vision was spelled out in his
presidential inaugural address one year after his entrance
into office. The title of his address was, "The Glory of a
Theological Seminary." He reasoned that the glory of a
seminary is in its commitment to its creed, and to its
defence of the faith in a way that reflected the
credibility.” Trouble began with Carnell's statements
regarding the necessity of allowing students the freedom to
test all truth claims. It is the seminary's responsibility
"to acquaint its students with all relevant evidences--
damaging as well as supporting -—in order the students may
be given a reasonable opportunity to exercise their God-
given right freely to decide for or against claims to
truth." The result of not allowing students the freedom to
investigate truth claims may cause them to be victims of

"pride, obscurantism, or bigotry." The most problematic

 

”lbid., p 149.
60ibid., p. 148.

180
statement in his address was his call for students to be
tolerant and forgiving of others who disagree them on
doctrinal issues.61 In the year that Carnell had to put
together his thoughts for his inaugural address he most
likely reflected on his criticism about the negative impact
of separatism on the evangelical Church. His comments about
the necessity of tolerance and acceptance cut across the
very grain of the fundamentalist position on separation and
intolerance. Carnell's address caused much consternation
within the ranks of the new evangelicals, especially among
his colleagues at Fuller. Charles Woodbridge and three
others” confronted Carnell the day after his address to let
him know how displeased they were with his educational
philosophy. Woodbridge recounted that Carnell would not
retract what he had said in his address. As a result,

Woodbridge eventually resigned his post at Fuller.63

 

61Carnell, "The Glory of a Theological Seminary."

62From other sources Marsden says that the other three
were Carl Henry, Wilbur Smith, and Harold Lindsell. See

Referhing Bundamentalism, p.149.

63Charles Woodbridge, "Reaping the Whirlwind,"
Qhrisrian Beacon (May 5, 1977): 7. As an interesting side
note, Woodbridge's account of what Carnell said in his
inaugural address is different than what the published
address itself says. Woodbridge quoted Carnell as saying,
"The Seminary should systematically inculcate on (sic) its
students a theology of mutual tolerance and forgiveness
toward those who, by reason of their particular doctrinal
convictions, stand heretically over against the confessional
lines set down by the first Christian community." The
published address says, "The seminary inculcate on its
students an attitude of tolerance and forgiveness toward
individuals whose doctrinal convictions are at variance with
those that inhere in the institution itself."

181

Carnell's position on academic freedom and the question
of tolerance placed him light years ahead of most of his
colleagues at Fuller. But he did manage to gain support
from George Ladd and William LaSor who had already
identified themselves outside the constraints of
fundamentalism.64 His vehement commitment to the principles
of a progressive educational philosophy were in part a
result of his own intellectual pilgrimage from his time as
an undergraduate at Wheaton College up through his doctoral
studies at Harvard Divinity School. Yet in spite of what
appears to have been a great intellectual progression for
Carnell, it has been argued that his preparation was
inadequate for the task of bringing to the world great new
evangelical literature to engage the modern mind. Carnell's
entire experience was primarily in theological studies with
a philosophical background oriented toward the art of
apologetics.” He had what Nelson has referred to as "an
early modern imagination trying to develop a defense of

traditional Christianity in late modern times."66

This may

have been the problem for most every intellectual within the
new evangelicalism, yet Carnell's struggle to make relevant
the Christian theistic truth claim embodied the realization

that there were pieces of the intellectual puzzle missing.

 

641:: g
”Nelson, The Making and Unmaking, p. 217.
6611616., p. 223.

182
The most outstanding piece, perhaps, was the lack of
academic freedom within the world of evangelical higher
education. The negative response that Carnell received is an
indicator of how much misunderstanding there was within the
new evangelical intellectual community regarding their.
responsibility in the educational process. The fact that the
agenda had been too narrowly focused on theological issues
goes without question. It would seem that with all their
claims to engaging the modern mind and publishing "World
shaking" literature, that the necessity of going beyond the
constraints of theology would be obvious. This does not
appear to be the case. As we saw earlier, the new
evangelicals were sidetracked from many of their aspirations
because of their desire to resolve the theological squabbles
of fundamentalist predecessors as well as the internal
struggles among themselves. It may also be the case that the
new evangelicals were themselves out of step with modernity
and therefore doomed to repeat many of the errors of their
fundamentalist forefathers. The fact that the overwhelming
majority of the intellectuals in this generation were
theologians may indicate that they were not ready to engage
the modern mind. The modern mind had ignored theological
squabbles, yet the new evangelicals thought they held the
key to answering the hard questions of the day. The vision
of Edward Carnell, however, was a tremendous paradigm for
the new evangelical generation. His call for tolerance and

for the freedom to test all truth claims may have been late

183
in coming for this generation, yet it helped to lay a
foundation for moving the new evangelical intellectual

agenda into areas necessary for engaging the modern mind.

SUMMARY

This study has shown that the new evangelicals emerged
out of the fundamentalist-modernist debates of the 1920s and
19308 with a specific agenda to reform its anti-social and
anti-intellectual tendencies. They demonstrated this desire
by attaining Ph.Ds from major research universities
including Harvard. The return of these reformed
fundamentalists to professional graduate education was a
healthy sign of intellectual renewal within the evangelical
movement. Once these young scholars finished their
educational preparation they commenced to publish books and
articles on the failures of establishment fundamentalism in
dealing adequately with social and intellectual issues.

The emergence of the new evangelicals paralleled the
founding of the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE)
in 1942. The NAE had an agenda to unite fundamentalists and
evangelicals from all walks of life in a spirit of love and
cooperation. New evangelical scholars such as Carl Henry,
Harold Ockenga, and Edward Carnell were more than willing to
be associated with the NAE. While it was common for the new
evangelicals to repudiate fundamentalism, there eventually
developed lack of cohesion among a number of key new
evangelical intellectuals. Chapter two has shown that a
number of new evangelicals reacted strongly against
Carnell's forceful repudiation of fundamentalism. These

reactions revealed both a level of discomfort for many new

184

185
evangelicals in dispensing with the negative image of
fundamentalism, and less than adequate understanding of the
new evangelical vision. I have shown that Carnell's vision
for the new evangelicalism included a dispensing of what he
referred to as "cultic" fundamentalism and a serious
attitude toward publishing relevant books on issues of the
day. Carnell had a intellectual perspective that was light
years ahead of most of his peers, yet he ultimately became
the object of criticism from both fundamentalists and new
evangelicals.

New evangelical criticism of fundamentalism would not
go unanswered by fundamentalists. The repudiation of
fundamentalism, and most specifically Carnell's repudiation,
helped to usher the new evangelicals into a war of words
with fundamentalists that was reminiscent of the earlier
fundamentalist-modernist debates. Chapter three shows how
time consuming and besetting this war was to the greater
intellectual issues that were occupying the minds of the new
evangelicals.

I have attempted to show that the new evangelical
intellectual agenda to produce scholarly books of "world
shaking" proportions was never really realized by this
generation. Admittedly, they were successful in bring to
evangelicalism a higher level of scholarship than their
fundamentalist forefathers had produced, yet the subject
matter remained focused on issues pertaining to apologetics

and theology. The great works of philosophy and science

186
were not realized. Perhaps the greatest sense of failure
was in the lack of attention that the greater academic
community paid to what the new evangelicals were publishing.

I have focused attention on the intellectual example of
Edward Carnell. As was previously stated, Carnell was ahead
of his time as a scholar in the new evangelical movement.

He understood what it would take to make evangelicalism
intellectually respectable. He knew as well that the New
evangelicalism (as he experienced at Fuller Seminary) must
move beyond the various theological and ideological
presuppositions that hindered its growth. For Carnell this
would include moving beyond the constraints of
dispensational theology to a broader perspective that took
into consideration a number of theological options. On
these issues Carnell continued to receive criticism from his
new evangelical peers.

To a large extent, the new evangelicals were
sidetracked from many of their intellectual goals. First,
they were divided from within as we have seen in their in-
house feuding over how far they were to push the repudiation
of fundamentalism. A number of admitted new evangelicals,
while claiming to renounce the negative image of
fundamentalism, spoke of their desire to remain connected to
it. Second, the war they waged with fundamentalists had a
backfiring effect insofar as it renewed a war that was first
fought between fundamentalists and modernists. Instead of

being freed up to publish works that would attract the

187
attention of the greater academic community, new
evangelicals spent their time and energy arguing with
fundamentalists. Carnell serves as an example of how
consumed new evangelicals were by their fight with
fundamentalists. And third, the new evangelicals were never
really successful at moving beyond the theological issues of
the fundamentalist-modernist debate. This was evidenced by
the massive amount of time they spent on theological issues,
most of which were the same unresolved issues of
fundamentalism. This may also be linked to the war that
they had fought with fundamentalists.

This study has not attempted to paint with a broad
brush by accusing new evangelicals of complete failure.
Indeed there have been a number of academic successes by
many evangelical scholars in the years following the scope
of this study. Fuller Seminary has emerged into a quality
academic institution of theological education, as have‘
schools like Wheaton College and Calvin College. These
successes are to a large extent due to the path breaking
work of the generation on which I have focused.
Nevertheless, there are still some major inadequacies in the
intellectual standing of American evangelicalism. These
inadequacies are a topic for another study that go beyond
the constraints of the study under consideration in these

pages.

II.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Archival Materials

J. Oliver Buswell Papers. Buswell Library of Wheaton
College, Wheaton, Illinois.

Christianity Today Records. Collection 8. Billy
Graham Center Archives, Wheaton, Illinois.

V. Raymond Edman Papers. Buswell Library of Wheaton
College, Wheaton, Illinois.

Carl F.H. Henry Papers. Collection 8. Billy Graham
Center Archives, Wheaton, Illinois.

Harold John Ockenga Papers. Ockenga Institute, Gordon-
Conwell Theological Seminary, South Hamilton,
Massachusetts.

Primary Sources (Books, articles, dissertations and
thesis)

Allen, L. H. Bryah and Darrow at Dayton. New York: A.
Lee, 1925.

Ashworth, Robert A. "The Fundamentalist Movement Among

the Baptists," Jourhal 9f Religion 4 (November
1924): 611-631.

Ayer, W. W. God's Answer to hah's Qohhhs. Grand
Rapids:Zondervan, 1943.

Baker, A. L. Creation--Not Evolution. Pacific Press
Publishing Company, 1926.

Banks, Howard A. Christ Life or the Wogd of the Cgoss:

A Qevotionhl honthly hagazine for Youhg ahg
Ql . Cleveland: Union Gospel Press, March 1925.

Benson, Clarence H. A Popular histgry Q: Chzishigh
Educatioh. Chicago: Moody Press, 1943.

188

189

Bloore, John. hegetnien. New York: Loizeaux Brothers,

1922.

. hegetnism ang ite Beetetenent e: Chtietien
rotrine. New York: Loizeaux Brothers, 1923.
Brown, Elijah P. S ° T e e a d
Wetk e: Rev, Willien Ashley SungeyI D.Q., The

nesehell Evangelist. New York: Fleming H.
Revell, 1914.

Bryan, William Jennings. The Bible and its Enemies.
Chicago: Bible Institute Colportage Association,

1921.
. In his Image. New York: Fleming H. Revell,
1922.
. "The Fundamentals," The_£e;nn LXX (July

1923):1665-1680.

. Qtthodox Christianity vs. Modernisn. New York:
Fleming H. Revell, 1924.

Buswell, J. Oliver. "A Christian University or the
N.B.I. Plan?" The Bihle Togay. Published by the
National Bible Institute. 38 (March 1944): 156-
158.

Carnell, Edward John. An lnttednetien to thistian
Anologetice: A Phileegnhicel Defenee of the
Trinitetien-Theistie Eeith. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1948.

. A Philosephy gf the ghtistien Religion. Grand
Rapids: Baker, 1952.

- Qhristian_Q2mmitment1_An_Anelegetiso New York:
MacMillan, 1957.

______- "Fundamentalism." in A_fiandbeek_ef_ghri§tian

 

Theelegy. Cleveland: World Publishing, 1958.
- The_Qa§e_fer_Qrthedgx_Ihgelegx- Philadelphia:

 

Westminster Press, 1959.

. The Kingdom of Love end the Pride of Life.
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1961).

Carrara, John. Enenies 9: Youth. Fundamental Truth
Publishers, 1939.

190

Clark. Gordon H. A_Qhriatian_Yiew_of_uen_and_Ihin9§;_
An_Introdustion_to_£hilosonhx- Grand Rapids=

Baker, 1952.

Conant. J. E. The_Qro1ing_uena2e_of_the_2§osial
Qeepelflt Chicago: Bible Institute Colportage
Association, 1937. Reprinted by Garland Press,
1988.

Dixon, A. C. et al., eds. The Eundamentals: A

Testimeny to the Truth. 12 vols. Chicago:
Testimony Publishing, [1910-1915]. Reprinted by

Garland Press, 1988.

Edman, V. Raymond. Qnt_e£_My_Lifie. Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1961.

Ellis, William T. "Billy" Sunday; The Men eng hie
Meseeg . Authorized Edition, L.T. Myers, 1914

Ely, James E. Glimnes e: hihle Qlinenes item the
e ' o e . Garden City: Businessman's
Gospel Association, 1927.

Epp. Theodore H. Ir2e_S2ienge_Agree§_with_§sripture.
Lincoln: Back to the Bible Broadcast, 1953.

Evangelicals Action: A Renett of the thanizatien ef
the National Association e: Evengelicels fez
Qnited Action. Compiled and edited by the
executive committee. Boston: United Action Press,
1942.

Evans, William. Petsonel Sonl-Winning. Chicago:
Moody Press, 1910,

Fairhurst, A. Atheisn in en; flniyereities. Standard
Publishing Company, 1923.

Ferm , Robert 0. Q9o2eratixe_Exangeli§m1_Is_Billx_

Gtehan Right er Wrong? Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
1958.
Forrest, C. L. 20 Fungenentelists Play Eeit? New York:

Macmillan, 1926.

Fosdick, Harry Emerson. "Shall the Fundamentalists
Win?" A Sermon Preached at the First Presbyterian
Church, New York, May 21, 1922. Reprinted by
Garland Press, 1988.

191

Gilbert. Dan. Qur_Betreat_Erom_Moderni§m- Findlay:
Fundamental Truth Company, 1936.

God H ° Twe - 'v dr ss D ve t the
World Conference on Christian FundamentalsI hey 25

- gene l, 1919. Philadelphia: Bible Conference
Committee, 1919. Reprinted by Garland Press, 1988.

Hamilton, Floyd E. ° r's a '
e e s t 's 'a ' . New
York: Harper & Brothers, 1923.

Harris, W.S. Mt. World end hiss Chutch-henhetg A
Twentieth Centuty Allegety. G. Holzapfel, 1900.

. Setnens by the Devil. Cincinnati: Forshee &
CO., 1904.

Henry, Carl F- H. The_unea§x_§onesienge_of_Modern
Enndamentalism. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1947.

. e esta ' : 's t

Cu nt asse i he 0 . Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1949.

. t m 0 ar v ' o . Great Neck:

Channel Press, 1957.

. Evengelical Beenonsibility in Qontennezety
Theology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1957.

. E2angelisal§_at_the_nrink_of_§ri§ia. Waco:
Word Books, 1967.

 

. Ev l s ' Sear of de t't . Waco: Word
Books, 1976.
. Qonvetsatigne with Qetl Henty: Chgistienity for

 

Today. Lewiston: Edwin Mellen Press, 1986.

Houghton, Will H. 'v '
heeeegee. Chicago: Bible Institute Colportage
Association, 1936.

Hutson, Curtis. c '8 °

Enngenentelie_. Murfreesboro: Sword of
the Lord Publishers, 1984.

Irvine, William C. genesies Exposed. London:
Pickering & Inglis, 1930 [1917].

Johnson, James W. Fundament 's vs. Modern's . New
York: Century Press, 1925.

192

Kelly, Howard A. Sc ' a t .
Philadelphia: Sunday School Times, 1925.
Ketcham, Robert T. Faets in: hentiets to Eeee.

Waterloo, Iowa, 1942 [1936]. Reprinted by Garland
Press, 1988.

The Answet. Chicago: General Association of
Regular Baptist Churches, 1950.

Lippman, Walter. A_£I§£§£§_§Q_MQIQL§- New York: The
MacMillan Company, 1929.

 

Lippman. Walter. Driff_and_Masterx;__bn_Attemet_to_
Qiegnose the Cuttent gnne t. Englewood Cliffs:

Prentice-Hall, 1961 [1914].

Machen, J. Gresham. C r'st'a it a d ibe a 's .
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1946.

Marshall, E- A- Ia_Qnriat_Q2ming_flefore_or_After_the
Millenninn? Kalamazoo: Tract Evangel Society,

1941.

McIntire. Carl. Twentleth_genturx_8eformation.

Collingswood: Christian Beacon Press, 1946.

. va s o s . Collingswood: Christian
Beacon Press, 1955.

McCrossan, T. J. 1 ° 3 's d ’s
Wheaton: Sword of the Lord Publishers, 1929.

McPherson. G-W. The_gri§i§_in_the_ghursh- Yonkers.
New York, 1919.

Mencken. H-L- flannx_2§Y§1_1§§Q:1§22- New York:
Alfred A. Knopf, 1940.

Mott, John R. e v e ' n r '
Genetetien. New York: Student Volunteer Movement

for Foreign Missions, 1902.

Murch, James Deforest. Coo e 'o w' u ' :

A hiet eny e: the ha atienel Assoeiation e:
Eyangelicals. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956.

Niebuhr, H. Richard. "Fundamentalism," Eneyeleneedie_

ef the Seciel Scienees, Edwin R. A. Seligman, ed.
vol. 5 New York: MacMillan, 1937.

193

Ockenga, Harold John, "Resurgent Evangelical

Leadership." Qhristianitx_12dax (October 10.
1960): 11-15.

Paine, Stephen W., "generation" is Separeting
Eyengelicals Boston: Fellowship Press, 1951.

Parrott, Leslie. Questionable Things and Places.
Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1955.

Paulsen, Friedrich. The German Universities and
University Study. New York: Charles Scribner's

Sons, 1906.

Pierson, Arthur T. The gtisis of Miseions, on the
Voice Out of the Clou . London: James Nisbet &

Company, 1886.

. Meny lnfallible Ptoofs: The Evidenees of
Christianity. New York: Fleming Revell, 1886.

Rader, Paul. Paul Rader's Sermons. New York: The
Book Stall, 1916.

Ramm, Bernard. The Christien View of Science and
§Q£12LE£§- Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1954.

Rice, John R. Ve t'o ' s
Seientific Accnteey Grand Rapids: Zondervan,1943.

. Qog's Cure for Anxiens gate. Murfeesburo:
Sword of Lord, 1948.

. Amusements for Chtistians: Right or Wrong?
Wheaton: Sword of the Lord, 1955.

. Go "D "7 d 0 e s '
§etnene. Wheaton: Sword of the Lord, 1958.
Ridout, S. The Bihle: The Ttue Univetsity. New York:
Loizeau Brothers, 1912.
Riley, William B. Th 'na ' of the H' e ' ' ' m
o e o v ut' a se 0 .

n.p., 1909 [1988].

. The Menace of hedernis . New York: Christian
Alliance Publishing Company, 1917 [1988].

. ux_nihle1_An_Anologetio. Grand Rapids=
Eerdmans, 1937.

 

194

Rimmer, Harry. A Qensigezetion of the Qredibility of
the Chronology ef the hihl . Los Angeles:

Research Science Bureau, 1929.

. t of
Science. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1935.

Scofield. C-I- The_New_Life_in_§hri§t_£e§u§. The
Bible Institute Colportage Association, 1915.

Scroggie, W. Graham. 8 W 9.
Chicago: Moody Press, 1922.

Shields, T.T. The Plet Thet Eeileg. Toronto: The
Gospel Witness, 1937.

Shipley, Maynard. The_Ear_9n_Modern_§§iensei__a_§hort
Histety of the Fundamentalist Attaehs en Evelution

ang Megernism. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1927.

Smith, Wilbur M. '

IhEIEIQI§1_§£§D91__A_El§§_IQI_§_
yigotous Apologetic in the Present Qtisis ef

Eyangelical Chtistianity. Boston: W.A. Wilde,
1945.

. This Atonic Age and the Word of G e. Boston:
W.A. Wilde, 1948.

Stevenson, Herbert F. sw ' V °
hynamic Addresses Deliveteg et the heswieh
CenventionII l825-1257. Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
1959.

Stonehouse, Ned B. c °
heneit. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1954.

Tapper. Ruth M. Lifes.§t2ries_of_£oreign_hi§§ionarie§

ef the Ftee Methediet Chnteh. Winona Lake:
Y.P.M.S. Council, 1935.

Torrey. R.A. Anesdote§_and_lllu§tration§- New York:
Fleming H. Revell, 1907.

. The_Im22rtan2e_and_YalQe_of_£roner_nihle_§tndx-
Chicago: The Bible Institute Colportage
Association, 1921.

 

Truett, George W. §ome Vital Questions. Nashville:
Broadman Press, 1946.

Trumbull, Charles G. Seience and the Christien. New
York, 1924.

III.

195

- W. New York: Fleming H-
Revell, 1937.

 

Tulga, Chester E. The Qese Ageinst the Fedetel Qonncil
of Churches. Chicago: Conservative Baptist

Fellowship, 1948.

se st Co ’5 . Chicago: Good
News Publishers, 1949.

__ W- Chicago:
Conservative Baptist Fellowship, 1949.

 

. C e 5 So ' s . Chicago:
Conservative Baptist Fellowship, 1949.

. e C se A a'nst th Wo C u ' o c .

Chicago Conservative Baptist Fellowship,
1949.

Qhutche . Chicago: Conservative Baptist
Fellowship, 1951.
. C s 'ns 0 ’s ' .

Chicago: Conservative Baptist Fellowship, 1952.

. The Doctrine of e r tion ' T ese 'mes.

Chicago: Conservative Baptist Fellowship, 1952.

Walker. Brooks R- MW-
Garden City: Doubleday, 1964.

Willing, J.F. ' e t - ' :
Xenng_h_n. Toronto: International Book and Bible
House, 1885.

Woodbridge, Charles. T Ev e m.
Greenville: Bob Jones University Press, 1969.

Greenville: Bob Jones University Press, 1970.

 

Wright, J. Elwin. e O s ' e v o

the_fizeegeeetete. Boston: Fellowship Press,
1940.

Select Periodicals

Rather than list each periodical reference, the
following list will suffice to provide adequate
information regarding each publication and
location it was found.

196

Aetien. Location: William Tyndale College, Farmington
Hills, Michigan.

Beptiet_§nlletin. Location: Northern Baptist
Theological Seminary, Lombard, Illinois.

Bihlietheee_§eete. Location: William Tyndale College,
Farmington Hills, Michigan.

WNW- Location: Calvin College.
Grand Rapids, Michigan.

hulletin e: flheeten Qellege. Location: Buswell
Library Archives, Wheaton College, Wheaton,
Illinois.

Ce a C B. uarter . Location: Calvin College,
Grand Rapids, Michigan; Ketchum Library, Grand
Rapids Baptist College, Grand Rapids, Michigan.

Qhrietien_fleeeen. Location: Personal holdings

hr's ' C u . Location: William Tyndale College,
Farmington Hills, Michigan.
ghtietien_finngenenteliet. Location: Northern Baptist

Theological Seminary, Lombard, Illinois.

C ist Her . Location: William Tyndale College,
Farmington Hills, Michigan.

Christian Life. Location: William Tyndale College,
Farmington Hills, Michigan.

Chtistianity Togey. Location: William Tyndale
College, Farmington Hills, Michigan.

Discerner. Location: William Tyndale College,
Farmington Hills, Michigan.

Etetnity. Location: Personal Holdings.
Evangelical Beacen. Location: Personal Holdings.

Kingie_§neineee. Location: Trinity Evangelical
Divinity School, Deerfield, Il.

Meeey_henthly. Locations: Buswell Library,
Wheaton a College, Wheaton, Illinois;
William Tyndale College, Farmington
Hills, Michigan.

IV.

197

Refietnetien_Reyiey. Location: Northern Baptist
Theological Seminary, Lombard, Illinois.

Revelation. Location: William Tyndale College,
Farmington Hills, Michigan.

v a W ' . Location: Northern Baptist
Theological Seminary, Lombard, Illinois.

§igns ef the Tines. Location: Northern Baptist
Theological Seminary, Lombard, Illinois.

§yetg_gfi_the_hetg. Location: Personal holdings.

un cho es. Location: Buswell Library,
Wheaton College, Wheaton, Illinois.

Voiee. Location: William Tyndale College, Farmington
Hills, Michigan.

Watchman-Examiner. Location: Northern Baptist
Theological Seminary, Lombard, Illinois.

Secondary Sources (Books, articles, dissertations,
thesis)

Ahlstrom, Sidney E- A_Eeligi2ns_nigtory_of_tne_5merican
Reenle. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1972.

Ahlstrom, Sydney E. and Robert Bruce Mullin. The_
Seientifie Theiet; A Life ef Ereneie Ellingyeeg
Abbet. Macon: Mercer University Press, 1987.

Allen, Rodger Van., ed. 'c ' s V
the.£uture.2f_hmeriea. Philadelphia: Fortress
Press,1978.

Ammerman, Nancy Tatom. ' e 'ev °
in_the_hege;n_fletlg. New Brunswick: Rutgers
University Press, 1987.

Ariel, Yaakov. B of sra l: '
Enndanentelist Attitnges Towetg Jews, ingeien, end

Zioni§m1_1§§§:124§- Brooklyn: Carlson
Publishing, 1991.

Ashbrook, William A. ' ° .
Renttelien. Columbus: Calvary Bible Church, 1970).

Averill, Lloyd J. Religions RightI Religione Wreng; A
't e o e u an t list P e o . New
York: Pilgrim Press, 1989.

198

Bailey, Kenneth K. t P o t s ' t e
Tyentieth gentury. New York: Harper & Row, 1964.

Baldwin, Leland D. e e ' es 0 t ' f
e_e. Macon: Mercer University Press, 1981.

Balmer, Randall. hine Eyes heve Seen the Glpty; A

u n 'nto the va el' 1 u r
Anerice. New York: Oxford University Press, 1989.

Baritz, Loren. The Good Life: The heaning of Snecess

fot the Amepican hidgle glass. New York: Harper
& Row, 1990.

Barnhart, Joe Edward. The Southetn haptist holy Wer.
Austin: Texas Monthly Press, 1986.

Barr, James. Fundamentalism. Philadelphia:
Westminster Press, 1978.

Barzun, Jacques. The house of lntelleet. New York:
Harper & Row, 1959.

Bass, Clarence B. ack rou s o 's iona '3 °

lts Historical Qenesie ang Rceleeieetieel
lnplicetions. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1977.

Bauman, Michael. Pilgrim Theology: Tahing the Path pf

W222 Grand RapidS: Zondervan,
1992.

Bebbinqton. David. Eyange1i2ali§n_in_nodern_flritaini_A
H's r m t 7303 o e 8 3. Grand
Rapids: Baker, 1992 [1989].

Beck, W. David, ed. Opening the American hing: The
lntegtetion of hihlicel Tputh in the Cnrzienlnn gt
the_hniyeteity. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1991.

Bellah, Robert, et al. 't :

v d s d Comm't ' ' . New
York: Harper & Row, 1985.

Bennett, David H. Par 0 ar: at v'st

Movements tn the hew Religious Right in Aneticen
history. New York: Vintage Books, 1988.

Benware, Paul. "The Social Responsibility of the
Church," gteee_§entnel 12 (Winter 1971): 3-17.

199

Bledstein, Burton J. The_§nltnpe_efi

Rtefessionalizetien: The Mingle Cleee eng the
v en 0 ' d 'o ' ' a. New

York: Norton, 1976.

Bloesch, Donald G- W. Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973.

MW Garden City:
Doubleday, 1983.

. u b i Fou ’ ° e

Age_pf_hphee_el. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984.

Bloch. Ruth A- WWW
e ' hou - . Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1985.

Bloom. Allan. W New

York: Simon and Schuster, 1987.

Bloom. Harold. e ' 'o ' f

MW New York: Simon &
Schuster, 1992.

Boardman, Fon W., Jr. Ameriea end the Rzggpessive Era,
l900-1917. New York: Henry 2. Walck, 1970.

Bolich. Gregory G- W.
Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1980.

Boller. Paul F-. Jr- W
W-
Chicago: Rand McNally, 1969.

Boone. Kathleen C- W
s s s . Albany:

State University of New York Press, 1989.

Borgmann. Albert. Qr2eains_the_£o§tnodern_aiyide-
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992.

Boylan, Anne M. u a c 0 ° T
e c t ' 7 - . New Haven: Yale
University Press, 1988.

Bozeman, Theodore Dwight- W
Seience: The Baconian Ideal and Antehellnn
WWW Chapel Hill:

University of North Carolina Press, 1977.

200

Braeman, John, et al., eds. h e a C i
Twe 'et -Cen u ' . Ohio State University
Press, 1964.

Bratt, James D. Du c C ' ' ' o 'c ° A
s of Conse vat've Subc t . Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984.

Brereton, Virginia Lieson. ' °
e B e Sc 00 - . Bloomington:
Indiana University Press, 1990.

Brown, Jerry Wayne. e bl' ' 's n
e 80 - 7 . Middletown: Wesleyan

University Press, 1969.

Brubacher, John. S. and William Rudy. h c 'on

a s' n: o e c s d

Univetsities, l636-197§. New York: Harper & Row,
1976.

Bruce. Steve. Eray_IY1_Ieleyangeli§m_in_bmericao

London and New York: Routledge, 1990.

Bryant, M. Darrol and Donald W. Dayton, eds., The_
omin Kin dom: Essa s 'n American M'll n'a is
e Eschatology. Barrytown: International
Religious Foundation, 1983.

Bull, Malcolm and Keith Lockhart. 'n c a °
e - a dv 's 'c am. San
Francisco: Harper & Row, 1989.
Butler, Jonathan M. So t s
. : e .
lgzg-l9gg. Brooklyn: Carlson Publishing,1991.
Cairns, Earle E. 21_Raymond_Ednan1__1n_the_2re§ence_of
the hi g. Chicago: Moody Press, 1972.

Carpenter, Joel Allan. "The Renewal of American
Fundamentalism, 1930-1945." Ph.D dissertation,
The Johns Hopkins University, 1984.

and Kenneth W. Shipps, et al., eds. hehing_
her Education hris ' ' e
’ ' e ' . Grand

Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987.

and Wilbert R. Shenk, et al., eds. hetthen_
V s o '

hissiens, lQSQ-lggg. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990.

201

Cerillo, Augustus, Jr., Murray W. Dempster. fielt_eng_
ht: Ev n e1 u
Ametiee. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1989.

. "Carl F. H. Henry's Early Apologetic for an

Evangelical Social Ethic, 1942-1956," Jon 0
the Evangelical Theologieel §eciety 34 (September

1991): 365-379.

Clendenin, Daniel B. and W. David Buschart, eds.,
Scholarshi Sacraments and Service: Histor l

tudies t s o
of hand Thenpson. Lewiston: Edwin Mellen Press,
1990).

Coben, Stanley. ebe l'on A ' t V' o ' '8 °

Im etus or Cultur l C an e 'n 192 Amer'ca. New
York: Oxford University Press, 1991.

Cohen, Norman J. Th a t 's h 0 °
V' w om W' ' a e s r W' u . Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990.

Cole. stewart G- Ihe_History_of_£undanentali§m-
Hamden: Archon Books, 1963.

Commager, Henry Steele. T e 'can '
ter retation o ' an t

Sinee the l§805. New Haven: Yale University
Press, 1950.

Cooper, John Milton, Jr. v a ° t d
Stetes, l9OQ-l9zg. New York: Norton, 1990.

Cox, Harvey. ' t c a '

Rostmgdern Theology. New York: Simon and
Schuster, 1984.

Criswell, W.A. hhy l Rteach That the hihle ie
hitetally True. Nashville: Broadman Press,

1969.

Davis, John Jefferson. un ti 5 v e
Theology. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984.

Dayton. Donald W: Theol2gi2al_Root§_ef_2ente22§tali§mo
Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1987.

. D so n e 'ca Her'ta . Peabody:
Hendrickson, 1988.

 

202

, Robert K. Johnston, et al., eds. The Vepiety ot
Mamm- Knoxville: University

of Tennessee Press, 1991.

Dobson, Ed, et al. The Fundenentelist Rhenomenon: The

sur e o 0 se v 'v C 'st'an' . Grand
Rapids: Baker, 1986.

Dollar, George W. A hietgpy of Enndenentelism in
Anetiee. Orlando: Daniels Publishing, 1983.

. e i t o a t s ' e
und sm 97 - 8 . Orlando: Daniels
Publishing, 1983.

Dorough, C. Dwight. The hihle helt hystigne.
Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1974.

Dorsett, Lyle W. Billy Suneay ang the Regenptien e:
hphen_Anetiee. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991.

Dyrness, William A. how hoes Anetice heat the Qespel?
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989.

Eckardt, A. Roy. Th u e Piet ' r' a. New
York: Association Press, 1958.
Eighmy, John Lee. C u che u l C 'v' ° A
sto f e oc' t itud s o

heptists. Knoxville: University of Tennessee
Press, 1987.

Ellis, William E. "Frank LeRond McVey: His Defense of

Academic Freedom," Register of the Kentncky
histopical Society 67 (January 1969): 37-54.

. "Evolution, Fundamentalism, and the Historians:
An Historiographical Review." The_hi_tepien, XLIV
(November 1981): 15-35.

. o o o t eo .
Macon: Mercer University Press, 1985.

 

Epler, Stephen Edward. Honorary Degrees: A Sutvey of
Theit Use ang Abnse. Washington D.C.: American

Council on Public Affairs, 1943.

Erickson, Millard J. The New Evengelieel Theelegy.
Westwood: Fleming Revell, 1968.

Evans, Ron L., Irwin M. Berent. F nd t sm:

Hezards end Heattbpeaks. LaSalle: Open Court,
1988.

203

Farmer. James Oscar. Jr. Wm

WWW
Eenthe;n_elnee. Macon: Mecer University Press,
1986.

Farrow, Douglas. W

Wetg . Winona Lake: Carpenter Books, 1987.

Findlay. James F. Wiser:
EvengelistI l§37-l§29. Chicago: Baker, 1973.
Flake, Carol. ede m ° ' ' e

hew Evangelicalism. Garden City: Doubleday, 1984.
Fowler, Robert Booth. A Ney Engagement: Evengelieel

Rolitical ThoughtI l9§6-122§. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1982.

Frank, Douglas W. Less T n C e o 8' w
i E re e C . Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986.

Fraser, James W. Echoeling the Preecheps; The

Eevelopment of Protestant Theelegieel Egneetien in
the Uniteg Stateej 1740-1875. Lanham: University

Press of America, 1988.

Fuller, Daniel P. G'v ' t '
Story e; Chaplee E, Enllep. Waco: Word Books,
1972.

. os e w: C st 0 ' ’-

Theelggy. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980.

Furniss, Norman F. The Fundamentalist Cpntrevetsy,
l2l§-193l. Hamden: Archon Books, 1963.

Gabriel. Ralph Henry. W
Churc f ' C e
ive ' 7 7- 9 . New Haven: Yale
University Press, 1958.

Garrett, James Leo, Jr., E. Glenn Hinson, James E.

Tull. t e a t sts " ' "2
Macon: Mercer University Press, 1983.
Gasper, Louis. The Enngenentelist heyement, 1939-12§§.

Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981.

204

Gatewood, Willard B., Jr. gentpeyetey_in_the

Tyenties: Enndamentalism, hodernism, and
Evolution. Nashville: Vanderbilt University

Press, 1969.

Geertz, Clifford. The Interpretation of Cultures. New
York: Basic Books, 1973.

Getz, Gene A. B : T e Sto 0 Moo Bib e
lnstitnte. Chicago: Moody Press, 1969.

Glad, Paul W. The Tpumpet Soungeth; William Jennings
Eryan and His Demoerecy, 1896-l9l2. Omaha:

University of Nebraska Press, 1960.

Gorrell, Donald K. The e So ' es 0 s'b' ' :

The seeial Gospel in the Rrogressive Era, 1900-
1920. Macon: Mercer University Press, 1988.

Graener, William. The Age of Donbt: Anericen Thought

and Culture in the l940s. Boston: Twayne
Publishers, 1991.

Hakes, J. Edward, ed. An lnttodnction to Evangelieel
Qhristian Education. Chicago: Moody Press,

1964.

Hammond, Phillip E. "In Search of a Protestant
Twentieth Century: American Religion and Power
Since 1900,"Review pf Religions Reseepch, 24 (June
1983): 281-294.

Handy, Robert T. h s 'a r'c ° 0 s

a 's o ' a ' es. New York: Oxford

University Press, 1984.

Hankins, Barry. "The Strange Career of J. Frank
Norris: Or, Can a Baptist Democrat Be a
Fundamentalist Republican?"Church History 61
(September 1992): 373-392.

Harrell, David Edwin, Jr., ed. Va et'es f Southern
Eyangelicalism. Macon: Mercer University Press,
1981.

. Opel Roherts; An Anetiean Life. Bloomington:

Indiana University Press, 1985.

Harrington, Carol E. "The Fundamentalist Movement in
America, 1870-1920." Ph.D dissertation,
University of California, 1959.

205

Harrington. Michael. Ihe_22litics_at_§291§_£unera11_
' 't si We t 'v' ' 'o . New
York: Penguin Books, 1983.

Hart, Darryl Glenn. " ‘Doctor Fundamentalis': An
Intellectual Biography of J. Gresham Machen, 1881-
1937." Ph.D dissertation, The Johns Hopkins
University, 1988.

Hatch, Nathan 0., Mark A. Noll, et al., eds. The_Eihle
e Es . New
York: Oxford University Press, 1982.

. em or 'o e c ' ' ' .
New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989.

 

Henry, Carl F. H. "The Christian Scholar' 3 Task in a

Stricken World " Chri_tian_§_holar_s_3eyie_ 17
(June 1988): 474- 488.

Herhst. Jurgen- The_German_ni§torigal_fichool_in

e 'c 1a s ' . Ithaca: Cornell University
Press, 1965.

Higham, John. "Hanging Together: Divergent Unities in

American History." Jonrnal.of_Amerioan_Hi§tory.
LXI (June 1974): 5-28.

Hill, Samuel 8., Jr. Sou u e ' ' ' . New
York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1967.

Hoeveler, J. David, Jr. e 8 ° '
e e - . Charlottesville:
University Press of Virginia, 1977.

Hofstadter, Richard, C. Dewitt Hardy, eds. The
neyelopment_and_Scope_2f_Higher_Education_in_the
hniteg_§tete_. New York: Columbia University
Press, 1954.

._____- S9cial_Darwini§m_in_bmerisan_1honght- Boston:

Beacon Press, 1955.

e e

I] E J ! E E l . E i . !l
hnitefi_§tetee. New York: Columbia University
press, 1955.

. The Age of Refopn: Epom Etyen te E,Q.R, New
York: Vintage Books, 1955.
_____. Anti:Intellectnali§m_in_bmerican_Lifeo New

York: Vintage Books, 1962.

206

._____. ed. The_ProgressiyeIMQXementi_12Q92121§.
Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1963.

. "The Revolution in Higher Education," in Rethe
of_American_Inought. Arthur M- Schlesinger. Jr.,
and Morton White, eds., Boston: Houghton Mifflin,
1963.

Hoge. Dean R. Commitment_on_9ampus1__§hanges_in
Religion ang Velnes Qve: Eive Qeceges.
Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1974.

Holifield, E. Brooks. T ' 8'
Ame ican eo o o u - .
Durham: Duke University Press, 1978.

. H's o ' 'c '
§alvation to Selg-Reelizetien Nashville:
Abingdon Press, 1983.

Holmes. Arthur F- The_Idea_of_a_9hri§tian_gollegeo
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975.

— '

ed. The_Making_of_a_£hristian_nindi_a
’ Wor V e n 'se.
Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1985.

Horowitz, Helen Lefkowitz. Qenpne Lite: Undetgragnete

intures ftom the End of the Eighteenth Qentnpy to
the Rresent. Chicago: University of Chicago

press, 1987.

Horton, Michael Scott. ' r'ca:
of Mod eri a Ev lic s . Grand Rapids:
Baker, 1991.

Howard, David M. Th t woul t ° T

Eitth and onyth of the Werlg Eyengelieel

Eellowship, 184§-l2§§. Paternoster Press/World
Evangelical Fellowship, 1986.

Hudson, Winthrop S. Religion in Anerica. New York:

Charles Scribner's Sons, 1981.

Hughes, Richard T., ed. The Anetican Qnest ten the

Rhinitiye_§hnzeh. Urbana: University of Illinois
Press, 1988.
Hunt. Keith and Gladys. E2r_Qhri§t_and_the_nniyer§ityi_
St t C 'st n Fe ows o

the h,§,A.[1240-199Q. Downers Grove: InterVarsity
Press, 1991.

207

Hunter. James Davison- American_Eyangelicali§m1__
MW
hegepnity. New Brunswick: Rutgers University
Press, 1983.

. 1 'sm: e Comin G n 10 .

Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987.

. u e Wa s: t e e 'ca.
New York: Basic Books, 1991.

Hutchison, William R. The Modetnist lnpulse in
American_2r2testanti§m- New York: Oxford

University Press, 1976.

 

, ed. w e ° ' v
sta 's ' ’ - .
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989.

 

Jarrett, Derek. The Sle of R ason: F t s n

Reality From the Victorian Age to the First World
War. New York: Harper & Row, 1989.

Jencks, Christopher, David Riesman. The_Aeegenie
Revolution. Garden City: Doubleday, 1969.

 

Johnston, Robert K. an s 88 :
Eiblieal Autherity in Exactiee. Atlanta: John
Knox Press, 1979.
., ed. The Use 0 e 'b e
TheelogyzEvangelical Optiene. Atlanta: John Knox
Press, 1985.

Jorstad, Erling. The Rolitics of peenegey:

Fundamentalists of the he; Right. Nashville:
Abingdon Press, 1970.

. "Two on the Right: A Comparative Look at
Fundamentalism and New Evangelicalism," Letheten
Qnerterly 23 (May 1971): 107-117.

Kantzer. Kenneth 8.. ed. Eyangelical_322t§1__b_1rihute
te Wilhut Emith. Nashville: Nelson, 1978.

Kay, Thomas O. The Qhristian Answer to Communisn; The

Ropnlep hAE Study Geige. Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
1961,

Killen, R. Allen. "The Inadequacy of the New
Evangelicalism and the Need for a New and Better

Method," Tournal of the Evangelicel Theglegieel
Eeeiety 19 (Spring 1976): 113-120.

208

Kraus, C. Norman. Di ensa a ism 'n Ame ca: ts
Rise ene Eevelopment. Richmond: John Knox Press,
1958.

Kuenning, Paul P. d Fa of e ' a

Lntheten_2ietien. Macon: Mercer University
Press, 1988.

Kuklick. Bruce. MW
Cambpigge, heseaehueettes, l§60-l939. New Haven:

Yale University Press, 1977.

Kuhn, Thomas S. The t no u e o ien 'c
Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1970.

Lacey. Michael J -. ed. WW
intellectual Life. Washington D.C.: Woodrow

Wilson International Center for Scholars and
Cambridge University Press, 1989.

Lasch, Christopher. he Ne ic 's ' e
88 - 9 : Th I e u s c .
New York: Knopf, 1965.

. The Tr e and Onl Heave : ro ss ' s
Qtitics. New York: W. W. Norton, 1991.

Lawrence, Bruce B. hefendets of Gog: The
Enngenentalist Revolt Ageinst the hegepn Age. San

Francisco: Harper & Row, 1989.

Lears, T- J . Jackson. W

t o r is t r s
gnltnte. New York: Pantheon Books, 1981.
Leonard, Bill J. gog'e Lest eng Only hepe; The

Epagnentation ef the §outhern Beptiet Convention.
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990.

Levine. Lawrence W- WWW—William.
s ° 8 9 - 9 . New
York: Oxford University Press, 1965.

Liebman, Robert C., Robert Wuthnow, eds. The hew
' ' ob' i tio ' ° .
New York: Aldine Publishing, 1983.

Lightner, Robert P. Neo-Evangelicalisn. Findlay:
Dunham Publishing, 1962.

209

. "The New Evangelicals - Bystanders of the
Faith," Discerner. Part 1 in Volume 6 (July-
September 1969): 4-10. Part 2 in volume 6
(October-December 1969): 7-10.

Lindberg, David C., Ronald L. Numbers, eds. Qeg_eng_
ture: Histo cal Ess n t n o t e ween

Qhrietienity end Eeienee. Berkeley: University

of California Press, 1986.

Lindsell. Harold. The_Battle_for_the_Bihle- Grand

Rapids: Zondervan, 1976.

Livingstone, David N. a ' ' o te e 8'
he Encounter B e van Theol n

Evolntionary Thought. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1987.

Lotz, David W., ed. a so e8° 's
in America. 1935-198§. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1989.

Lovelace, Richard F. n i s o ' ' a :
Evangelicel Theelegy of Renewel. Downers Grove:
InterVarsity Press, 1979.

McDannell. Colleen. The_Qhristian.flome.in.¥istorian

Anerica, 1840-1999. Bloomington: Indiana
University Press, 1986.

Magnuson, Norris. Sa1xati2n_in.the_§lum§1__fiyangelical
§QQi§l_flQIKI_1§§§:lEZQ- Grand Rapids: Baker,
1990.

Malik, Charles Habib. C ' '
hniversity. Downers Grover: InterVarsity Press,
1982.

Marsden. George M- Eundamentali§m_snd_emerican
gnlture: The Shaping of Tyentieth-gentnpy
Evangelicalism. 1870-l92§. New York: Oxford

University Press, 1980.

. ed. Evengelicalisn eng hogetn Anetiee. Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984.

 

. ef Fu '5 :
e N w e i 's . Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1987.

210

. "Evangelicals and the Scientific Culture: An
Overview," in Religion eng Tyentieth-Qentnpy
Anericen Intellectual Life, Michael J. Lacey ed.,
Washington D.C.: Woodrow Wilson International
Center for Scholars and Cambridge University
press, 1989.

. Religign end American Qultute. San Diego:

Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1990.

_____- understanding_fundamentali§m_and
Evangelicelisn. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991.

. "The Soul of the American University," Eeenlty
hialegne 15 (Fall 1991): 83-118.

and Bradley L. Longfield, eds. The
Seculatization of the Academy. New York: Oxford

University Press, 1992.

 

Marty, Martin E. "Intruders in the Crowed Center,"
Christian Century 74 (July 3, 1957): 820-821.

. "Fundamentalism and the Church," thietien_
Centnty 74 (November 27, 1957): 1411-1413.

Marty, Martin E. A hatign o: Eehavepe. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1976.

. ode e o : T f t
1E2;;l2l2. Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
1986, Volume 1.

. l! d E O B J O O . I] I! 0 E
Qonfliet, 1912-1951. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1991, Volume 2.

, and R. Scott Appleby. e o 0 °
u mental st n e o t W d.
Boston: Beacon Press, 1992.

Masoner, David J. "What ‘Christian' Higher Education

Means: Philosophy, Process, and Product," on t
pielegne 9 (Fall 1987): 7-13.
Massa, Mark S. h rl s 3 us i 5 nd t e s's

pf histoticel griticisn. Minneapolis: Fortress
Press, 1990.

May, Henry F. The Eng pf Anepiean Innoeenee: A Etngy
of the Fitst Years of Our Oyn Tine, 12l2-l91 .
Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1964.

211

 

 

. t c t a .
New York: Harper & Row, 1967.

. s ait 8 ° ' a
Inte11e2tua1_and_Religisus.fiistoryi_12§2:12§z.

New York: Oxford University Press, 1983.

Mayers, Marvin K., Lawrence Richards, and Robert
Webber. es n v e c u .
Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1972.

Mead, Sidney, E. e 've me t: '
of.§hristianity_in_Amerisa- New York: Harper 8
Row, 1963.
. The Nation with the §eul pi e thpeh. Macon:

 

Mercer University Press, 1985 [1975].

Mecklin. John Moffatt- Ihe.§uryiyal_1alue_of
thietienity. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Co.,

1926.

Miller, Perry. Erreng inte the Wildetness. Cambridge:

Harvard University Press, 1956.

Moore. R- Laurence. Religi2us_Qutsiders_and_the_uaking
ef_Anetieen_. New York: Oxford University Press,

1986.
Nash, Roderick. Th v G ' : e
Thought, 1917-1930. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1970.
Nash, Ronald H. T e 'ca ' m. Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1963.
., ed. The Rhilosophy pf Qergon h, Qlezh; A

 

Eestsehpift. Philadelphia: Presbyterian and
Reformed, 1968.

_____n Eyangeli2als_in_Ameri221__Eh2_1hey_Arei_Ehat_
They_helieye. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1987.

Nelson. Rudolph- Ihe_Making_ang_pnmaking_of_an
e ' ’ ° Edw .
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987.

. "Fundamentalism at Harvard: The Case of Edward

John Carnell," ghetteply_Reyiey 2 (Summer 1982):
79-98.

 

212

Neuhaus, Richard John, Michael Cromartie, eds. Eiety_

eng Polities: Eyengelieels and Enngamenteliets

genitont the Wotlg. Washington D.C.: Ethics and
Public Policy Center, 1987.

Newbigin, Lesslie. o e s to G s-
Gospel ang Western gnltnte. Grand Rapids:

Eerdman, 1986.

Niebuhr, H. Richard. The hingeom of God in Aneziee.
Chicago: Willett, Clark & Company, 1937.

. thist ang inture. New York: Harper 8 Row,
1951.
. The So ia S ce . New
York: Living Age Books, 1958.
Noll, Mark A., ed. The Ptinceten Theelegy, lSlz-122l;
scriptnze. Ecience, eng Theological hethog {pen
chi exa er B 'am' B ' e

Warfiel . Grand Rapids: Baker, 1983.

. "Common Sense Traditions and American

Evangelical Thought." American_nuarterly 37
(Summer 1985): 216-238.

. Eetween Faith ang Criticisn: Eyengelicelsll
Scholarship, and the Bible in Anetica. San

Francisco: Harper & Row, 1986.

 

, and David F. Wells, eds., C s t d

2ra2tice_1n_the_uodern_flgrld- Grand RapidS:
Eerdmans, 1988.

_____. A_History_2f_Qhri_tianity_in_the_united_§fates
eng Qaneda. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992.

Numbers, Ronald L. 's 8: he t o f
' ' i e t ' . New York: Knopf, 1992.

Ownby. Ted. Suhduing_Satan1__Beligion1_8egreationi_and
Nanho2d_in_the_Rural_§outh1_1§§§:122_-
Chapel Hill: University of North
Carolina Press, 1990.

Patterson, Bob E. erl E, h. hen y. "Makers of the

Modern Theological Mind Series." Waco: Word
Books, 1983.

Pelikan, Jaroslav. The_QhrisLian_Intellectual- New
York: Harper & Row, 1965.

213

Perry, Lewis. I te e ' 'n c . New York:
Franklin Watts, 1984.
. ' s t° e
w e o - . New

York: Oxford University Press, 1993.

Peterson, Michael L. ' c ' s
eng thions. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press,
1986.

Plantinga, Alvin, Nicholas Walterstorff, eds. Eeith_
at o it : easo ' G . Notre
Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1983.

Postman. Neil. Q2nscientious_thection§1_§tirring_up_
Tr2uh1e_Ah2ut_Language1_Iechnologyi_and_fiducation

New York: Vintage Books, 1988.

_____. Iechnopol2y1_Ihe_Surrender_of_gulture_to
Teehnelegy. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1992.

Poythress, Vern So understending_nispensationalism-

Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1987.

Price, Robert M. "Neo-Evangelicals and Scripture: A

Forgotten Period of Ferment," thi_tien_§ehelezie
Review 15 (1986): 315-330.

Pyles, Volie E. "Bruised, Bloodied, and Broken':
Fundamentalism's Internecine Controversy in the

19608," Eiges et histepie 18 (October 1986): 45-
55.

Quebedeaux, Richard. The Yenng Eyangelicels;

Revelution in Orthogony. New York: Harper & Row,

 

1974.
. T W d va ' 8. San Francisco:
Harper & Row, 1978.

Ramm. Bernard. Ihe_Qhristian_Qollege_in_the_lwentieth
Century. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1963.
. v e ' ' ' o
Theelegy. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981 [1973].
. After Enndamentelisn: The Entnpe gt

 

Eyange112a1_1heology- San FranciscO: Harper &
Row, 1983.

214

Ramsey, Paul, John F. Wilson, eds. The Stugy of

0 Co es v r ' ' . Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 1970.
Randall, John Herman, Jr. The hahing of the hogern
hing; A Sntvey of the Intellectual Background of
the Ppesent Age. New York: Houghton Mifflin,

1940.

Reid. Daniel G- Dictionary_2f_Qhristianity_in_Americao
Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1990.

Rifkin, Jeremy and Ted Howard. The_Enetging_thett_Seg
in en Age of Scepeity. New York: G. P. Putnam's
Sons,1979.

Ringenberg, William C. o 'v ' °
12; Tee; . Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973.

. 's ° ' s
Highsr_Educatien_in_Amerisa. Grand Rapids:

Eerdmans, 1984.

Rogers, Jack and Donald McKim. The_Anthetity_eng_

ter retation o t e e: H'sto
Apppoach. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1979.

Rosas, Joseph L. III. "The Theology of Edward John

Carnell," Criswell Theological Review 4 (Spring
1990): 351—371.

Rosenau, Pualine Marie. s - od n's d c

Sc ences: Insi hts n oads o 8.
Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992.

Rosenberg, Ellen M. The Southern Baptists; A
Subcultute in Ttansitien. Knoxville: University
of Tennessee Press, 1989.

Rudnick, Milton L. Fundementelisn ang the hissonpi
Synod: A histepieel Stngy of Their Intezeetien eng
hutual influence. St. Louis: Concordia
Publishing House, 1966.

Rudolph, Frederick. The Anepican Qellege end
Univereity: A hietety. New York: Knopf, 1962.

Russell, C. Allyn. Voic ' :
Seven hipgraphieel Stugiee. Philadelphia:

Westminster Press, 1976.

215

Sandeen, Ernest R. "Toward a Historical Interpretation
of the Origins of Fundamentalism," thteh
hietepy, 36 (March 1967): 66-83.

h ots t 'sm: r' '

Anetican Millenarianism, 1S00-l930. Chicago:

University of Chicago Press, 1970.

Scorgie, Glen G. A_Qall_for_Qontinuityi__Ihe
Iheol9gisa1_Contrihntion_of_lames_grr

. Macon:

 

Mercer University Press, 1988.
Schultze, Quentin J., ed. '
the_heee_hegi_. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990.

. elevan el's n er'ca Cu ture: e

B s 0 ul ' . Grand Rapids:
Baker, 1991.

Sell. Alan P. F. Theology_in_Iurmoili__Ihe_Bgots1_
Qenpee ang ef the Qeneezvetiye-Lihepel thete in
heeepn_Theelegy. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1986.

Shelley. Bruce L. Eyangelicalism_in_8merica. Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1967. Baker, 1991.

Shepard, Robert S. 's ' ow :
Religion in the Eezly Anetiean University.
Brooklyn: Carlson Publishing, 1991.

Shippey. Frederick A. Erotestanti§m_in_§uhurhan_hifeo
Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1964.

Silk, Mark. ° ' ° ' '

Sp1ritual_E2l1ti2si__8e11919n_and_bmerica
Sinee_hetle_he;_ll. New York: Simon & Schuster,
1988.

Smith. Gary Scott. The_Seeds.of.§ecularization1_
v' 's lt ' c
1819:1215. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985.

Smith, Timothy L. Reyiyelisn and Soeiel Refetn:
° s 's C'v'
hep. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University
Press, 1980.

"The Evangelical Kaleidoscope and the Call to

Christian Unity." Christian_S_h91ar_s_Beyiew 15
(1986):125-140.

Stackhouse, John G., Jr. "Who Follows in His Train?’
Edward John Carnell as a Model for Evangelical
Theology," Crnn 21 (June 1985): 19-27.

216
stevenson. Louise L. W

8' e ave Sc 0 ars and the
ransformation of Hi her earn' i e c
lSSO-189Q. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins
University Press, 1986.

Stevik, Daniel B. Be 0 d u amen m. Richmond:
John Knox Press, 1964.

Stonehouse, Ned B. °
hemoir. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 1954.
stout. Harry 8. WW
'se 0 d e ic . Grand

Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991.
strout. Cushing. ed. WW

Etom Earwin to hiehnht. New York: Harper & Row,
1968. Vol. 2.

Susman, Warren I. Cnlture es Histgty: The

Transfo ation 'ca S e i
Twentieth Centuty. New York: Pantheon Books,
1984.

Sweeney, Douglas A. "Fundamentalism and the Neo-

Evangelicals," Eides et histotie 24
(Winter/Spring 1992): 81-96.

Sweet. Leonard. ed- WM
Ametica. Macon: Mercer University Press, 1984.

Sweet, William Warren. ' ' ' ° ts
Qpigin, Stowthl end lnflnenee. New York:

Abingdon Press, 1944.

Synan. Vinson. Wilma-WW.
the_hniteg_Stetee. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971.

Szasz, Ferenc Morton.
c - . University: University of
Alabama Press, 1982.

Thompson, James J., Jr. Tpieg as hy Rite; Southern

t s s nd the Rel' 'ous Co 0 e s e o e
lgzg_. Macon: Mercer University Press, 1982.

Trembath, Kern Robert. v a o
' 'ca ' ' ° A v' w a s . New
York: Oxford University Press, 1987.

217

Trollinger, William Vance, Jr. Go 's i e: William
hell Riley end highestetn Fundamentelisn.

Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1990.

Turner, James. Withont Gee, Without Steeg: The
' U ' . Baltimore: The

Johns Hopkins University Press, 1985.

Tuveson. Ernest Lee. Eedeemer_Nation1__The_Idea_of_
Amerisals_uillennial_821e- ChicagO: University
of Chicago Press, 1968.

Varghese, Roy Abraham, ed., The intellectuals Speak Out
About Gog. Chicago: Regnery Gateway, 1984.

Veysey, Lawrence R. e r ce 0 ' a
hnivetsity. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1965.

Wacker, Grant. Augnstus h. Sttong ang the Dilenne of
hieteticel Conseionenese. Macon: Mercer
University Press, 1985.

_____ "The Holy Spirit and the Spirit of the Age in
American Protestantism, 1880-1910," Journal_2f

American_fli§tory. 72 (June 1985): 45-62-

Wall, James M, ed. heolo ' ns ' Tra s tio : he
thistien Qentuty "hey hy hind hee Chengeg"

Setiee. New York: Crossroad, 1981.

Watt, David Harrington. A Ttenefetning Eaith;
Enplorations of Tyentieth-Qentnty Anerieen
Exengelieelien. New Brunswick: Rutgers

University Press, 1991.

Weber, Timothy P. Liying in the Shadow of the Seeond
Coming: Anepieen Rrenillennielisn, 1875-lggg.

Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1983.

. "Finding Someone to Blame: Fundamentalism and
Anti-Semitic Conspiracy Theories in the 1930s,"

Eiges et histopie 24 (Summer 1992): 40-55.

Wells, David F. and John D. Woodbridge, eds., The_
Evengelicals: hhat They Eelieve, hho They Are,

Where They Ate Qhenging. Grand Rapids: Baker,
1975.

Wenger, Robert E. "Social Thought in American
Fundamentalism." Ph.D dissertation, University of
Nebraska, 1973.

218

Wesche, Lilburn E. "Can the Christian College
Educate?" Faculty Dialogue 13 (Winter 1990): 35-

41.
White, Edward A. Sc'en e n Reli ion 1 e
o : e Nat a is . Stanford:
Stanford University Press, 1952.

White, Morton. Ptagnatisn end the Anetiean hing;
Essays ang Reviews in Ehilosophy ang intelleetnel
histoty. New York: Oxford University Press,
1973.

Wiebe, Robert H. The Seatch for Order. 1877-19;_. New
York: Hill & Wang, 1967.

Wilkes, Peter, ed. Chtistianity Challenges the
hniversity. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press,

1981.

Wilson, John F. Ruhlie Religion in American inture.
Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1979.

Woodbridge, John D., Mark A. Noll, Nathan 0. Hatch, et

al., eds. The Gospel in America: Themes in the
Stery e: Anerica's Evangelicals. Grand Rapids:

Zondervan, 1982.

Wuthnow, Robert. The Restrnetuting oi Anepiean
Religign: Society and Eaith Since Woplg Wan iI.

Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1988.

. The Struggle fez Anetice's Sonl: Evengelicels,
Libetals, and Secularisn. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1989.

"mmmi“