Chapter 8
Intellectuals in Residence
Universities and colleges have “scholars in residence” for a term or two. The scholar in residence is a person who has distinguished himself in academia and who is frequently in the vanguard of thought in some particular area. New evangelicalism, as a school of thought, has its intellectuals in residence. My father, in Evangelicalism: The New Neutralism, designated Dr. Francis Schaeffer as then occupying the Chair of Intellectual in Residence in the movement. Schaeffer has now passed from the scene, but there are certain men and women of scholarly bent whose names seem to be in the vanguard of new evangelical thought.
In this chapter I do not claim to have collected all the names. In fact, I may have missed some of the most important ones. However, those whom I have chosen for comment are those whose names seem to come to the forefront repeatedly in my reading. I am certain that they are typical of the intellectuals in residence in new evangelicalism.
Dr. Vernon Grounds
One such intellectual in residence is Dr. Vernon Grounds. Grounds began his college education at Rutgers as an unsaved student. He was born again during his student days and graduated Phi Beta Kappa. He then enrolled in fundamentalist Faith Theological Seminary in Wilmington, Delaware. After his graduation there, he enrolled at Drew University, one of the most liberal Methodist schools in the country There he was exposed to blatant unbelief and the social action challenge.
He served as dean and professor of theology at Baptist Bible Seminary in Johnson City, New York. This was a good school of the General Association of Regular Baptists in a day when the GARBC was still solidly in the fundamentalist camp. In 1951 he became dean, and later president, of the Conservative Baptist Theological Seminary in Denver. He served as the school’s president until his retirement in 1979. The Conservative Baptist Association is made up of non-separatist Northern Baptists who did not wish to leave the denomination. The Association recently joined the National Association of Evangelicals. If you look over the roster of participants in the notable social action conferences of new evangelicalism you will find Dr. Grounds listed as a frequent participant. He has served as President of Evangelicals for Social Action, one of new evangelicalism’s left-wing social activist organizations.
Waging Peace at Harvard
As we saw in a previous chapter, one of the marks of new evangelicalism is a determination to dialogue with the apostasy Another way of putting this is to say that the new evangelical lacks any sensitivity to the need for a Biblical separation from unbelief. Dr. Grounds is a good illustration of this lack. The Harvard Divinity Bulletin for June-July 1981 documents Dr. Grounds’ participation in the Waging Peace Conference at Harvard Divinity School, May 1-2, 1981. Even many seasoned new evangelicals would have been troubled by some of Grounds’ fellow participants. One was the atheistic Dr. Harvey Cox, author of The Secular City. Another was the radical Dr. William Sloane Coffin, senior minister of the notorious Riverside Church in New York City. Another was Ernesto Cardenal, the minister of culture for the communist Sandinista government of Nicaragua at the time. The Harvard Divinity Bulletin makes the following comment on Grounds’ participation:
Vernon Grounds, President Emeritus of Denver Theological Seminary, praised Evangelical leaders Senator Mark Hatfield and evangelist Billy Graham for their opposition to the arms race and their advocacy of a nuclear moratorium, but expressed his `concern about evangelicalism’s unconcern’ with the nuclear arms race. It is the church’s mission, Grounds said, to bring about the Biblical vision of shalom, peace with justice, as an integral part of the preaching of the Gospel.
That sounds very pious, but can you give me the reference where Christ ever said that it is the church’s mission to bring world peace? It seems to me that Jehu’s rebuke to Jehoshaphat after he had companied with Ahab would be appropriate. The prophet said, “Shouldest thou help the ungodly, and love them that hate the Lord? therefore is wrath upon thee from before the Lord:” (2 Chronicles 19:2)
Christianity Today for June 2, 1978 reported on a consultation titled, “The Future of the Missionary Enterprise,” held at the Independent Overseas Ministries Study Center in Ventnor, New Jersey The consultation was a thoroughly socialistic confab. In reporting the meeting the magazine commented that the participants “at times seemed intent on dismantling and replacing political systems that create and perpetuate suffering, injustice and social evils.” The keynote address was given by Emilio Castro, an Uruguayan Methodist, then serving as director of the World Council of Churches Commission on World Mission and Evangelism. In 1984 Castro became General Secretary of the World Council of Churches. Other speakers were Mortimer Arias, former Methodist Bishop of Bolivia and Father Thomas Stransky former president of the Catholic Paulist Fathers. It is obvious to the most casual reader that this was a conference of notable ecumenicists, including Roman Catholics. The guest Bible teacher for this hodge-podge of unbelief was none other than Dr. Vernon Grounds. His lectures were titled, “Towards a Socialized Spirituality”. He defended his participation by saying that the meeting offered an opportunity for evangelicals to learn firsthand the dynamics and directions of the ecumenical movement.”
Do the Scriptures teach that believers are to be some kind of a spiritual C.I.A. to infiltrate the ecumenical movement? Rather, God has said, “Come out from among them and be ye separate…”
Ronald J. Sider
At Campus Crusade’s Explo ’72 there was a brief, backstage anti-war demonstration, led by seminarian Jim Wallis of Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Deerfield, Illinois. Wallis and a few others pushed for an evangelical forum on social concerns. A committee soon took shape. The coordinator for the event was Dr. Ronald J. Sider of Messiah College. Christianity Today for December 21. 1973. in writing about the event. identified Messiah College as “a pacifist-oriented Brethren in Christ school in southeastern Pennsylvania:” The committee which materialized met at the Thanksgiving holiday in 1972 at Chicago’s Wabash YMCA. The participants in the forum produced. and most signed, a document known as “The Chicago Declaration”.
The Chicago Declaration
This declaration, titled by the participants “A Declaration of Evangelical and Social Concern,” accuses America of being an unjust society and proceeds to confess our corporate sins. It bothers me to have someone else confessing my sins, particularly when it sounds as if it might be a visiting communist commissar in the confessional. Parts of the Declaration read as follows:
We acknowledge that God requires justice. But we have not proclaimed or demonstrated his justice to an unjust American society. Although the Lord calls us to defend the social and economic rights of the poor and oppressed, we have mostly remained silent…
We must attack the materialism of our culture and the maldistribution of the nation’s wealth and services. We recognize that as a nation we play a crucial role in the imbalance and injustice of international trade and development. Before God and a billion hungry neighbors, me must rethink our values regarding our present standard of living and promote more just acquisition and distribution of the world’s resources…
We acknowledge our Christian responsibilities of citizenship. Therefore, we must challenge the misplaced trust of the nation in economic and military might a proud trust that promotes a national pathology of war and violence which victimizes our neighbors at home and abroad…
We acknowledge that we have encouraged men to prideful domination and women to irresponsible passivity.
No godly American can be happy about our nation today. Any Christian must be grieved by abortion, unrighteousness, drunkenness, drugs, pornography, wickedness in high places, the removal of the Bible and prayer from our schools, and a state religion of secular humanism. Yet, recognizing our sinful state is one thing, and repeating the anti-American charges against our nation is another.
When Paul counseled with James, Cephas and John at Jerusalem, they added one word to him: “Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do.” We read in Acts 11 that Paul acted as a courier from the Church at Antioch to take a charity offering to the brethren in Judea. Later he brought a similar offering to the saints at Jerusalem from the churches of the west. That is the kind of thing Scripture teaches that we ought to do. Our faith is to make us succorers of the poor (especially among the brethren) but not sponsors of the economic rights of the poor. The church was never charged to address the imbalance and injustice of international trade. Is it the business of the church to accuse our nation of “a national pathology of war and violence”? As a pastor I have encouraged godly men to take the leadership of their homes and godly women to follow that lead. Is that encouraging men “to prideful domination and women to irresponsible passivity”? The last statement sounds more like Bella Abzug than a faithful pastor.
Who Signed
Among the signers of this leftist declaration, Christianity Today listed Samuel Escobar of InterVarsity Christian Fellowship, Carl E H. Henry, a former editor of Christianity Today, Professor Bernard Ramm, Foy Valentine of the Southern Baptist Convention, author Joseph Bayly and Sharon Gallagher of the Christian World Liberation Front of Berkely. Of all the names, the last would seem to be the most in place.
Out of the conference in Chicago developed a new organization, Evangelicals for Social Action. Ronald Sider has served as President of that group and also as Executive Director. Vernon Grounds has also served as Evangelicals for Social Action President. Sider is a well of radical ideas, but he does practice what he preaches. His family led a group of about 40 adults and children in moving into a decaying section of the Germantown district in Philadelphia, organizing themselves into a church called the Jubilee Fellowship.
Meeting a Russian Invasion
Speaking at a conference billed as, “The Church and Peacemaking in a Nuclear Age,” Sider gave this Ghandi-like policy for meeting an invading Russian army: “We would meet them on the shores, on our knees, praying for them, but standing together and vowing not to cooperate with any of their orders:” (Might I suggest that they also sing, “We Shall Overcome”?) In the rest of his speech Sider proposed dismantling the U.S. military complex. According to the Fundamental News Service, August 1983, the conference was organized by 18 groups which included Evangelicals for Social Action and Youth for Christ.
Sider wrote a book titled, Completely Pro-Life, published by InterVarsity. Reading the title I almost said, “At last, I can agree.” The book was reviewed in WORLD for October 5, 1987 and in Christianity Today for October 21, 1988. The reviews reveal that the book goes considerably beyond opposition to abortion. WORLD says the following:
In this latest work, Sider proposes that Christians adopt a more thoroughgoing approach to `life’ issues. Most notably, he ties together an anti-abortion stance with an anti-nuclear weapons stance.
Christianity Today said the following:
The book, in one respect, is a statement of the position of Evangelicals for Social Action. Ron Sider president of ESA was assisted by qualified ESA staff, who contributed about one third of the material. The teamwork itself is a witness to the consensus of ‘thought that does already exist among many evangelicals on the issues of abortion, the family, nuclear weapons, and responsibility to the poor.
Clever Combination
I would grant, or at least hope, that there is unity among evangelicals on opposition to abortion. However, what consensus would there be on things such as nuclear arms? Sider himself answered that question in an interview with Christianity Today for July 10, 1987:
I estimate that at least 25 percent of the country’s 35 to 50 million evangelicals agree with ESA’s approach. They want to say no to an unrestrained nuclear arms race, the Strategic Defense Initiative, and abortion. They want to say yes to the family, the environment, and a bi-lateral and verifiable nuclear freeze.
The quotation shows that Sider is a point man who recognizes that most of the movement is not yet with him, but he intends to lead it in that direction. Notice the clever way that he seeks to sanctify a political agenda by joining it to abortion and the family. It should come as no surprise that the WORLD review states that Sider “calls for rejection of ‘doctrinaire anticommunism’ which he says often degenerates into an unbiblical hatred for the Soviet people rather than the Soviet system.” That statement glosses over the fact that what he calls “doctrinaire anticommunism” has always been a study of the Soviet system and never of the Soviet people.
Before leaving Ronald J. Sider and Evangelicals for Social Action it might be well to point out a few others who have served on the Board of ESA and apparently share its viewpoint. Calvary Contender for September 1, 1987 says that Dr. Tony Campolo of Eastern College (formerly Eastern Baptist), Dr. Richard Lovelace of Gordon-Conwell Seminary and Evangelist Tom Skinner are serving, or have served on the board of ESA. The Advisory Board includes Jay Kesler, John Perkins, David Hubbard and Senator Mark Hatfield of Oregon.
Ronald J. Sider is certainly one of the intellectuals in residence in the social action phalanx of new evangelicalism. He writes the books that new evangelicals read, review and recommend to their churches.
Anthony (Tony) Campolo
Every college has at least one professor whom you “must take” to have a real education. Students will say, “You haven’t lived until you have had Anthropology 101 from Dr. Blank.” On the campus of Eastern College in St. David’s, Pennsylvania, that magical professor is Chairman of the Sociology Department, Dr. Tony Campolo. A recent clipping also lists him as an Associate Pastor of Mt. Carmel Baptist Church in Philadelphia. Christianity Today characterizes his style as being that of “confrontation, hyperbole and wit.” That should make for an interesting course.
Eastern College students have not been alone in enjoying that style. As I read the speakers’ lists for the explos and extravaganzas of new evangelicalism I find Dr. Campolo’s name recurring. He has been a featured speaker for InterVarsity Christian Fellowhip, Youth for Christ and the National Council of Churches. He has written for World Vision, appeared on Dr. James Dobson’s Focus on the Family and produced educational videos for David C. Cook.
Too New for New Evangelicals
A few years ago Dr. Campolo was booked to be a main speaker at Youth Congress ’85 in Washington, D.C. The Congress was a characteristic new evangelical extravaganza expected to bring 15,000 teenagers to the capitol city The event was cosponsored by Campus Crusade for Christ and Youth for Christ. However, a group of Evangelical Free Church pastors in Illinois had read Campolo’s book, A Reasonable Faith, and decided that it was not so reasonable. They protested his appearance and declined to have their young people attend if the invitation to Campolo was not rescinded. On receiving this news and investigating the controversial statements, the sponsoring organizations cancelled Campolo’s invitation. Youth for Christ’s Jay Kesler still defended Campolo but went along with the cancellation for the sake of unity We have already observed the neutralism of Campus Crusade, but here was a speaker who was too new evangelical for the new evangelicals. That is truly a distinction. Since new evangelicalism has taken such a laissez-faire attitude toward reexamining traditional theology, how extreme could Campolo be?
Divinity in Every Man
The result of this controversy was a three-part report in Christianity Today for September 20. 1985, covering most of nine pages of the magazine. According to this report:
The focal point of the controversy in A Reasonable Faith is Campolo’s development of the idea that Christ lives in all human beings, whether or not they are Christians. Campolo asserts in his book that he is not merely saying that all people reflect the image of God, but that the resurrected Jesus of history ‘actually is present’ in each person. In addition, Campolo raised eyebrows with such statements as ‘Jesus is the only Savior, but not everybody who is being saved by Him is aware that He is the one who is doing the saving.’
That sounds strangely like the idea that each man may come to God in his own way without any understanding of God’s way of salvation. This sounds even more suspicious in words from World Vision for November 1988 quoted in the Calvary Contender for April 1, 1991: “I believe going to heaven is like going to Philadelphia… There are many ways… It doesn’t make any difference how we go there. We all end up in the same place.”
Later in the three-part article, when asked by the Christianity Today editors about the coming of the Holy Spirit to indwell believers, Campolo stated the following:
The difference is this: God is at work in every human being, as it says in Romans. Every human being is approached by God. But the nature of every human being is to be at war with the God who is struggling to love him or her. When one surrenders to God, the power of the Holy Spirit breaks loose in that individual as never before, and all the fruits of the Spirit become operative in that person’s life.
In other words, he views the Holy Spirit as being present in every man, but as breaking forth in new freedom when the man is saved. That is quite different from Christ’s statement to His disciples in the upper room: `And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you forever…” (John 14:16) Campolo’s view seems quite related to the modernist’s conception of a little bit of divinity in every man.
Campolo is against the use of the words of historic theological statements. Christianity Today quotes him as stating:
Evangelical Christianity is becoming intellectually sterile,’ he said. I’m worried that evangelical intellectuals will not say anything except the old worn out terminology that only causes people to smile on us benevolently’
Campolo said he regards himself as a victim in what he called a ‘wave of religious McCarthyism.’
Our Christology in particular was hammered out by godly men in the first few centuries of Christianity who argued over the specific meaning of the Greek words of their own language. They defined very explicitly the deity and humanity of Jesus Christ. Good theology through the years has retained their words because of their accuracy and perspicacity in setting forth the nature of Jesus Christ. My own theological eye teeth were cut on the three volumes of Charles Hodge. With Hodge I always had to keep my dictionary handy but I never thought he was guilty of “old worn out terminology.” And, although this is not theological, poor Joseph McCarthy! He cannot rest in peace, for he gets resurrected every time a liberal politician or theologian feels the heat.
When you read some of Campolo you realize that, like many new evangelicals he is striving to be accepted by the world. He seems determined that the natural man will see that the gospel is reasonable. Consciously or unconsciously his whole approach to being reasonable fights with the clear statement of Scripture that “…the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them. because they are spiritually discerned” (I Corinthians 2:14).
New Evangelical Dialectic
Campolo is a man whose thinking is filled with contradictions which he sets side by side in a dialectical manner, assuming that both facts are true. It is rare to see a man claim a belief in inerrancy and a belief in evolution in the same paragraph. Christianity Today states the following:
Tony vigorously affirms that the Bible is inerrant, but he says all our interpretations of the Bible must be submitted to the authority of the church. While he accepts an evolutionary view of the origin of man and the universe (albeit not Darwin’s version), he holds that this is consistent with Scripture that teaches only the fact (not the method) of Creation.
In plain words, he is obviously a theistic evolutionist.
Which Team?
Godly people of a scholarly bent have always had a great respect for the Christian thinkers of the past. Campolo has chosen a different set of heroes.
In his appeal to the secular mind, Tony frequently downplays orthodox heroes like Luther, Calvin, and Wesley and draws his insights selectively from Karl Marx, Paul Tillich, Martin Buber and Teilhard de Chardin. Often he finds that the secular world view has embedded within it ‘more faith than I find in most churchmen.’
If I could choose my team of heroes, I would choose the three suited up in the uniform of faith over the four wearing the colors of unbelief.
Campolo’s definition of history, taken from the same issue of Christianity Today, has a familiar ring to it: “History is a class struggle between the oppressed peoples of the world and their oppressors.” Familiar? Yes, but doesn’t it seem strange that a Christian and the communists would share the same view of history? In one of his latest books, Wake Up America, Campolo praised communist heroes such as James Cone and Martin Luther King, the blasphemous German theologian Dietrich Bonhoffer and fellow new evangelical radical Ronald Sider. At a National Council of Churches meeting in May of 1988, the Christian News for June 6, 1988 reported that he praised the Catholic nun, Mother Teresa, and stated that “Ghandi was more Christian than most Christians.” The liberals love to say such things, but how can a man who rejected Christ be more Christian than anybody? The Cleveland Plain Dealer for February 16, 1991 reported an appearance in that city at the Epworth-Euclid United Methodist Church, one of Cleveland’s most radical. The article further stated that “During his appearance here, he will also boost the Cleveland chapter of Habitat for Humanity, a program that helps the poor obtain decent housing.” That program has been championed by exPresident Jimmy Carter, who is frequently pictured swinging his hammer on its behalf.
There you have it: some observations on a new evangelical too new evangelical for Campus Crusade. Surely Dr. Campolo’s statements, aired for all to see in Christianity Today, would be a warning to other groups. No, that is not new evangelicalism. At Urbana ’87, the very next InterVarsity Missionary Conference after the exposure of 1985, Dr. Campolo was one of the featured speakers to the 18,700 delegates assembled at the University of Illinois. When Campus Crusade lets me down, surely InterVarsity will take me up.
Roberta Hestenes
In this day of equal rights for women one dare not be guilty of speaking of male new evangelicals only. Turning from Tony Campolo, let’s take a brief look at his boss, Roberta Hestenes, President of Eastern College.
Christianity Today for March 3, 1989, in an article titled, “Roberta Hestenes: Taking Charge” states the following:
As president of Eastern College in St. Davids, Pennsylvania, she is the first woman in that position among the schools of the evangelical Christian College Coalition. As the activist chairman of World Vision, she exerts power in one of the largest parachurch organizations in the world.
Hestenes came out of a tragic family background. She attended Whittier College in California and came to Christ at a small Quaker church as a result of the influence of the faculty advisor to the Lutheran student group. After moving to Washington State with her husband and family she came under the influence of Dr. Robert Munger of the University Presbyterian Church in Seattle. Through responsibilities in that church, her abilities as a teacher and organizer became known. In 1969 Munger moved to the faculty of Fuller Seminary and was not content until Hestenes followed.
George Marsden, in his Reforming Fundamentalism, chronicles the movement at Fuller to change the emphasis of the school from that of a seminary to more of a trade school. On page 274 he says the following:
As we have seen, the School of Psychology and the School of World Mission were, by their very natures, oriented toward the practical, and many of their faculty had little patience with the old seminary ideal. Now, however, at the School of Theology itself, such views were common. Especially in the practical field, spokespersons such as the influential Roberta Hestenes, a Robert Munger protégé, emphasized that a seminary was not just the intellectual center of the Body of Christ, but also a theological resource center for ministry or service in the broad sense. For this purpose, spiritual formation was probably more important than theological precision.
Christianity Today, in the issue mentioned previously also noted this thought:
Hestenes made a mark at Fuller… Not content merely to teach communications, she helped invent a new major, something called Christian Formation and Discipleship. Within the name is an assertion: making disciples, not accumulating knowledge, should be at the heart of the seminary as well as the church.
Seminaries have always argued over the nature of their course. My own training was at a school which carried on the Princeton tradition that the curriculum should be language, exegesis, theology and church history. We students always sang the tune that we needed more practical courses. After forty years in the ministry I confess that I have needed all four of the disciplines seminary gave me. Hestenes was on the other side of that argument. I think that is why it does not trouble her to have Dr. Campolo’s indefinite theology on the faculty It would seem that she values service more than theological precision.
Hestenes stayed at Fuller to earn the traditional seminary degree and a Doctor of Ministries. She was ordained in the United Presbyterian Church. So, an ordained Presbyterian minister is President of an American Baptist School. Both denominations are part of the National and World Councils of Churches.
Truly a Christian
Hestenes, like her employee, Campolo, was a speaker at Urbana ’87. Moody for February, 1988 quoted her as saying that “One is not truly a Christian until their heart has been broken by the things that break the heart of Jesus.” She was speaking of social action. That is a high sounding statement. Is it theologically true? No, one is a Christian the moment he is convicted by the Holy Spirit and casts his all on Christ. At that moment he is truly a Christian. He will be no more “truly a Christian” after years of Christian service. Her statement, in its context, seeks to make the new evangelical point that the saving gospel and the social gospel are equal halves of the same thing.
Communion at Lausanne II
The Second International Congress on World Evangelization was held July 11-20, 1989 in Manila, the Philippines. It is commonly referred to as Lausanne II and was a follow-up of what was begun at Lausanne ’74. The speaker at the communion service was none other than the ordained Presbyterian lady from the Baptist college, Roberta Hestenes. The theme of her message was ecumenicity. Foundation, whose reporter personally covered the meeting, in its issue of May-July 1989, quoted her message as follows:
One obstacle we must face is our attitude as evangelicals toward those whose traditions are other than our own. And there are great difficulties, and burdens, and problems here. But toward those who are fellow Christians in The Roman Catholic and Orthodox traditions, to those fellow Christians in the Conciliar and Ecumenical movement, to those fellow Christians in the Pentecostal and charismatic or non-Pentecostal and non-charismatic movements – we must acknowledge that God, Who is Lord of the whole Church, is doing astonishing things among many parts of His Church.
Notice again the new evangelical penchant for dismissing all church history and sound doctrine with a snuff of contempt and claiming as brethren all who have any semblance of churchianity There may be true believers among the Roman Catholics, the ecumenicals and the charismatic movement. Wherever we find them, they are to be pitied and helped into the full light of the Word of God. To embrace them as equals, while we leave them bound in the darkness of Catholicism, the blasphemy of ecumenism and the confusion of charismaticism, is to fail to discharge our Scriptural duty to those who have erred.
In 1980 Hestenes joined the board of World Vision. She rose to chairman of that board. It is interesting that the current president of World Vision is Robert A. Seiple. Before coming to that position, he was Hestenes’ predecessor as president of Eastern College. World Vision has been one of the most radical of the social action arms of new evangelicalism. Foundation magazine for November/December 1982 reproduced a copy of information sent out by World Vision in November 1981, to one of their contributors who requested a statement of their position. Observe that Mrs. Hestenes was a member of the board at that time.
World Vision’s view of the church is broad and inclusive, rather than narrow and exclusive. We hold to a traditional evangelical Protestant view of the church. We believe that the true church is made up of those whom God has redeemed through their faith in Jesus as His Son. We recognize that there are some churches who claim to be Christian, but in whom we find no common belief in the uniqueness of Christ and the lostness of non-believers. At the same time we find no scriptural mandate for excluding ourselves from any who name Christ as Lord.
Notice how cleverly the statement gives a correct view of the true church and then justifies cooperation with the apostate church. For a Scriptural mandate they might try 2 Corinthians 6:14-18.
The statement goes on to say:
We believe that there are large numbers of Christians in many different ecclesiastical traditions. In many countries we are working alongside and sometimes with members and officials of other traditions, such as the Roman Catholic. We have at times, been criticized because of our cooperation with this and other expressions of the church.
Catholicism, to World Vision, is just one of the “other expressions of the church.” Like other neutralists, they are unaware of the sixteenth-century Reformation. We have seen this same neutralist blind spot in the National Association of Evangelicals, Billy Graham and Campus Crusade. It is a neutralist trademark to count Catholics as equal believers and to cease evangelism. Every born-again ex-Catholic knows that is wrong.
Let me quote one final paragraph from the World Vision document:
We will always consider who has the knowledge, skills and experience to carry out a particular project. If we are faced with a situation in which evangelicals do not have the gift and experience that are required we will carefully consider the impact of our cooperation with other more qualified groups, and the overall impact on the effectiveness of Christ’s ministry. In all of this, we will make every attempt to insure that our assistance or cooperation will not be used as a divisive force between Christians.
Do you see through that paragraph? In essence it says, “We will try to do the task with Christians, but if that doesn’t work, we will do it with the unsaved.”
Hand in Hand with Hammer
World Vision practices what it preaches. Those with long memories may remember a terrible earthquake in Armenia about the end of 1987. Christianity Today for January 13, 1989 said that when news of the earthquake arrived, ideological differences were quickly set aside. “Within days of the earthquake, World Vision combined efforts with industrialist Armand Hammer to present a $1 million relief gift to Mikhail Gorbachev…” Readers will recognize Armand Hammer as one of our nation’s premier Soviet sympathizers.
Might I ask, “What fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness?” (2 Corinthians 6:14). The context of that question is the context of being yoked with unbelievers in spiritual work. World Vision has deliberately decided on disobedience. This is not the result of Mrs. Hestenes’ leadership, for World Vision had these policies before she ever sat on the board. However, she has apparently acquiesced in them.
My latest mailing from World Vision (February 1992) over the signature of Robert Seiple, President, begins as follows: “I have some great news! World Vision has been given $1 million in U.S. government grants for our children’s programs.” The letter is accompanied by a double set of facsimile checks which shows that the government will double match my gift of $10.00. Wait just a minute. In these days of “separation of church and state.” how does a “Christian” relief organization get double matching funds from the U.S. government? I don’t know the answer to that.
As I have read and written about Roberta Hestenes, another intellectual in residence, I was touched by the testimony of her conversion, but troubled by her part in new evangelicalism. Her career includes being President of Eastern College, Chairman of the Board of World Vision, and participating in two National Council of Churches’ connections. That is confusing. That is neutralism.
Dr. Arthur F. Glasser
The time is 1973. The place is Bangkok, Thailand. The occasion is a conference of the World Council of Churches, the official leadership body of worldwide apostasy Dr. Arthur F. Glasser sits on a committee to produce one of the conference reports. He is not there as an observer of apostasy but as a participant. He is on the Steering Committee for the conference and is the main author of the report of his group titled, “Affirmation on Salvation Today”
Who is Dr. Arthur F. Glasser and what is he doing at a meeting of the World Council of Churches? Glasser is a prominent new evangelical who is followed by many in the mission area of the movement. Surprisingly he received his theological education at separatist Faith Theological Seminary. He became a mission executive with the China Inland Mission, later to become the Overseas Missionary Fellowship. By the date of the conference mentioned above he was Dean of the School of World Mission at Fuller Theological Seminary. He held his denominational membership in the Reformed Presbyterian Church, Evangelical Synod. That body also came out of a separatist beginning. In 1936 the Orthodox Presbyterian Church was formed by pastors and laymen who separated from the Presbyterian Church U.S.A. because of its apostasy. J. Gresham Machen was its first moderator. A year later the Bible Presbyterian Church emerged from this beginning. Out of this group came the Evangelical Presbyterian Church in 1956. The main issue of division was separation from apostasy and compromise. The Bible Presbyterian Church took the stronger side; the Evangelical Presbyterian Church took the weaker. In 1965 this latter body merged with the Reformed Presbyterian Church in North America to form the Reformed Presbyterian Church, Evangelical Synod. Later the group was to become part of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) and become a constituent body of the National Association of Evangelicals. Despite its separatist parentage, to the best of my knowledge, there was never any movement in the Reformed Presbyterian Church, Evangelical Synod to discipline a ministerial member for being an official part of world apostasy This illustrates the dizzying, downward course of new evangelicalism. In 1936 Glasser’s seminary professors and ministerial forebears were leaving the apostasy of the Presbyterian Church U.S.A. By 1973 they could sit idly by as a ministerial brother went to Bangkok to join fellowship with worse apostates than those their forebears left thirty-seven years before.
In May 1980 the World Council of Churches was again in a Conference on Mission and Evangelism in Melbourne, Australia. Dr. Glasser was present and participated. His example had paved a path for other new evangelicals to follow. The new evangelical publication, New Life, for June 5, 1980 listed the names of sixteen “evangelicals” present at Melbourne. The list included Waldron Scott, General Secretary of the World Evangelical Fellowship; Orlando Costas, Professor of Missiology at Eastern Baptist Seminary; Bruce Nicholls, Executive Secretary of the Theology Commission of the World Evangelical Fellowship; Clark Pinnock, Professor of Theology at McMaster University in Toronto and Gottfried Osei-Mensah, Executive Secretary of the Lausanne Committee for World Evangelization. You will recall that the Lausanne Committee was a Billy Graham project. I do not know the parts taken by these new evangelical delegates. I do know that Pinnock officially participated in a section titled, “Witnessing to the Kingdom.”
Glasser, in an interview with New Life for July 3, 1980 commented on what he termed the progress between Bangkok and Melbourne. He said as follows:
Yes, l could wish there had been more rapid progress because I still feel a tension within the gathering. But I do feel there was some progress. Repentance, faith – these were mentioned and mentioned rather frequently in the section I was with.
Here, in the bosom of a group which rejects Biblical inerrancy, the substitutionary atonement, and espouses Marxist-style socialism, Glasser is encouraged that they mention repentance and faith. Pinnock, also commenting in New Life said as follows:
In this Conference we have a new social gospel, and a lot of people thinking there is a new hope in the Marxist revolution as bringing about a greater state of justice in the world. In a sense, the older social gospel was the belief that in gradually reforming the world men could bring about a better one, whereas now it is much more revolutionary and left wing.
Are we to interpret Glasser as a deluded new evangelical who just doesn’t understand the problem, or as a new evangelical whose apostate fellowship has moved him into the radical social gospel camp? Perhaps we should let some of his own words answer the question. The Discerner for January-March, 1975, quoted from Mission Trends No.1, a book published jointly by Paulist Press (Roman Catholic) and Wm. B. Eerdmans. The opening essay of the book is by Arthur E Glasser.
The Church must discern the times and be sensitive to the context in which God has placed it. It must make sure that its presentation of Christ is authentic and meaningful. This presupposes that God is moving in history and that his redemptive concern extends to the totality of the human condition. In these days of widespread exploitation and injustice the conversion process is affected by the socioeconomic, political, cultural and human environment in which it occurs (Guiterrez, 1973:205). The Gospel calls not only to total communion with God but also to ‘the fullest brotherhood with all men.’ Hence, true conversion to Christ’s Lordship must inevitably bring one into authentic solidarity with those who suffer from injustice. The Church must accompany its witness to the liberating Christ with prophetic protest against all that enslaves and with deep commitment to ‘the poor, the marginated and the exploited.’
That, friend, is a statement which reeks more of Marx than of Christ. Notice the Marxist buzz words -exploitation, injustice, solidarity, prophetic protest, marginated. It smells more of socialism than Scripture. One should be shocked by his reference, in the middle of the quote, to Gustavo Guiterrez. Guiterrez is a South American Catholic who might be called the father of liberation theology. His book, quoted by Glasser, is A Theology of Liberation. Let me quote from the same page of Guiterrez from which Glasser quotes:
To be converted is to commit oneself to the process of the liberation of the poor and oppressed, to commit oneself lucidly, realistically and concretely. It means to commit oneself not only generously, but also with an analysis of the situation and a strategy of action… Our conversion process is affected by the socio-economic, political, cultural, and human environment in which it occurs. Without a change in these structures, there is no authentic conversion.
Again, that is pure socialism, Marxism, liberation theology. l know that when God saved me, I was truly converted. It had nothing to do with socio-economic, political or cultural factors. It had to do solely with the fact that the Spirit of God convicted me about my rotten heart and showed me that I must turn to Christ as my only hope. It was an authentic conversion without any change in the structures about which Guiterrez and Glasser harmonize.
From July 24 to August 19, 1983, the World Council of Churches held its Sixth Assembly on the campus of the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada. Religious syncretism and radical social action were the twin moods of the gathering. Candles for the worship services were lit from a Canadian Indian worship fire which was kept burning throughout the Assembly This was pure heathenism. Hindus, Buddhists, Jews. Muslims, Sikhs and Canadian Indians were present as officially invited guests, and some spoke on the program. Dr. M. H. Reynolds of Foundation Magazine wrote an excellent review of the meeting under the title, “The World Council of Churches: The Cup of the Lord or the Cup of Devils.” (This may be obtained from Fundamental Evangelistic Association, P0. Box 6278, Los Osos, CA 93402.) Reynolds personally asked Dr. Dirk Mulder, moderator of the World Council of Churches interfaith dialogue, “Would you feel that a Buddhist or Hindu could be saved without believing in Christ?” His answer was, “Sure, sure!”
My purpose here is not to review this apostate meeting. Rather, it is to point out that there was a group of new evangelicals present in various functions at Vancouver. Forty to fifty of these men met several times during the assembly and decided to publish an open letter to the new evangelical community titled, “Evangelicals at Vancouver.” The principal architect of the letter was Dr. Arthur Glasser of Fuller Seminary. Glasser the participant now became Glasser the apologist for organized apostasy The letter whitewashes the unbelief of the World Council, purports that it is becoming more evangelical, encourages more evangelicals to participate in future gatherings and has harsh words for true Christians who mobilized a protest against the apostasy of Vancouver. I have not seen a list of the signers of the letter. However, Reynolds lists Dr. Waldron Scott, former General Director of the World Evangelical Fellowship; Robert Youngblood of the World Evangelical Fellowship; Dr. Richard Lovelace of Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary; Dr. Orlando Costas of Eastern Baptist Seminary; and Dr. David duPlessis (“Mr. Pentecostal”) as participants. This letter, a naive and revolting concession to apostasy is printed in full in Reynolds’ booklet.
To their credit, it should be mentioned that three other evangelicals present at Vancouver refused to sign the traitorous letter and wrote a dissenting letter which gave a much truer picture of the Assembly. They were Dr. Peter Beyerhaus, a professor at the University of Tubingen, Dr. Arthur Johnston, an American, and Dr. Myung Yuk Kim of Korea.
The tragedy of these paragraphs is that within new evangelicalism, Dr. Arthur E Glasser is considered an authority in world missions. It hurts to think that Glasser represents the mission of Hudson Taylor. That great missionary never went to China for “socio-economic, political or cultural reasons.”
John R. W. Stott
This chapter won’t be complete without a word about England’s best-known new evangelical. John Stott has played a key role in Anglican, World Council and new evangelical gatherings. His passion has been for social action and ecumenical relations with Roman Catholicism and the World Council of Churches. According to my last knowledge, he was Rector Emeritus of All Souls Anglican Church in London, where he spent most of his ministerial life. I would prefer to leave the criticism of Englishmen to the English since they understand the theological scene in their own land better than an outsider. However, Dr. Stott has had a profound influence on American new evangelicalism. He has been a repeat speaker at the InterVarsity missionary conferences at Urbana. He has been a frequent contributor to Christianity Today in the “Cornerstone” column. He was a key figure at Lausanne in 1974, as chairman of the group which drafted the Lausanne Covenant.
In 1988 InterVarsity Press published Evangelical Essentials, a dialogue between David Edwards, a British Liberal, and John Stott, a new evangelical. In the first chapter the latter is described in these words:
One reason why he has been admired and honoured in the Church of England is that he has remained loyal to it. His public disagreement with Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones at a meeting of the Evangelical Alliance in 7966 was a turning point. Lloyd-Jones, often regarded as the greatest preacher of his age, urged Evangelicals to come out of their denominations and together form their own new association, if not an actual church; and John Stott, who was in the chair, resolutely opposed him. His chairmanship of the National Evangelical Anglican Congresses at Keele in 1967 and at Nottingham in 1977 was the most influential centre of advocacy of the alternative to separation – and that, too, brought him some criticism. There and later he urged the development of an Evangelicalism actively participating in church life at every level, in touch with the scholarship and culture of the day, in dialogue with other Christians of all sorts, determined to make the Christian gospel heard by youth and others unfamiliar with the conventional language of the churches, determined also to be thoroughly involved in discussion and action responding to contemporary social problems.
Reviewing Dr. Ockenga’s Stool
I hope that my readers will recall that the first leg of Dr. Ockengas three-legged milking stool for new evangelicalism was the repudiation of separatism. Notice that Dr. Stott shares that view. Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones came to see, slowly but clearly, that Bible believers must leave apostasy This was the point of his break with Dr. Stott. If any of my readers would desire to read more of this parting they will find the information in the second volume of lain H. Murray’s excellent biography of Dr. Lloyd-Jones.
I hope that my readers will further recall that the second leg on Dr. Ockenga’s stool was the desire to find acceptance by the world, particularly the scholarly world. You will notice the same note in the descriptive quotation above. Stott, too, was determined to stay “in touch with the scholarship and culture of the day” Ockenga’s favorite word, “dialogue,” as opposed to debate, is there, too.
The third leg of the stool of new evangelicalism is the determination to add the social gospel to the Scriptural gospel. The quotation touches on that. Dr. Stott has been busy with involvement in “contemporary social problems.” Dr. Stott sounds remarkably like the Harold John Ockenga of British new evangelicalism.
These three penchants of new evangelicalism lead men to strange places and positions. As a member of the Anglican Church Stott has automatically been a member of the World Council of Churches. He shares the preoccupation of that group for unity including reunion with Rome. As Chairman of the Second National Evangelical Anglican Congress in 1977 Stott said the following:
The visible unity of all professing Christians should be our goal… and evangelicals should join others in the Church of England in working toward full communion with the Roman Catholic Church.
This becomes especially heinous to me when I think of Stott standing before the great gathering of impressionable young missionary candidates at Urbana and selling, by his position, if not by his words, this fatal concept of compromise. The very faith missions, which in earlier years sent out missionaries who stood against apostasy recruited and sent to Urbana the young people who heard this accomplice of apostasy
The Dr. at the Rock Concert
I have before me a report from Christianity Today for October 21, 1983. The subhead reads, “John Stott headlines a British rock concert with pop singer Cliff Richard:” The three featured pictures show a view of the tent city a picture of Cliff Richard in a rock pose about to inhale his microphone and a nice photo of John R. W. Stott preaching. The feature of the gathering, called Greenbelt ’83, was the daily 4 PM. to midnight pop/rock concert. Christianity Today reported the words of the director and other information:
‘We don’t believe in a fundamentalist approach. We don’t set ground rules. Our teaching is non-directive. We want to encourage people to make their own choices,’ said Gooding.
Stott led a series of seminars dealing with a Christian perspective on history, and interpreting the Bible, delivered a keynote address entitled ‘Christian Peacemaking Today, ‘and participated in a panel debating nuclear arms.
‘Young people are grappling with how to relate Scripture to modern issues like feminism, war and peace, and homosexuality’ he said. I think it’s unique to have that combination – a pop festival with a strong element of rock music, but with the other element of some very serious theological discussion.’
Notice those words, “We don’t believe in a fundamentalist approach… our teaching is nondirective.” The fundamentalist approach referred to is to take the Bible, read it, and say, “Young people, this is what the Bible says.” That is directive with God as the director. Looking back over my youth I am thankful for fundamentalist youth leaders who did not let me babble on in my ignorance, but who confronted me with, “Thus said the Lord.”
The Christianity Today article goes on to quote Stott as saying the following:
Greenbelt is presenting to this generation an image of Christianity which is authentic, biblical and centered on Christ. It is a joyful celebration of the whole of life. And it proves that Christianity is profoundly relevant to the problems of today.
As I look at the picture before me of the tent city and Cliff Richard I see a joyful celebration in the worldly sense, but it takes a lot of imagination to see much that is “biblical” or “centered on Christ.”
I also have before me an Australian publication, Inner Witness for March 1986. It includes a copy of a handbill for an anti-abortion rally in Hyde Park, London. The sheet is accented with a smiling picture of the featured speaker, Mother Teresa of Calcutta. The other three main speakers are listed as Malcom Muggeridge (the British journalist who claimed conversion without believing many Bible doctrines), Dr. Francis Schaeffer (new evangelical director of L’Abri Fellowship in Switzerland) and Rev. John Stott. The “good cause syndrome” led this diverse company together. I dare say that the crowd in Hyde Park assumed that they were the same and equally trust worthy Once good men lose the Biblical imperative of separation, new evangelicalism leads to strange places and positions.
The New Evangelical Vegetable
This book has touched on things from camels to Canossa. In keeping with such diversions, let me comment on one of my least-favorite vegetables, the zucchini squash. I term zucchini, “the new evangelical vegetable.” My reasons are three. First, it has no taste of its own. Secondly, it takes the flavor of whatever you put with it. Thirdly, there are a lot of them. That brings me to the observation that, since there are so many new evangelicals, this chapter could go on forever. I have chosen to mention a few “intellectuals in residence” on the cutting edge of the movement, seeking to lead their fellow new evangelicals to more radical positions.
I would also like to mention Dr. David Moberg, a Swedish Baptist who taught nineteen years at Bethel College before moving to Marquette University a Jesuit institution. I might mention Dr. Virginia Mollenkott, of Plymouth Brethren background, an activist in feminizing Biblical language, and co-author with Aletha Scanzoni of, Is the Homosexual My Neighbor?, a book sympathetic to this repulsive aberration. I might mention Dr. Kenneth Kantzer of Trinity Evangelical Divinity School and former editor of Christianity Today who was a featured speaker at our apostate Ohio Pastors’ Convocation in 1983. I might mention Dr. Carl E H. Henry, another former editor of Christianity Today and the original spearhead of the social action wing of new evangelicalism. I might mention Dr. Richard Lovelace of Gordon-Conwell Seminary. I might mention Dr. R. C. Sproul of Ligonier Ministries. I might mention Josh McDowell of Campus Crusade, a Wheaton College and Talbot Seminary graduate who speaks on apologetics at rock concerts, charismatic festivals and on Dr. James Dobson’s programs. I might mention English author C. S. Lewis (now deceased) who held a number of heretical views. I might mention some other Englishmen and Scots. One would be Dr. J. I. Packer, who, like Stott, split from Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones by refusing to forsake the Anglican apostasy He is a featured speaker at many American gatherings, particularly in the field of Puritan theology I might mention Dr. William Barclay of Glasgow, an admitted universalist whom Dr. Lloyd-Jones considered ‘the most dangerous man in Christendom.’ I might mention Dr. E. E. Bruce who had no trouble working with Barclay. As I said, there are a lot of them.
“Evangelicals on the Canterbury Trail”
There is another movement among the intellectuals in residence in new evangelicalism which deserves mention here. It is a movement back to episcopacy and Roman Catholicism. Prior to the Reformation worship was liturgical and sacramental. The effect of the reformation was to put the preaching of the Word at the center of the service. This was surrounded by worshipful music, prayer, the Lord’s Supper, Bible reading and perhaps repeating a creed. The incense, the ornate vestments, the pageantry and liturgy were abandoned. Only the Anglican Church, and some Lutheran churches to a lesser degree, sought to retain the Roman Catholic model of liturgy and sacrament. As the new evangelicals have moved away from their heritage, there has been a renewed craving for elements of the old system. Let me document this in the words of Dr. Richard Lovelace, in an article in Charisma magazine for September, 1986:
Robert Webber’s books Common Roots and Evangelicals on the Canterbury Trail offer good accounts of evangelicals’ homesickness for deeper sacramental theology and liturgical worship. Evangelical protestants are sensing a vitamin deficiency in our tradition. We are hungering for some of the symbolical richness known by our orthodox and Roman Catholic sisters and brothers.
If they are also hungering for some of our strength in biblical preaching…free prayer, and scriptural knowledge, this is an important sign God is bringing the Protestant Catholic streams together as this century moves toward a close.
Dr. Robert Webber is a Wheaton College professor who has declared himself an Episcopalian and been instrumental in starting a church of that persuasion in the college area. He formerly taught at Covenant Seminary At that time I assume he thought himself a Presbyterian.
Rev. Richard John Neuhaus has been a prominent new evangelical. Moody Monthly magazine published a series of articles titled, “Evangelical Leaders You Should Know.” Rev. Neuhaus, a Lutheran at the time, was the honoree for December 1987. In recent times Neuhaus has left his Lutheran body and joined the Roman Catholic Church. Foundation for September-October 1990, quoting from the Los Angeles Times of September 22, 1990 quotes Neuhaus as follows:
l have resisted with great difficulty, especially over the last five years, the recognition that I could no longer give an answer convincing to others or to me as to why I was not a Roman Catholic. So, on September 8th l was received into full communion with the Roman Catholic Church and am preparing to enter the priesthood of the Catholic Church. This decision is the result of many years of prayer, reflection, conversation, and, I firmly believe, the leading of the Holy Spirit.
Martin Luther was a member of both bodies in the reverse order, and we think a perusal of his writings gives convincing answers about the folly of Neuhaus’ course. Neuhaus is not alone in making this switch. In 1985, Thomas Howard, a professor at Gordon College, and son of Phillip Howard, the Editor of the Sunday School Times in former years, converted to Roman Catholicism. Even Gordon College was not quite ready for that. Christianity Today for September 20, 1985 said: “Howard had taught at Gordon College for 15 years. During the 1985-86 academic year, he will teach literature at two Catholic seminaries in Boston, Saint John’s and Our Lady of Grace.” According to the same article Howard agreed that the faculty senate at Gordon was correct in articulating the differences between Protestantism and Catholicism. In stating his case, Howard confirmed from the Catholic side of the aisle an accusation which has often been made by Protestants. Christianity Today reported: “He said it is true that the sole authority of Scripture is a principle unique to Protestantism, and that he, as a Catholic, could not subscribe to it.”
The liberal Christian Century for October 19, 1988 in an article titled, “Evangelizing the Evangelicals” took note of this trend in the following words:
The Orthodox Church has landed in the heart of Billy Graham country, primed to spread its ancient faith using modern techniques developed by Campus Crusade for Christ. The Antiochian Evangelical Orthodox Mission, a fledgling parish of the Antiochian Orthodox Church, plans to propagate the faith in this western Chicago suburb, using a rented chapel at Wheaton College…
Wheaton holds a special place in the hearts of some 2,000 recent converts of the Antiochian Church. They are former members of a number of evangelical congregations and represent a small but significant element of evangelical Christianity that seeks to be rooted in established liturgical churches. Led by a band of former Campus Crusade for Christ ministers, they have brought missionary zeal and expertise to one of the smallest Christian denominations in the United States.
‘We want Wheaton, that’s our heritage,’ said William F. Caldaroni, the priest at the mission on the prairie. The Wheaton mission isn’t the only sign of Orthodox efforts or evangelical interests. Other outreach centers have been started at Fuller Theological Seminary, Duke Divinity School and Asbury Theological Seminary.
Caldaroni, a graduate of Oral Roberts University and Trinity Divinity School, pastored two Church of God congregations on the East Coast before joining the Antiochian Orthodox Church… His journey, along with that of 66 other evangelical ministers who have been ordained priests, has taken him from the Graham wing of Christianity to an acceptance of sacraments, icons, veneration of Mary, incense, priestly robes and clerical hierarchy-all anathema to the evangelical community.
I don’t mind going back to Antioch if it is that grand missionary church of Acts 13. However, I don’t care to go back to Antioch on a trail which leads through Canterbury, Rome and Constantinople.
There you have a group of intellectuals in residence in the new evangelical movement. They have been and are important leaders. Perhaps they are not the most important, but their names keep crossing the path of my reading as they press on in a different direction: Vernon Grounds, a brilliant teacher with a liberal agenda and no convictions about the company he keeps; Ronald J. Sider, add a white sheet and he would be the Mahatma Ghandi of new evangelicalism; Anthony Campolo, the colorful speaker with a gift for careless theology and a communist view of history; Roberta Hestenes, a woman preacher on her way up with a passion for action, not theology; Arthur Glasser, a persuasive prince on a white horse who is convinced that he can kiss the frog of the World Council of Churches into a beautiful maiden. All are returnees to Rome and Canterbury, a tragic group, like the crusaders, marching pell mell toward who knows what.