Both of these sources come at the question from the evangelical side of the spectrum, in the case of Clawson and Olson, it is on the outside of conservative evangelicalism looking in, whereas George and Dockery are more or less on the inside of the movement. Both sources offer some interesting observations of the so-called ‘conservative evangelical’ movement.

Clawson and Olson

The thesis of this piece is that the conservative evangelicals are essentially fundamentalists, albeit a new kind of fundamentalist. They aren’t the same as the original fundamentalists, but are analogous to them.

I contend that this growing concern expressed by MacArthur and many other evangelicals represents a new movement within evangelicalism toward what I have termed neo-fundamentalism.  This is not simply a return to the original Protestant fundamentalism of the early-twentieth century, though it is analogous to it.

The difference between neo-fundamentalism and fundamentalism is those against whom they are reacting. Clawson sees both neo-fundie and fundie as simply reactionary groups. Neo-fundamentalists are reacting to postmodernism in a similar way that fundamentalists reacted to modernism a century ago. Neo-fundamentalism grew out of evangelicalism in the 70s and 80s, according to Clawson, out of a reaction to the massive culture shifts of the 1960s when James Dobson, Jerry Falwell, and Pat Robertson ‘became increasingly negative towards the culture’. This reaction morphed into neo-fundamentalism as culture itself shifted from humanism/secularism to pluralism/relativism. The new reactionaries “constructed a genuine neo-fundamentalist alternative to any evangelical accommodation with postmodernity.”

All of that seems reasonable enough and it is precisely at this point that the conservative evangelicals become attractive to fundamentalists. The conservative evangelicals are reacting to something that fundamentalists also eschew. Fundamentalists find themselves nodding in agreement at this point of congruence. (And since the dominant culture is now thoroughly post-modern, fundamentalist attention is often focused on this major point of agreement than on points of disagreement.)

Clawson goes on to cite as evidence of his thesis three of the ‘most influential’ leaders of ‘neo-fundamentalism’: John Piper, Albert Mohler, and Mark Driscoll. Driscoll? A reactionary? To post-modernism? Hmm… Even Clawson seems to recognize the weakness of including Driscoll in the list, for he says: “he seems to lack the level of hostility towards secular culture typical of fundamentalists.”

One might therefore assume that Driscoll is not in fact a neo-fundamentalist. And yet Driscoll often shares the stage at national conferences with other neo-fundamentalist leaders. And while many of the older leaders often have gentle criticisms for him (especially in regards to his language choices), Piper and others have made it clear that Driscoll’s doctrine is acceptable to them and that they are unwilling to kick him out of the camp over stylistic differences. Indeed, Driscoll theology is completely in line with the older generation of neo-fundamentalists on everything from gender roles, to biblical inerrancy, penal substitutionary

Driscoll makes the grade for his ‘strong masculinity’ and his alleged hostility to “the deeper ethos of a postmodern culture.”

Well… whatever! Clawson’s thesis makes some interesting points but his examples and the significant cracks in their separatism seem to erode his argument rather than support it.

But please note that Clawson likewise argues for a distinction between fundamentalists and neo-fundamentalists (his term for conservative evangelicals).

George and Dockery

In the book, Theologians of the Baptist Tradition, James Spivey writes a chapter on “Benajah Harvey Carroll”. In this chapter he makes this observation about Carroll’s theology:

Carroll’s theology was influenced most by other conservative Baptists, especially Boyce, Strong, Spurgeon, and Broadus, whose catechism he recommended highly. To say that he was a conservative evangelical is not adequate. Though the term was not yet in vogue, he could be described as a “Fundamentalist.” His doctrine agreed with the basic tenets of The Fundamentals (1910–15), and he thoroughly disdained modernists as “cuckoos of infidelity.” This antipathy was directed against Northern liberals when he encouraged a group of fundamentalist Illinois Baptists to seek admission to the SBC (1910). Led by Landmarker, W. P. Throgmorton, they had intended to align with Ben Bogard, a sympathizer with Carroll’s nemesis, Samuel Hayden. In spite of strong resistance from some Southern Baptists, they were admitted partly because of Carroll’s support.¹

The reason for highlighting this paragraph is not B. H. Carroll, but the observation Spivey makes about conservative evangelicals and fundamentalists. Clearly, Spivey also sees a distinction between the two groups. Spivey implies that conservative evangelicals might not disdain modernists as thoroughly as Carroll did, and certainly not as thoroughly as fundamentalists do. Though there are similarities that might cause an outside observer to confuse the two groups, significant differences remain.

Conclusion

The first point I want to stress in conclusion is that evangelicals are able to see a distinction between conservative evangelicals and fundamentalists, even though many erstwhile fundamentalists seem to have a good deal of difficulty seeing the distinction themselves.

The second point is that if the conservative evangelicals are distinguished by their opposition to postmodernity, they maintain a general new evangelical  friendliness to modernity (but not modernism). Though they see the corruption of the evangelical church in its embrace of all sorts of worldly wisdom, yet they maintain a comfort level with the worldly wisdom of the 50s and 60s that birthed the new evangelical movement in opposition to fundamentalism.

And finally, if evangelicals are confused about the inclusion of Mark Driscoll in the ‘neo-fundamentalist/conservative evangelical’ orb, ought not fundamentalists continue to maintain their distance? The continuing failure of conservative evangelicalism to separate from Driscoll and his errors is an ongoing testament to the failure of neo-fundamentalism to have much of a concept of separatism at all. Praise the Lord that they seem to be seeing the dangers of cooperation with modernists. May they soon see the need to sever ties with hedonists and libertines.

P.S. I recommend the book, Theologians of the Baptist Tradition as a good overview of the progress of Southern Baptist theology. There are a few non SBC men mentioned, but most are SBC. The list of men and their theologies reviewed gives an interesting perspective into the progress of theology in the SBC, at least on the (mostly) conservative side of the scale.

1. Theologians of the Baptist Tradition (Timothy George and David S. Dockery)
   - Highlight on Page 177 | Loc. 4641-49 | emphasis mine

The Bible is a living Book; and if you will come to the Bible merely to argue with it, it will not talk to you. You will find the Bible will be like the Incarnate Word. They asked Jesus certain questions, and He answered them not a word, because He knew the motive that lay behind the questions. And the Bible will not speak to the man who comes merely to prove his own case: it will not yield its secrets to him.

In a recent issue of the Canadian Medical Association Journal, its editor-in-chief issued a call for banning the disclosure of a baby’s gender before 30 weeks of pregnancy in a bid to end the practice of aborting female babies. This practice is especially prevalent among some South Asian cultures (the editor issuing the call is apparently from this culture himself).

The whole article has the pro-abortion side tied up in knots, as you can see from the comments following the article. You can also see the hard-heartedness of many Canadians who insist on their rebellion and sin.

The article is, overall, heartbreaking. The ramifications of the fall of man are constantly on display. May God help us reach some of our fellow citizens with the gospel.

Other preachers have spoken to me of being challenged by preaching at seasons like Christmas. I suspect that perhaps the reason is a too narrow view of what is acceptable for a Christmas series. If we simply return to the Christmas passages in Matthew and Luke again and again, it can get difficult. One can only exegete so much out of these very familiar passages, especially when our people have heard it all before.

I don’t wish to make a big point on this post, but simply to ask a few questions of any preachers who read it. First, do you find Christmas to be a “homiletical challenge”? Do you dread Christmas for that reason? If not, why not? And what do you do to preach Christmas? What are your goals in preaching for the Christmas season?

I am thinking of writing up some of my approach, but I’d like to hear from others first. Is it a topic of interest?

Like the Y.M.C.A. movement in North America, the commission drew its force from the Second Great Awakening, a flowering of evangelicalism in the decades before the Civil War. As they offered religious services to soldiers, the commission’s staff also spread its version of Protestant Christianity, grounded in the doctrine of the Trinity, the authority of the Bible, the priesthood of all believers and justification by faith. The commission emphasized conversion, too, and excluded mainline Protestants from serving in its volunteer corps.

D. L. Moody served as a preacher in the work of the USCC.

The comments on revivalism in the article are much more positive than some bloggers offer lately!

Is this a Biblical way to look at one’s gifts and/or talents?

There are three major passages in the New Testament dealing with spiritual gifts. They are Romans 12.6-8, 1 Corinthians 12, especially vv. 8-10 and vv.28-30, and Ephesians 4.11. There are a few other minor passages, but these are the significant ones.

We could divide the gifts between gifts of certain men to the church and gifts to many men in the church. Eph 4.11 lists four or five classes of men given to the church for the equipping of the saints. Their role would include training people in using their spiritual gifts. We could further divide the gifts to many men in the church between supernatural manifestations and internal capabilities. 1 Cor 12.28-30 seems to mix all the types of gifts, gifts of men to the church and gifts to many men in the church, both the ‘manifestation’ gifts and the internal capabilities gifts. Perhaps it might be better to list them all so you can see what I mean:

I have to concede that my analysis here is somewhat subjective and dependent on what I understand the various gifts to be. Regardless of the subjectivity, do you think my analysis of the categories is accurate: supernatural manifestations – that is, the ability to do something as a public display of the power of God; internal capabilities – that is, something that exists within the person that is displayed in ministry, not in public display; individual men – that is, particular men in particular offices within the church for the edifying of the body.

Now, to my thesis… where do musical talents fall in this grid?

I read a number of articles on the subject. Most writers seem to agree with my basic thesis: musical talents are not spiritual gifts, but they are physical gifts that can be used by a spiritually gifted person for ministry.

There are people who are very gifted musically but have no spiritual gifts at all. Name a big name opera singer for example, or one of the well-known instrumentalists of our day. They are very gifted musically. Most of them, the vast majority of them, have no spiritual giftedness at all. How could they? These men and women are not born again. How could they have spiritual gifts?

There is no doubt that physical gifts, like musical ability, are given by God, but they are not given on a spiritual basis. They are given to men in general, not to the church in particular. They are a matter of genetics, the ‘luck of the draw’ in parentage, God’s sovereignty, and training.¹

Should we decide how we will serve God in his church solely on the basis of musical ability? In other words, should someone refuse to serve in some other way if they are unable to use their musical ability regularly in church ministry? Suppose we have two or three pianists in a church (I always am thinking ‘small church’ when I say this!) They can’t all play at once, and often one of them becomes the regular pianist. Should the others just do nothing else, no teaching, no involvement in other ministries, child care, church cleaning, evangelism, what have you? Should they just sit and wait till they have a chance to serve on the piano? Should they look for another church where they can use their musical abilities and be the ‘first string’ pianist? Are these ‘spiritual’ approaches?

The reality is that musical ability can be used in a spiritual way for the edification of the body. But you should serve God where there is a need, not according to what you think your gift is. Perhaps God will give new gifts when a new opportunity needs to be filled by you. And surely God can use your physical abilities, like music, in almost every ministry of the local church even if you don’t get to use it every Sunday in the worship service.

1. Although some, like me, have so little musical giftedness that no amount of training will help, assuming I would submit to it!

I was acquainted with him through his son-in-law (one of my best and closest friends) and daughter. His son-in-law planted the church my brother now pastors just a few hours north of us. Through this connection I got to know Dr. Ashbrook a little bit. I got to know him better through his writings. What a blessing to have known him. What glory for him to now be in the presence of our Saviour!

The obituary is here.

An article by another young man he influenced is here.

His publication ministry is here. I am not sure what will happen to this ministry, but perhaps you can still obtain some of his books through them.

It means they haven’t found a replacement yet.

So when an institution offers a weakly worded statement of support for one of its adherents, what does that mean? It means that the adherent can see the handwriting on the wall. “No support here”, it says. And that’s the end of it.

I commend to you his recent series of blogs reporting on goings on at the ETS. Very interesting. You might not agree with everything Kent says about it (I don’t disagree with much, if any of it), but if you are interested in the issues we usually address in this space, you will find Kent’s reports quite interesting. Here are the links:

My Field Trip to the Evangelical Theological Society Meeting part one

My Field Trip to the Evangelical Theological Society Meeting part two

My Field Trip to the Evangelical Theological Society Meeting part three

My Field Trip to the Evangelical Theological Society Meeting part four

My Field Trip to the Evangelical Theological Society Meeting part five

My Field Trip to the Evangelical Theological Society Meeting part six