BILLY GRAHAM AND THE END OF EVANGELICAL UNITY

By

FARLEY P. BUTLER, JR.

A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE COUNCIL OF
THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
1976

For Patricia

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I wish here to express my appreciation to Father Michael V.
Gannon, chairman, and to those who served on my supervisory committee:
Arthur L. Funk, Del ton L. Scudder, R. Hunt Davis, and C. John
Sommerville.

m

CONTENTS

Page

Acknowledgments iii

Abstract • vi

Chapter

1. Introduction 1

Notes 14

2. The National Association of Evangelicals 15

Notes 31

3. The Significance of Separation 33

Notes 50

4. The Role of Mass Evangelism ■ ..-.. 52

Notes 65

5. The Sword and Billy Graham 66

Notes 90

6. Donald Grey Barnhouse 92

Notes 105

7. The Developing Division 107

Notes 123

8. "Is Evangelical Theology Changing?" 125

Notes 145.

9. The Turning Point: April, 1956 147

Notes 169

10. Christianity Today and the New Coalition 171

Notes 189

11. Ecumenical Evangelism 191

Notes 208

12. The Deepening Controversy . . 210

Notes 228

TV

Chapter Page

13. The New Theological Alignment .............. 230

Notes 248

14. Why the Division? 250

Notes v- • • 268

' 15. The Lessening of Conservative Alienation 270

Notes • • • 287

16. Conclusion 289

Notes 302

Selected Bibliography 303

Biographical Sketch .... 309

Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate Council

of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

BILLY GRAHAM AND THE END OF EVANGELICAL UNITY

By
Farley P. Butler, Jr.

March, 1976

Chairman: Michael V. Gannon
Major Department: History

Fundamentalism is a religious movement which arose in the late
nineteenth century espousing conservative, orthodox theology, and
opposing the liberalism which was growing within American Protestant-
ism. During the 1920s the fundamentalists engaged in an unsuccessful
effort, the modernist-fundamentalist controversy, to rid American
churches of liberal, non-orthodox influence. By 1940 fundamentalism
had become strongly separatist, organized in a great variety of ex-
plicitly orthodox fellowships, and convinced that the main-line denomi-
nations were apostate. Through that time "fundamentalism" was often
used to describe conservative evangelicalism generally, and there was a
broad spiritual unity among orthodox believers, typified in the found-
ing of the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE). The NAE initially
included within its leadership strong separatists, such as Bob Jones
and John R. Rice, but was primarily led by men fully orthodox but less
separatist, such as Harold John Ockenga. This study examines the
process through which the unity of that conservative evangelicalism
ended, producing two movements: evangelicalism and fundamentalism.

vi

Following their defeat in the denominational wars of the 1920s
the fundamentalists worked in relative isolation, little noticed by those
outside their group. In the years just after World War II, several
fundamentalist evangelists began to succeed in attracting large crowds
to evangelistic meetings. This trend was climaxed by the emergence of
Billy Graham in 1949. Once again the fundamentalists had a spokesman
who could fill stadiums, and speak to a national audience. They looked
forward to a renewal of the crusade against liberalism. Graham's
roots were in fundamentalism; in the early years he worked with Rice,
Jones, and other fundamentalists; and his message was the fundamental-
ist gospel. Graham soon found, however, that it would be possible to
enlist the main-line denominational churches to support his crusades
if he moderated his fundamentalist stance. While he continued to preach
the gospel, mention of "theological error" was eliminated from his
message, and he moved toward ties with the broader church. Fundamen-
talists urged separation from all non-orthodox, religious leaders,
but generally continued to support Graham, until he became identified
with the "new evangelicals."

Between 1946 and 1956 the new evangelicals, led by men such as
Ockenga, Carl F. H. Henry, and Edward John Carnell, emerged as a group.
Encouraged by the over- throw of liberalism by neo-orthodoxy, the con-
servative mood of post-war America, the "revival of religion" of the
1950s, and the success of Graham, the new evangelicals hoped to remake
fundamentalism, rendering its orthodox theology a viable competitor in
the modern market. They wished fundamentalism to be less dogmatic in
theology, more open to "conversations" with non-orthodox theologians,

vn

more concerned with social problems, and less insistent about matters
of external ethics. They wanted greater emphasis on scholarship, and
boosted their position by ridiculing the separatist fundamentalists,
pressing their case through such magazines as Eternity, Christian Life,
and Christianity Today. Graham had attempted to retain fundamentalist
support, but during 1956 he fully identified himself with the new evan-
gelical campaign against fundamentalism, and in preparations for his
New York crusade worked closely with the non-orthodox, Protestant
leadership. Fundamentalists responded with sustained attacks on Graham
and the new evangelicals.

Though aggressive in evangelism and growing numerically,
fundamentalism emerged from the conflict in near total isolation, with-
drew from all except separatist organizations, and placed even greater
emphasis on those distinctives to which the new evangelicals had ob-
jected.

Many conservative evangelicals rejected parts of the new evangeli-
cal program, but most refused to withdraw support from Graham and thus
fell into the "evangelical" group. With the fundamentalists eliminated,
the new evangelicals solidified their position, and evangelicalism
moved steadily in the direction which they had wished.

vm

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

During the last quarter of the nineteenth century many factors
came to bear on the American situation which together successfully
challenged the dominant position of conservative orthodoxy within many
Protestant denominations. Many historians have pointed to that period
as a watershed in American history. During those years the importation
of ideas from Europe, and the domestic elaboration of those ideas,
prompted the overthrow of accepted systems in many areas. In economics,
politics, and religion the new ideas challenged the old. In American
Protestantism a movement called "fundamentalism" arose-to oppose those
new ideas in religion.

Usually identified as "liberalism" or "modernism," the complex
of new religious ideas was based upon German biblical criticism and a
religious rationalism. Among the important elements of religious
liberalism were the following: de-emphasis and'even denial of the
supernatural, skepticism concerning the reliability of the Christian
scriptures as a record of historical events and rejection, of any claim
of supernatural inspiration, optimism concerning human nature and the
possibility of perfecting man through education, rejection of the con-
cept that human nature was in a "fallen" state and therefore in need of
some kind of supernatural salvation, denial of virtually all tradi-
tional Christian doctrine, and presentation of Jesus as a great teacher
and example. Religious liberalism often associated itself with

1

political and social liberalism, and liberals, believing that the key
to improving the condition of man was to improve his environment, were
often active in promoting plans for social engineering.

Set off sharply from this liberalism was the fundamentalism which
came into being to oppose it. Shaped largely through a series of pro-
phetic conferences in the 1870s and 1880s, fundamentalism joined a
strong biblical literalism with an apocalyptic, premillenial eschatology
and by the turn of the century had a well -developed ideology on which
to base its attack against liberalism. Fundamentalism cannot be iden-
tified by any doctrinal description, despite the enthusiasm of all
fundamentalists for constructing doctrinal statements. George W.
Dollar, a foremost fundamentalist historian, defines historic funda-
mentalism as the "literal exposition of all the affirmations and atti-
tudes of the Bible and the militant exposure of all non-Biblical
affirmations and attitudes." The most important thing to understand
about fundamentalists is that they believe themselves to be the repre-
sentatives of biblical Christianity, and they insist that a divinely
inspired Bible gives them authority for such a claim. Doctrinal ly,
fundamentalists subscribe to what can be defined as traditional,
Protestant orthodoxy. They assert vigorously belief in the inspira-
tion of the Bible, the direct creation of man by God as described in
Genesis, the fall of man in Adam, God's provision for the salvation of
mankind through the death of His sinless, virgin-born Son, Jesus Christ,

the bodily resurrection of Christ and His Second Coming, and salvation

2
through personal faith in Jesus Christ. However, many Christians

believe these same doctrines but would not be described as fundamentalists,

At no point has fundamentalism been a well-organized movement, and at
no point has an exact description of its boundaries been possible. In
the early years fundamentalism shaded evenly into general conservative
Protestantism, but fundamentalists eventually became an isolated group.

During the early years of the century religious leaders of
liberal views had moved into positions of influence within most of the
major denominations, but in the years following the First World War
fundamentalists made strong efforts to reverse the trend and to re-
serve leadership positions for those of orthodox theology. These
efforts were unsuccessful, but the struggle over the denominations
blended with the secular-religious conflict over evolution, which
climaxed in the famous Scopes trial of 1925, to be called the funda-
mentalist-modernist controversy. During the fundamentalist-
modernist conflict the conservatives lost nearly every major battle,
and eventually the liberals not only retained their right to posi-
tions of leadership within the major denominations, but gained con-
trol over most of them. Most conservatives adjusted to the new situa-
tion and remained within their denominations. A considerable number,
however, left to form new groupings led by staunch fundamentalist
spokesmen who often had been ejected from the denomination because
of their loud criticism of liberalism. They also formed countless
organizations to facilitate fundamentalist fellowship and to advance
evangelism and the attack upon liberalism. Of these the World's
Christian ^mdamental Association has received the most attention.
Formed in 1919 as the result of a prophetic conference the previous
year, this organization directed many of the fundamentalist activities

through the height of the fundamentalist-modernist controversy. It was
guided through much of its thirty-year history by William Bell Riley,
long-time pastor of First Baptist Church, Minneapolis, Minnesota,
though after 1940 its influence greatly diminished. During the late
1930s and the early years of the Second World War fundamentalism was
generally in disorder. The last great denominational struggle of the
era occurred among the Presbyterians during 1935 and 1936, and again
the fundamentalists lost. J. Gresham Machen, who had led a group of
orthodox scholars in leaving Princeton to found Westminster Theologi-
cal Seminary in 1929, was in 1936 ousted from his denomination when he
led in the establishment of a conservative foreign mission board which
operated in competition with that of the denomination. By this time it
was clear that the contest for control of the denominations was over,
and that the conservatives would not be able to renew the battle. Most
fundamentalists concentrated their efforts in local projects, church
evangelism, and a great variety of snail, non-denominational fundamen-
talist organizations. At the same time certain fundamentalists were
again trying to frame national fundamentalist organizations. The
discussions surrounding the eatablishment of two national organizations
would reveal important differences among fundamentalists concerning the'
approach to be taken in the new situation. In 1940 it was still quite
appropriate to speak of fundamentalists, conservative evangelicals,
or "Bible-believing Christians" when referring to roughly the same
group of people. It is the purpose of this study to examine the pro-
cess whereby conservative evangelicalism became divided into evan-
gelicalism and fundamentalism.

Both the American Council of Christian Churches (ACCC or ACC)
and the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) were founded during
1941. Both were strongly orthodox in theological position. The American
Council of Christian Churches was founded by Carl Mclntire and most
directly followed in the steps of the early fundamentalists. A strongly
separatist group, the American Council made opposition to. the Federal
Council of Churches of Christ in America (FCCCA or FCC) its major
activity. The Federal Council had been formed in 1908 and was pri-
marily a vehicle through which liberal churchmen hoped to mobilize the
churches for their program of social action. Mclntire was one of those
forced out of the Presbyterian church in 1936 with Machen and remains
one of the more controversial and sensational fundamentalists. More
often than other fundamentalists, he receives attention from the
national news media because of his involvement in "patriotic" activi-
ties. Mclntire's position was that complete separation from the main-
line denominations was necessary, and the American Council included
only denominations which enforced orthodoxy within their ranks. More
complex than the American Council of Christian Churches was the National
Association of Evangelicals (NAE). That organization included a wider
range than did the American Council. It has always included a large
number of separatist fundamentalists, and in the early years important
separatists, such as Bob Jones, were among its leadership. Also within
its leadership were men who were orthodox in belief but less separatist
in tempetv-ent. In time the NAE moved toward a softer position, and
the strong fundamentalists withdrew. Even in the announced purposes
of the organization the desire was clearly stated that the claims of

sound doctrine might be presented with less unpleasantness than often
was the case in fundamentalist controversy. An important result of the
division which this study examines is that fundamentalists and evangeli-
cals no longer work together in such organizations as the National
Association of Evangelicals.

The development of the National Association of Evangelicals and
of conservative evangelicalism would be much affected by a movement
which was just beginning in the late forties. The establishment of
Fuller Seminary in Pasadena, California, in 1947, under the leadership
of Harold John Ockenga, Presbyterian pastor of Boston's Part Street
Church, provided a center for the discussion of the weaknesses of funda-
mentalism. In the next few years an able group of young scholars be-
came associated with the Fuller effort to refashion fundamentalism.
Most important among these were Carl F. H. Henry, Harold Lindsell, and
Edward John Carnell. At Fuller was developed the concept of the "new
evangelicalism" which would replace fundamentalism, preserving its
adherence to sound doctrine, but correcting its misplaced emphases.

New evangelicalism was designed to present orthodoxy in a form
more competitive than pugnacious fundamentalism. It hoped to avoid
the stigma which had fallen upon, the fundamentalist label. Orthodoxy
was to be rendered intellectually respectable by the appearance of con-
cessions to the scientific viewpoint. This first surfaced in a book
by Bernard Ramm published in the fall of 1954, The Christian View of
Science and Scripture.3 This would necessitate a "reopening" of the
question of the inspiration of Scripture, though this was always
approached with extreme caution. An increased emphasis on scholarship

was planned to avoid charges of obscurantism. New evangelicalism was
to place new emphasis upon social responsibilities, which, it was
charged, fundamentalism had failed to do. Although during the period
of this study, little beyond conservative pronouncements on .controversial
social-economic-political issues were ever made by new evangelical
spokesmen, considerable energy was expended in calling for evangeli-
. cal involvement in this area.

New evangelicalism planned the greatest changes in the area of the
relations of conservative evangelicals to liberal theologians. Funda-
mentalists had always held liberal theologians in considerable contempt,
basing their attack on liberal spokesmen on biblical injunctions con-
cerning separation from false religious teachers. Fundamentalists be-
lieved that the defeat of the conservatives in the great denominational
struggles of the 1920s was due primarily to the reluctance of Christians
to become involved in controversy. They believed that there were
generally more orthodox believers among the membership of the churches
than confirmed liberals, but that the conservative believers had not
acted to keep the liberals from positions of influence until they had
lost control of the organization. Fundamentalists therefore held that
constant vigilance was necessary lest any form of non-orthodoxy gain a
toehold in any orthodox organization. The new evangelicals saw the
situation differently. Most of them looked forward to the restoration
of orthodoxy to a position of respectability inside the major denomina-
tions. They spoke confidently of the conservative swing in the churches,
and. produced analyses which exaggerated the similarity of dialectical
theology to ■ evangelical orthodoxy. They felt orthodoxy must be

maintained, but a less strident tone should be adopted for theological
debate. They spoke of new approaches to theologians of other view-
points, and strove earnestly to earn the respect of non-evangelical
theologians. New evangelicals stressed the contribution of neo-
orthodoxy in dethroning liberalism, while fundamentalists saw in neo-
orthodoxy a more dangerous form of liberalism.

The new evangelicals eventually made against the fundamentalists
many of the charges which liberals had long made. They exhorted the
fundamentalists to make greater demonstration of Christian love, while
ridiculing them for their insistence on maintaining doctrinal separa-
tion. The fundamentalists became even more bitter toward the new
evangelicals than toward the liberals.

While these differing opinions had long existed within conserva-
tive evangelicalism, they had remained submerged, and evangelicals and
fundamentalists had worked together in a great many organizations.
Only in the 1950s as the new evangelicals began to urge their convic-
tions upon others through the evangelical press did the controversy
become heated. They did so because by that time they began to feel that
the opportunity existed for returning orthodoxy to a position of re-
spect within the mainstream of Protestant theological discussion. The
late forties had witnessed a resurgence of conservative evangelical
activity, with numerous conservative evangelists attracting wide atten-
tion. The emergence of Billy Graham in 1949 and his rapid rise to
national prominence had set the stage for the division within conser-
vative evangelicalism.

The doctrine of "separation" had assumed an important place in
fundamentalist preaching. Fundamentalists insisted that the Bible
demanded strict separation from those religious teachers who denied
essential elements of the faith. They had come to believe that it was
failure to observe the doctrine of separation which had allowed liber-
alism to grow in the denominations and which eventually resulted in the
ouster of the fundamentalists. Fundamentalist leaders spent many hours
detailing applications of the doctrine of separation. One typical
fundamentalist spokesman charged churchgoers to have nothing to do with
"false prophets" in the following words: "To associate with them in
any way; to fellowship with them in any program; to give them the
benefit of any support, moral or material; to belong to their churches;
to lend them your influence; to give them the si ightest indication of
recognition, respect or honor; is to ignore, deny and disobey the
plain teaching of the Bible and to compromise with the forces of Satan
and Hell!"4

The roots of Billy Graham were deep in fundamentalism, and in the
early years his pulpit ministry fully reflected that fact. His rise
to national prominence was generally hailed by fundamentalists as an
answer to their prayers for the restoration of mass evangelism and
orthodoxy to a place of importance in national life. His work had
been with fundamentalist organizations, and he had been a speaker at
many fundamentalist functions. He had spoken against "apostasy" as
strongly as other fundamentalists, and there was little to indicate
' that he would become the center of a struggle which would cause great
bitterness among conservative Christians. Eventually Billy Graham

10

came to be the issue in the division of conservative evangelicalism.
This would take time, however, for fundamentalists would be slow to
reject a spokesman who for the first time in many years could present
their case before a national audience. Fundamentalists such as John R.
Rice, who had campaigned for years for the return of mass revivalism,
would only with great reluctance turn against an evangelist who could
fill a stadium with thousands and thousands of people. For long,
Rice, and other fundamentalists, saw Graham in the classic role of
fundamentalist evangelist and rejected the charges by Carl Mclntire
that the young evangelist did not measure up to fundamentalist ideology.
Mclntire pointed to Graham's association with non-evangelical ecclesiasti-
cal figures, and to his disinclination to jeopardize his wide support
by strong attack upon error. Still, Rice and most fundamentalists
continued to support Billy Graham warmly.

Billy Graham had always solicited fundamentalist support, and
had waved aside accusations concerning his relations with non-
evangelical ecclesiastics, but in the spring of 1956 he began a course
which would certainly divide the conservative camp. Graham fully and
publicly identified himself with those who were promoting the new
evangelicalism, at the same time rejecting the fundamentalist label.
He took a position in an internal dispute within the Southern Baptist
Convention completely endorsing the denomination'sviewpoint and
rejecting the fundamentalist contentions. In October of 1956 the
journal Christianity Today appeared and was known to reflect the
Views of Billy Graham and the new evangelicals. No longer could any
fundamentalist imagine that Graham fully endorsed the fundamentalist
position.

11

Christianity Today clearly set forth this new evangelical posi-
tion as an alternative to fundamentalism. New evangelicalism was
presented as a moderate middle position, avoiding the extremes of both
classic liberalism and fundamentalism. The new evangelicals never
arrived at a consistent evaluation of neo-orthodoxy, though they were
warmer in their comments toward that group than toward any other.
The editors of Christianity Today generally spent much time on the
thought of Karl Barth, considering such theologians as Emil Brunner,
Rudolph Bultmann, Paul Tillich, and Rheinhold Neibuhr little more than
nuisances and obstructions to the picture of the conservative swing in
the churches which they were constantly describing.

By the time of the Billy Graham Crusade in New York City, which
opened in May of 1957, the split between the new evangelicals and the
fundamentalists was virtually complete. During the preparations for
the crusade it became clear that Graham had cast his lot fully with the
broader church, and non-orthodoxy was fully represented in the crusade
committees. Graham spoke against the fundamentalists in an interview in
Chris tain Life magazine, and challenged the National Association of
Evangelicals at the annual meeting of that organization in Buffalo,
New York, to avoid the narrow extremism of fundamentalism.

The fundamentalists launched a full-scale attack against Graham,
urging withdrawal of support from his crusades. Fundamentalist
journals rehearsed Graham's career, repeated his many pledges not to
allow non-orthodox churchmen any leadership positions in the campaign,
and pointed out that these men now held many places of honor within the
crusade.

12

Fundamentalists characterized Graham's position as being that the end
justifies the means. Article after article was now printed in the Sword
of the Lord, the Christian Beacon, and other fundamentalist papers
criticizing Graham, the New York campaign backing, and the total program
of new evangelicalism. Throughout the next months, bitter controversy
continued between the new evangelical supporters of Graham's ecumenical
evangelism and the fundamentalists. Most conservative evangelicals
found it easier to support Graham. His enormous personal popularity
and the magnificence of his success were in most cases the deciding
factors. Those who attempted to remain neutral in the dispute generally
found their way to the Graham side. Those fundamentalists who had
worked in the National Association of Evangelicals and had taken a
more moderate stance on some issues than that of the American Council
of Christian Churches were pushed far toward the Mclntire group. Many
conservative evangelical organizations were disrupted by the dispute,
and some denominations, such as the Conservative Baptists, suffered
severe internal dissension. The National Association of Evangelicals
was able to take no consistent position, though it was generally
sympathetic toward Graham. Had the issue been new evangelicalism,
rather than Billy Graham, the fundamentalists would have been much
stronger within the NAE, but when the question was presented as support
or non-support for Graham, only those truly grounded in fundamentalist
conviction would take the fundamentalist side.

By the end of the New York crusade it was clear that Graham
would in the future work primarily with the. establ ished churches.
Christianity Today reported after each crusade that the "great central

13

segment" of the church was more united than ever before. Some working
relationship with the neo-orthodoxy that was dominant had been arranged,
and the pattern of New York was followed in city after city. While
the Graham organization and most of the religious press pointed to this
unity of the great central segment, fundamentalists insisted that the
lack of any sound doctorinal basis for this activity exposed evangeli-
cal churches to the danger of contamination by these non-evangelical
sources. The fundamentalist warnings were heeded by few, however, and
the fundamentalists found themselves more isolated than ever. The
deep sense of alienation which is part of fundamentalism was furthered,
and the minority mentality of the group was reinforced. As the decade
of the 1950s ended Graham had become a spokesman for the established
churches, and fundamentalism had virtually ceased to be visible.

NOTES
CHAPTER 1

1 George W. Dollar, A History of Fundamentalism in America
(Greenville, S. C: Bob Jones University Press, 1973), p. xv.

2J. Gresham Machen, Christianity and LiberaljSEl (New York:
Macmillan, 1926).

3Bemard Ramm, The Christian View of Science and Scripture
(Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, T954]7

4Robert Wells, "False Prophets," Sword of the Lord, September
17, 1954, XX, 10.

14

CHAPTER 2
THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF EVANGELICALS .

Early in the 1940s two organizations came into being which would
attempt to unite evangelicals on an interdenominational basis. The
earliest was the American Council of Christian Churches (ACCC or ACC)
founded and dominated by Carl Mclntire. The ACC was a militant opponent
of the Federal Council of Churches of Christ in America (FCCCA or FCC)
and its primary activity often seemed to be direct attack upon that
organization. Because of the stridency of its attack on the Federal
Council of Churches and the disinclination of many evangelicals to
follow the leadership of Mclntire there was widespread sentiment that
another agency of evangelical unity was needed. Out of this concern
the National Association of Evangelicals came into being.

In 1942 a number of evangelical leaders met at the Coronado Hotel
in St. Louis, Missouri, and laid definite plans for the formation of a
national organization which would function in behalf of conservative
evangelicalism. The New England Fellowship, an evangelical organi-
zation, had earlier been built by J. Elwin Wright, recognized as the
founder of the NAE, and the NAE naturally drew considerable inspiration
from that effort. In May of 1943 the constitutional convention
of the National Association of Evangelicals met in Chicago, and the
•organization began to take shape as well^ as to elaborate its distinctive
position.

15

16

At the time of the St. Louis meeting, the basic position of the
organization, to the left of the American Council of Christian Churches
but far to the right of the Federal Council of Churches, had been
established. Efforts were made at that time by the Mc In tire group to
bring these men into the ACC, but they were not successful. Mclntire
insisted that all who wished to join the ACC must withdraw from the
FCC. Many of the men involved in the formation of the new group were
members of denominations which were part of the FCC and were not dis-
posed to withdraw from their denominations. Other procedural issues
were involved, but the major difficulty was Mclntire's insistence
on complete separation from any connection with the FCC and from any
denomination which was a member of the FCC. All attempts at compromise
failed, and it seemed that many preferred to remain out ■of the Mclntire
orbit. One proposal offered was a compromise that included groups
connected with the FCC if they were willing formally to go on record
as repudiating the FCC. This proposal was rejected by the majority of
the MAE leaders. Dr. Stephen Paine, who voted with the majority in
1942 and was several times president of the NAE, stated in 1951 that
excessive shyness on the part of the NAE men at the meeting in 1942 may

have lost an opportunity for the unity of evangelicals in one organiza-

2
tion facilitated by recognition of the FCC as a common enemy.

Early in the constitutional convention held in Chicago in 1943,

the differences between the NAE and the American Council of Christian

Churches were publicly developed. Dr. J. Elwin Wright, the founder

and executive secretary of the newer organization, claimed the "great

mass of thoughtful and earnest Christians" approved the determination

17

to "work constructively on the great problems which the church faces,"

and went on, "They do not approve of a negative approach to the

problem of modernism. Nevertheless, they are solidly with us in our

effort to place the issues of apostasy before the nation." After

recognizing in two sentences the contribution of the fundamentalist

leaders of the past who "raised their voices against the encroachments

of modernism," he declared,

However, we had better frankly admit that fundamentalists have
not always been wisely led. This movement will have to live down
the errors in strategy of others in the past. He will continue
to meet with defeat . . . unless a new strategy under competent
leaders is evolved.

Some of us have been slow to realize that not all modernists
are hopeless apostates. May God give to us the ability to dis-
cern that we may save, through our gentleness and brotherly
kindness in dealing with them, some of these who are in a state
of confustion.3

This was to be the stance of the new organization, united witness to

the "historic evangelical faith," spelled out in a carefully drawn

statement of faith, but without the bitter and constant criticism of

the liberal leaders of the FCC and the mainline denominations which

absorbed much of the time of Mclntire's ACC. At the Chicago meeting

a NAE leader described the statement of faith which had been adopted:

One: "We believe the Bible to be the inspired, the only
infallible, authoritative Word of God." On that position,
Protestantism must rest if she is to continue to be the church
of Christ.

Two: "We believe there is one God, eternally existent m
three Persons--the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit."

Three: "We believe in the deity of Christ, in His virgin
birth, in His sinless life, in His miracles, in His vicarious
and atoning death, in His bodily resurrection, His ascension to
the right hand of the Father, and in His personal return in power
and glory." This is our clear affirmation of our faith in the
deity of Christ, not merely His "divinity. There are those who
declare that they believe in the divinity of Christ Jesus,
meaning by this that both we and He -have divinities, but asserting

18

that the divinity which is in Christ is present in larger measure
than in any other being. Our position is clearly this: That we
believe in the deity of Christ; that is His being of the very
essence of God, the Son of God, the First Begotten from the dead.

Four: "We believe that because of man's lost and sinful
condition, regeneration by the Holy Spirit is absolutely neces-
sary for salvation."

Five: "We believe in the present ministry of the Holy Spirit,
by whose indwelling the Christian is enabled to live a godly life."

Six: "We believe in. the resurrection of both the saved and
the lost. They that are saved unto the resurrection of life and
they that are lost unto the ressurrection of damnation."

Seven: "We believe in the spiritual unity of believers in
Christ. "^

Certainly, the NAE men did not consider themselves "soft on apostasy."
Indeed, throughout the early years liberal spokesmen rarely made any
great distinction between the men of the NAE and those of the ACC.
Further, the presence among the NAE leadership of old-time defenders
of the faith, such as Bob Jones, and the amount of time spent in de-
nunciation of liberalism, clearly placed the organization in the
theological spectrum. In the published report of the constitutional
convention of 1943, in answer to the question: "What is the attitude
toward the ACC?" it was stated in part, "Doctrinally there is no
disagreement between the American Council and the N. A. E. The leader-
ship and policy of the American Council are not satisfactory to the
great body of evangelicals. . . . its policy of indiscriminate criti-
cism contributes to the defeat-of its own purposes." At the same time
the Federal Council, because of its "lack of a positive stand on the
essential doctrines of the Christian faith', its inclusion of leaders
who have repudiated these doctrines, and its active support of programs
and institutions which are non-evangelical or apostate, does not repre-
sent the evangelicals of America."

19

During the early years of the organization, the leaders of the NAE
generally refrained from extensive public criticism of the American
Council. At times harsh words were spoken and often accusations by the
American Council men, usually by Mclntire through the Christian Beacon,
were answered, but most of the leadership of the NAE continued to hope
that the breach with the ACC could be healed and that merger of the two
organizations might eventually be possible. Strong fundamentalist
spokesmen, such as Bob Jones and John R. Rice, were heard in the dis-
cussions of the NAE, and they as well as many others hoped to bring the
two groups together. In March, 1944, Rice, editor of the Sword of the
Lord, urged his readers to pray for the merger of the NAE and ACC.
The desire of the NAE men to include those who had not withdrawn from
denominations connected with the Federal Council, and the unwillingness
of Mclntire to "fellowship" organizationally with these men, continued
to be an obstacle, however, and the two groups grew further and further
apart. The inclusion of various pentecostal groups within the NAE
added to the difficulty, and well before the end of the decade recon-
ciliation seemed far away.

Despite the clearly expressed desire of the NAE men to avoid the
kind of controversial activity that marked the American Council, an
important function of the organization was the attack on liberal and
non-evangelical domination of the Protestant establishment. This diffi-
cult position found expression in a letter, published in the report on
the 1943 convention, written by James DeForest Murch, long-time editor
of the NAE organ, United Evangelical Action;

I believe the Chicago meeting to be one of the most significant
gatherings in the current history of American Protestantism. Its

20

spirit was intelligent, positive, constructive and forward
looking. . . . [The organization seems] a medium through which
evangelicals -may achieve satisfactory co-operative action and
protect themselves from liberal and totalitarian ecclesiastical
control J

A resolution of the 1948 annual convention expressed the purpose of the

organization: ". . . to provide a fellowship for those who oppose

apostasy, and who desire a means of unitedly presenting the claims of

o

Evangelical Christianity." The third of five objectives was published

in the report on the 1949 annual convention:

To establish a common front for the promotion of evangelical
truth against the inroads of heresy (commonly called modernism
or liberalism). To challenge all Christian groups ana institu-
tions to a positive declaration of the church's evangelical
heritage and to lift the standard against all forms of infidelity,
heresy, and apostasy. 9

J. E. Wright gave the following strong statement at the annual convention

in 1946:

I am more than ever impressed with the need of maintaining
a most positive stand against infidelity and apostasy in Christen-
dom. . . . The National Association of Evangelicals has little
reason for existence if it fails to make clear its repudiation
of the false doctrines of modernism which are endorsed and propa-
gated by prominent leaders of several of the interdenominational
organizations of this country, notably those of the Federal Council
of the Churches of Christ in America.

Men who deny the deity of Christ, the virgin birth, the
miracles of our Saviour, the efficacy of His shed blood to save
us from our sins, His physical resurrection, and His personal
return in power and glory are. not Christians but are lost and
doomed sinners in need of repentance even though they may occupy
places of honor in the Church. The effort of all evangelicals
must ever be to purge their churches of these pagans. '^

It would be difficult to find a more total condemnation of unorthodox
theology in the pages of the Christian Beacon itself. Many such state-
ments by the early leaders of the NAE demonstrate that they saw opposi-
tion to Protestant unorthodoxy as a major activity of the organization
though they hoped to escape the stigma which attached to the controversial

21

activities of Mclntire and the earlier fundamentalists. In 1972, at
the thirtieth anniversary of the National Association of Evangelicals,
Dr. Clyde Taylor, general director of the organization, looked back and
noted the situation which called the movement into existence: "Protes-
tant leadership was largely polarized. Theological liberals had gained
control of most of the old-line denominations and were quite willing to
use political pressures to curtail or eliminate an evangelical voice
in their churches. Evangelicals needed a united voice to safeguard
their freedoms. "

In the same article Taylor cited the three issues which separated
the NAE from the American Council:

1. The question of immediate and complete separation from
denominations and corporations in which apostasy existed.

2. The question of creating an official council of churches as
against a fellowship of evangelicals for united action.

3. The issue of a polemical and negative approach as against
a constructive approach. 12

The first and third of these issues were the most difficult, though
they were tied closely to the second. The NAE allowed membership to
churches, church councils, denominations, various evangelical agencies,
and individuals, while the ACC was a genuine council of churches ad-
mitting only denominations to membership. Neither the NAE nor the ACC
would admit denominations which were connected with the Federal Council,
though the NAE would admit individual churches of denominations which
held membership in the FCC. Perhaps the third was the most important
division between the two groups. Clyde Taylor has pointed out that

most of those involved in the formation of the NAE had not been per-
il 13
sonally involved in the "fundamentalist controversy of the 1920's."

22

The Presbyterian group led by Mclntire and the General Association of
Regular Baptist Churches, represented by Robert T. Ketcham, the two
largest groups in the American Council, were both formed in withdrawals
from main-line denominations which were considered to have apostasized.
Men such as Ketcham, who had fought long, hard battles to withdraw from
the Northern Baptist Convention, were not inclined to associate them-
selves with organizations which involved the slightest link with the
ecclesiastical enemy. Men such as Mclntire, who had had the church
buildings of his congregation taken by the denominational machinery,
were inclined to a sterner view than men who had been spectators to the
controversy, even though they might not be separated by theological
differences. For their part, not having been involved in intense
ecclesiastical battle, certain of the NAE leaders were "to some extent

scared" of the "vehemence of the American Council men" and "their pre-

14
occupation with the Federal Council.

Comment on the leadership of the two organizations was offered

by fundamentalist editor John R. Rice in 1944. Rice was closer to

Mclntire in philosophy than to the men who led the MAE but was working

more closely with the NAE and promoted it in the pages of the Sword of

the Lord. He long maintained cordial relations with both organizations

and often expressed the hope that the NAE would' move toward a firmer

position against apostasy. Rice never worked closely with Mclntire or

the leadership of the American Council. He and Bob Jones led the

fundamentalist faction within the NAE, though Jones was more involved

-in the organization than Rice. As mentioned. Rice urged his readers

to pray for merger of the NAE and ACC. In an article in March, 1944, he

23

noted that the American Council was led by "the more aggressive fundamen-
talists, men who have boldly broken with the modernistic leadership in
their denominations." The NAE was led principally by men "who have stayed
inside the denominations," men naturally less aggressive. Rice further
stated:

They are afraid of the boldness of the American Council. They
are afraid of the leadership of Dr. Carl Mclntire. They are a
little embarrassed, we believe, by the independents in their own
ranks. [The ACC men] . . . have sometimes accused the National
Association of Evangelicals of being compromisers, not willing to
openly attack the Federal Council and its modernism. And I am
very sorry to say that the National Association of Evangelicals,
through their official spokesmen, have sometimes gone so far as
to accuse the American Council leaders of self-seeking and false-
hoods.

Actually, though American Council leaders may be sometimes
over critical, each of them has paid a real price for leadership,
. . . their aggressive leadership is needed in the National
Association of Evangelicals. They have more experience in fight-
ing modernism and in standing for the fundamentals of the faith. Ib

Under attack by the Mclntire group for failing to maintain a

clearcut stand against infidelity, the leaders of the NAE through the

years were drawn often to set forth carefully the position of their

organization. The phrase "Cooperation Without Compromise" was the theme

of the 1949 annual convention which met in Chicago, and was the title

of the authorized history of the organization written by J. D. Murch

and published in 1956. l6 During the 1949 convention Stephen W. Paine,

then president of NAE, delivered an address in which he set out the

limits of cooperation. He first noted that in "all of the major branches

of Protestantism" men were deserting the faith and relegating it to the

"category 'of myths, and have gone about it to set up another gospel

which is not the gospel. . . ." Referring to the brethren of the

American Council, he stated, ". . . their group and ours are one in the

24

Faith, even though we are not agreed as to organizational policies."
He insisted that NAE cooperation did not "... involve any compromise
whatsoever in the tenets which comprise the basic core of evangelical
faith common to all Bible-believing groups." "N. A. E. is not an in-
clusivist organization. It has no place whatsoever for those not wholly
evangelical in faith." He then scored the Federal Council of Churches
for its inclusion of leaders who denied various elements of the evangeli-
cal faith. After pointing out that the NAE did not seek to impose upon
its member churches in the area of denominational distinctives, Paine
stated:

.we have found that our area of agreement embraces those
truths which we all hold to be essential to salvation. We have
come to realize that despite areas of disagreement, we are deal-
ing with people who give evidence of being New Testament Chris-
tians and who have a theological platform consistent therewith.

We therefore base our co-operaticn fully and solely upon the
common faith of us all, allowing each other complete freedom in
our distinctives.

He criticized the ACC for invading the area of denominational distinc-
tives and indeed criticized the FCC on the same basis. The issue of
affiliations was then brought up, and Paine declared that the NAE would
not place under scrutiny the connections of its members. He recognized
those scriptures which forbid "fellowship with the unfruitful works of
darkness" and "yoking together with unbelievers" and stated: "Therefore,
we will not have in our fellowship any unbelievers if we know it." He
then came to what was near the central question and asserted that he had
heard of no verse which says, "Have no fellowship with those who have
in your opinion fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness." He
then concluded that the NAE holds neither denominational distinctives,
nor the matter of affiliations, to be unimportant, but does not make

25

17

any attempt to regulate its members in these areas.

Throughout the decade this theme was sounded again and again by
NAE spokesmen. Clearly they endorsed the principle that non-evangelical
figures are to be excluded from fellowship, but just as clearly they
refused to make an issue of the affiliations of their member churches.
The address by Dr. Stephen Paine which was summarized in the preceding
paragraph was presented in 1949. It rehearsed many points which had
been made in a sermon given at the previous year's convention by the
same man, but by 1949 the tone had changed somewhat.. The 1948 version

was conciliatory toward the American Council; by 1949 positions had con-

1 P
siderably hardened. In 1951 Dr. Paine authored a pamphlet distri-
buted by the NAE, "Separation"--Is Separating Evangelicals, which re-

ig
vealed the extent to which the issues had developed.

In February, 1948, Dr. Robert Ketcham, at the time president of

the American Council, identified the question between the ACC and the

NAE: "The issue is not denunciation and repudiation of apostasy. The

real issue is whether or not separation from apostasy should be added to

repudiaton and denunciation. This and this alone is the present issue

between the American Council of Christian Churches and the National

20
Association cf Evangelicals." Paine used this statement by Ketcham

as the introduction of his discussion of the differences between the
organizations. He readily agreed that "the Scriptures enjoin the non-
cooperation of believers with apostasy, ..." but of course differed
with the ACC men on the application of this principle. He stated that
the ACC position "puts into one package all denominations in the Federal
Council, whether apostate or non-apostate, and declares that the

26

evangelical Bible-believing Christian who stays in membership connection

with any of them is disobeying the commands of Scripture." He then

pointed out that some of the leaders of the ACC, referring particularly

to Mclntire, did not leave their denomination but were ejected and

expended considerable unsuccessful effort in an attempt to be reinstated.

It is important to note that Paine in no way suggested that he opposed

withdrawal from an "apostate" denomination, but in fact claimed credit

for the MAE in bringing many churches out of their denominations. What

he did insist upon was that the timing of any such withdrawal be left to

the conscience of the individual Christian or church. The position of

Paine and of the NAE was summarized in the following statement:

Realizing the different stages and degrees of modernism in the
various FCC denominations, as well as the varying types of organi-
zational representation and control, and the varying degrees and
stages of conviction among evangelical men and congregations, the
NAE decided that, recognizing the historic Protestant principle
that believers should separate from apostasy, it must also recog-
nize the Protestant principle of individual freedom of conscience
in assessing and determining the Lord's promptings. L>

Long before 1951, NAE leaders had seen signs that their softer

approach was bringing the desired results. In 1947 J. Elwin Wright

declared: "N. A. E. is winning the respect of evangelicals across the

nation. ..." He also noted that "some who have scorned fundamentalism

through the years are admitting that a new spirit has come into the

conservative movement in America. . . . There is abundance of proof that

the policy of building a constructive program rather than majoring in

diatribes against modernists is much more effective than the policy of

,22
continuous attack which is favored by a few critics of N. A. E."

Others would suggest that a considerable amount of diatribe was

included in the program of the NAE. In 1950 John R. Rice informed his

27

readers that though the founders of the organization did not intend
that "it should be in active opposition to the Federal Council of
Churches," in practice "it has become necessary for the N. A. E. to

openly show the dangers of the Federal Council's program, and I am glad

23
-they do." Certainly as the NAE leaders were drawn into theological

battle, they found it necessary to take more forthright positions than

they intended, but even at the 1943 convention one speaker referred to

the Federal Council of Churches as the "children of this world" while

another saw Protestantism divided into two parts: "(1) Those who have

departed from the true Christian tradition; (2) Those who adhere to the

24
Christian tradition without equivocation or reservation." And no

less a spokesman than Dr. Stephen Paine suggested in 1943 that the

mission of the NAE would involve the negative as well as the positive;

that it would be necessary to tell "what the faith is not'1 as well as

what it is. He further indicated that this might involve "implicating

25
some person or agency, as the Federal Council of Churches." One who

is familiar with the rhetoric of evangelical and fundamentalist groups

will nonetheless feel the milder tone of the NAE "exposure of unbelief."

Thus, the NAE was heavily involved in criticism of liberalism

within the major Protestant institutions. Throughout the years of

its existence, denunciation of non-orthodoxy was prominent in the

speeches given at the annual conventions, the literature distributed by

the organization, and the NAE journal, United Evangelical Action. This

criticism#;v'as usually carried on in a more scholarly fashion and in more

subdued tones than the attacks on liberalism made by the independent

fundamentalists and the men of the ACC, but throughout the decade

28

fundamentalist influence was still strong within the National Associa-
tion of Evangelicals. Attack on error did not have the prominence in
NAE circles that it did in fundamentalist circles, however, and cer-
tainly was a lesser concern in NAE than in ACC.

The dispute between the NAE and ACC placed many evangelicals in
a difficult position. Most wanted no part of the squabble and failed
to align themselves with either group. Others became extreme partisans
and actively worked against the "opposing" organization. Some, such as
John R. Rice, attempted to remain on friendly terms with both groups.
The complexities of the situation are seen in reactions occasioned by
the publication, in the Sword during the Spring of 1949, of several
articles by Carl Mclntire which were strongly critical of the Federal
Council of Churches. In answer to a letter from a reader who disliked
the Mclntire criticism of the FCC, Rice wrote:

... I am not connected with the American Council of Churches, ^
but with the National Association of Evangelicals. And Dr. Carl
Mclntire, I understand, has sometimes criticized me because I
do not break fellowship with all the good men in denominations
which fellowship with the Federal Council of Churches. I am
regularly engaged in large union revival campaigns and I work
with all ^he people of God who believe the Bible and- preach
salvation by the blood of Christ. I may say very frankly that
I have sometimes been irritated by the extreme to which
Mr. Mclntire sometimes goes, particularly in labelling some of
us as "compromisers" who strive for unity and who have good
fellowship with good, solid, Bible-believing Christians who
remain in denominations where there is modernism. I feel I must
maintain my fellowship with all those who truly love the Lord
Jesus and believe His Word, even though they may do wrong, and
I think they do, in being yoked up with unbelievers contrary to
the command of II Corinthians 6:14-18.

. . . Whatever else can be said for Mr. Mclntire, it surely
is t/je that he loves the Word of God and defends it. It is
unfortunately true that Harry Emerson Fosdick, that Bishop G.
•Bromley Oxnam, Bishop Mc.Connell and many others who lead in the
' "Federal Council of Churches are really infidels. . . . ihey
scoff at the integrity of the Bible, at the diety of Chirst, at

29

salvation through the atoning blood. In my judgment, no sincere
Christian can be indifferent, in the face of such blatant and
wicked treason to historic Christianity. I am against that kind
of infidelity in the church. It is not Christianity. . . .

. . . What Mr. Mclntire is saying on this matter needs to
be said, and I arn for him saying it and frankly and honestly back
him up in a necessary protest.

So, while I do not go as far as Mr. Mclntire "in breaking
fellowship with godly Christian people who have not left the
major denominations, yet. i believe the same gospel he believes
and oppose the infidelity of principal leaders of the Federal
Council of Churches for the same reason that Mr. Mclntire does.
Therefore, I asked permission to run his series of articles in
The Sword of the Lord.26

This would represent the thinking of the more conservative elements in
the National Association of Evangelicals during the first decade of its
existence. Toward the end of the decade, some of these fundamentalist
leaders began to drift away from the organization, partially in dis-
satisfaction with its position with regard to separation, partially
because of a dispute over evangelism. Rice and Bob Jones represented a
group of evangelists within the organization who urged that the NAE be-
come actively involved in the promotion of evangelistic campaigns through-
out the country. At first there was some enthusiasm for such a program
within the organization, but as it became clear that certain of the
member groups were opposed to mass evangelism, the plans were dropped.

During the early 1950s several of the fundamentalist leaders, including

27
Rice and Jones, ceased to be actively involved 'in the organization.

This more fully confirmed leadership in the hands of men who had not

been involved in the fundamentalist-modernist controversy and moved

the organization in a "softer" direction. The polemic of the NAE

against unorthodoxy became less polemical and the divergence between

the fundamentalists and the "evangelicals" grew more marked.

30

Had the NAE men, the Baptist fundamentalists led by Rice, the
independent fundamentalists represented by Jones, and the men of the
American Council been joined together in a strong organization with a
clear platform, the history of evangelicalism in the next years might
have been far different. As it was, the energy and interest that came
to the evangelical community in the years after the war, highlighted
by the emergence of Billy Graham as a national figure, found the evan-
gelicals disunited and unable to speak with any compelling voice to
the shape which the "revival" of the 1950s would take. Since their
defeat in the struggles of the twenties, the evangelicals had operated
in relative isolation, little affected by the shifts in the theological
temperature of the surrounding community, exerting little influence on
the national scene. Neo-orthodoxy had challenged and finally unseated
liberalism as the dominant force in American Protestantism, but this
struggle had been of only peripheral interest to most evangelicals.
Even those evangelicals who remained within the major denominations
tended to be much more involved with evangelical, interdenominational
activities than with the programs of their denominations. ' With the
surge of evangelical activity following the war and the emergence of
Graham in 1949, the evangelical community again would find it necessary
to consider its relationship to the whole of American Protestantism,
and indeed to the whole of American society.

NOTES
CHAPTER 2

National Association of Evangelicals, A Report of the Consti-
tutional Convention (Chicago, 1943), p. 9.

Stephen Paine, "Separation" Is Separating EvangeJJ_cal_s_
(printed privately by J. El win Wright, 1951), pp. 38-39.

o

NAE, Report of Constitutional Convention, p. 8.
4Ibid., pp. 23-24.
5Ibid., p. 39.
6Sword, March 24, 1944, X, 3.

NAE, Report of Constitutional Convention, p. 55.

8NAE, A Report of the Sixth Annual Convention (Chicago, 1948),
p. 39. """" ~" "

"NAE, A Report of the Seventh Annual Convention (Chicago, 1949;
P- 1.

10NAE, A Report of the Fourth Annual Convention (Chicago, 1946).
p. 51.

United Evangelical Action, Spring, 1972, pp. 8-9.
12Ibid., pp. 8-9.
13Ibid., p. 9.

Paine, "Separation," p. 39.

15Sword, March 24, 1944, X, 1-3.

James Deforest March, Cooperation Without Compromise (Grand
Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1956).

NAE, Report of Seventh Convention, pp. 23-29.

18NAE, Report of Sixth Convention* pp. 40-47.

19Paine, "Separation."

31

32

p. 9.

20
Robert Ketchum, quoted by Stephen Paine, "Separation," p. 3.

21

Paine, "Separation," pp. 3-5.

22NAE, A Report of the Fifth Annual Convention (Chicago, 1947)

23Sword, October 13, 1950, XII, 7.

24

MAE, Report of Constitutional Convention, p. 16.

25NAE, Report of Sixth Convention, p. 46.

26Sword, April 8, 1949, XI, 1-6.

27

Interview with Clyde Taylor, Washington, D.C., August, 1973.

CHAPTER 3
THE SIGNIFICANCE OF SEPARATION

John R. Rice began the publication of the Sword of the Lord Dn
September 28, 1934, as simply the voice of the evangelist in print
"preaching the gospel, rebuking sin, defending the faith, teaching
the Bible, and winning sinners to the Lord Jesus Christ." The paper
would maintain a constant war "on booze, on horse race gambling, on
modernism and unbelief in the churches, and on sin of every kind, in
the church as well as out." Readers were told that if they wished a
friend to know what it meant to be a fundamentalist, they could give
him a subscription to the Sword. And indeed, through the years there
has been no better place to gauge the position of fundamentalists than
in the pages of the Sword. Fundamentalists have been far too indi-
vidualistic to allow any one spokesman's position on a subject to stand
for that of fundamentalism. There have always been disputes within
fundamentalism, as there have been within most other groups, but the
Sword, because of its continuous publication since 1934 and because
Rice has always been near the center of fundamentalist thought, is the
best single source on fundamentalist attitudes during the years with
which this study is concerned. The unwillingness to compromise on
matters thought, rightly or wrongly, to be matters of principle was a
central element in the fundamentalist mentality and is reflected always
in the Sword .

33

34

Fundamentalists always believed that there had been more "Bible-
believers" than "liberals" in the churches during the years of the
great denominational wars, and attributed the defeat of the conservatives
to the refusal of the orthodox leadership of the denominations to elimi-
nate non-orthodox teaching before it could gain control of the denomina-
tional machinery. In the minds of the fundamentalists, the conquest of
the denominations by liberalism was an act of treachery. Liberals came
into power in the denominations secretly, usually denying that their
views varied from accepted positions.. Only after the machinery was
firmly in their own hands was the real nature of their positon re-
vealed, and only then did the average church member begin to be af-
fected by the liberal teaching. The failure of orthodoxy to retain con-
trol of the denominations was therefore seen as the result of the re-
fusal of the conservatives to examine carefully the teaching of those
suspected of non-orthodox views and exclude any who veered from
orthodoxy. Those who had withdrawn from their denominations during the
struggles of the twenties and thirties were ever on their guard lest
the liberalism from which they had withdrawn gain entry to their new
organizations in the way that it was considered to have entered the
old. While many were critical of this fundamentalist effort to expose
and resist encroachments of non-orthodox teaching, the fundamentalists
pointed to the disastrous results which the policy of charity in matters
of doctrinal difference had brought the old denominations. In funda-
mentalist eyes, the old-line denominations were virtually all apostate
or near apostate, and none retained even a fraction of the. vigorous
testimony which it had during the nineteenth century. Only the

35

Southern Baptist Convention, among the major denominations, remained
largely uncorrupted, and there was great concern in fundamentalist
circles over the teaching of evolution in Baptist colleges and softness
toward the "higher critical view of the Bible" in Southern Baptist
seminaries. Rice in particular was concerned about the Southern Baptist
Convention, as his work had been within that group, though by 1934 he
had been for some time in independent work. His brief association with
J. Frank Norn's, a Texas fundamentalist Baptist and bitter foe of the
Southern Baptist Convention, encouraged more vocal attack on suspect
elements within the convention. Though after he broke with Norris his
relations with the convention temporarily improved, by the 1940s
concern over conditions within the Convention was again a major element
in the Sword.

The second issue of the Sword contained a message by Rice which
set forth his position on the matter of separation from unbelief. That
message would be reprinted through the years with changes in illus-
trations, specific names and places, but with no change of position.
The sermon was titled "The Unequal Yoke: What the Bible says about
Christians yoking up with unbelievers in lodges, in marriage, and in
churches and denominations." The text was II Corinthians 6:14-18:

Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers; for
what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and
what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath
Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an
infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols?
for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I
will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God,
and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them,
and be ye separate, saith the Loi»d, and touch not the unclean thing:

36

and I will receive you; And will be a father unto you, and ye
shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty. [KJV]

Rice applied these verses without hesitation, declaring that Christians
ought not be joined with unbelievers "in marriage, in lodges, and in
churches." Though Christians should certainly associate socially with
unsaved people and witness to them in the normal concourse of daily
living, any "yoke" which implied mutual responsibilities and identifica-
tion must be avoided. Not only was this based on the passage in II
Corinthians, but it was said to be "one of the plainest doctrines in
the Bible." He cited the emphasis oh separation given to the Jews in
the Old Testament. Jews were to be set apart by circumcision, by
special dietary restrictions, and by marital restrictions. They were
told not to plant a vineyard with two kinds of seeds, not to wear a
garment made of two kinds of material, and not to plow with an ox and
an ass yoked together. These were cited as evidence that the doctrine
of separation was a major theme of the Old Testament. While the cere-
monial provisions of Jewish law did not apply to Christians, the

3
principle of separation assuredly did. The New Testament was said

to be as much concerned about the matter of separation, with special

emphasis given to matters of religious observance. Christians should

have "no 'yoke,' no 'fellowship,' no 'agreement,' no 'part,' no 'concord,

with unbelievers in churches and religious programs. A newspaper survey

was cited to demonstrate serious variance between orthodox belief and

the opinions of a significant number of ministers, and it was pointed

out that the New Testament predicted the emergence of "false teachers

and false prophets." The New Testament said that the introduction of

false teaching was to be done "privily" and with "feigned words," and

37

Rice commented further:

What an accurate picture that is of modernists! They pretend
to believe in the Bible, the miracles, salvation, Heaven, etc.
But when they say the Bible is inspired, they mean just like
other good books are inspired. They say that Jesus is the Son
of God, but they say that so are we all the sons of God! They
may say they believe in miracles, but in the next breath they
say that the radio and printing press are miracles. Actually
their words are "feigned words," for secretly, that is, privily,
they are bringing in damnable doctrines that deny the Lord who
bought them, deny the Bible, God's Word. . . .

The sad truth is told, in verse 2 above, that "many shall
follow their pernicious ways"! In these wicked, modern days,
many people follow unbelievers and modernists. Verse 3 tells us
that such unbelievers and modernists still claim to be preachers,
still claim to be Christians, though they do not believe the
very fundamentals of the Christian faith, . . . But they hold on
to the form of Christianity while they oreach their wicked un-
belief. . . .4

Rice was definite as to what Christians should do when they found them-
selves in churches, denominations, or religious organizations with such
ministers: they should get out. "They should not be -yoked with un-
believers in the churches and religious work. To be in a church with
unbelievers, skeptics, and doubters is to disobey the plain command of
Christ." Rice then stressed the injunction of Jude to "earnestly con-
tend for the faith," waving aside the objections of any who might dis-
like "contentions" and insisting that the Scriptures enjoin Christians
from having any peace with "modernists, rationalists, unbelievers,"
or "false teachers." He then explained: ,;

Honest Christians may differ as to some details of Bible inter-
pretation, but honest Christians cannot differ about the deity
of Christ nor whether the Bible is all God's Word, infallibly
true, nor about the blood atonement nor about the miracles such
as the virgin birth and the bodily resurrection of Christ, the
creation of the world by the direct act of God, etc., nor about a
literal Hell. When a man dissents from what the Bible says on
such great, fundamentals of the faith,, then that man has no right
to call himself a Christian, much less a preacher of the Gospel
or a teacher of the Bible. Such a man is an impostor, a deceiver
a false prophet. ... an infidel in the garb of a preacher, wi th

38

language of deceit because of covetousness, is a wolf in sheep's
clothing, a base hypocrite. He forfeits the respect of decent
people and should have open scorn and public exposure at the
hands of true Christians everywhere. The Bible commands us to
contend earnestly for the faith.J

Though fundamentalists might differ with one another on a great variety
of subjects, might even differ violently, among those who enthusiasti-
cally accepted the fundamentalist label there was agreement on the
importance of this emphasis. Modernism, liberalism, whatever name
might be given to any non-orthodox position, it must be exposed as non-
Christian and resisted with all possible vigor. Christians must separate
themselves from it and refuse it any recognition. Once it became
clear that control of a church, denomination, or other religious organi-
zation could not be retained by orthodoxy or retrieved, Christians
bore a responsibility to withdraw to a doctrinally pure testimony. If
the non-orthodox could not be ejected, then the orthodox must withdraw.
Such thinking caused the withdrawal of the Orthodox and Bible presby-
terians from their denomination, the withdrawal of the Regular Baptists
and the Conservative Baptists from the Northern Baptist Convention and
countless smaller groups from other denominations. Great variation
existed among these groups on the degree of separation required, and
controversy on this point was often bitter among fundamentalists, but
all agreed that the maintenance of a doctrially pure testimony was de-
manded by God, and all were determined not to allow the circumstances
which forced their withdrawal to be repeated.

An article in the March 22, 1935, Sword revealed no mellowing of
Rice's position. In defending the fundamentalist crusade against
modernism, he began with Cain and Abel and traced the development of

39

true religion as against false religion through history, finally stat-
ing, "The modern terms for these extremes of religion are fundamental-
ism and modernism." He then contrasted the two:

A Fundamentalist is a believer.

A Modernist is an unbeliever.

A Fundamentalist is old fashioned.

A Modernist is new fangled.

A Fundamentalist insists on a supernatural, infallible
Bible, a supernatural Savior, a supernatural salvation.

Modernists insist on a human, fallible Bible, on Jesus as
a good prophet, teacher, example and martyr instead of a Savior
and a salvation of human righteousness.

Bible Christians are Fundamentalists.

All infidels are Modernists. 6

Donald Tinder, in an analysis of fundamentalist Baptists in the
North and West, suggests four degrees of separation which were prac-
ticed by fundamentalists with regard to modernism:

1 Those who considered separation in their personal_ and local rela-
tions to be sufficient.

2 Those who withdraw from a denomination where modernism was present,
but who continued to fellowship with those fundamentalists who
remained within.

3 Those who refused to fellowship even with those fundamentalists
who remained within the tainted denomination.

4 Those who would fellowship only with fundamentalists who were of
their particular denominational position. That is, only with
Baptists who were not part of a denomination containing modernism.''

Tinder used the term fundamentalist in a somewhat broader sense than

it has been used in this study. Generally, the fundamentalists so

designated in this study are those in Tinder's,:categories 2, 3, and 4.

Robert Shuler, pastor of Trinity Methodist Church in Los Angeles,

remained within that denomination throughout his life and was a

most vigorous opponent of non-orthodoxy, but suggested before his

death that he would not remain within it if he were a young preacher.

W. B. Riley fought liberalism within the Northern Baptist Convention

40

during his life and withdrew from the denomination while on his death-
bed. Most important fundamentalist leaders, however, left their
denominations, either voluntarily or involuntarily, during their
active years. Even among those who remained within a denomination,
there was usually little active denominational involvement. Often
their personal interpretation of their relationship to the denomination
.amounted to separation, though technically they were members. The
ecclesiology of the various groups of fundamentalists which remained
in denominations containing non-orthodoxy often justified their tie with
the denomination by denying that it existed. They usually held that
the only Biblical institution was the local church, and therefore any
tie with a denomination was only technical. Separation was a vital
element, perhaps the vital element, in the fundamentalist mentality.
Fundamentalists might quarrel with one another as to when a denomina-
tion had actually become "apostate," but there was little disagreement
that when that point was reached, it was the obligation of the Christian

to withdraw.

A typical sermon on the subject of separation was printed in the
November, 1941, Sword. Titled "God's Call to Separation," the sermon
was by Robert E. Neighbour, a fundamentalist Baptist.9 Emphasizing that
this was not a minor point, Neighbour opened by declaring:

The call of the whole Bible is the call to separation.
Today I ran through some of the various scriptures that give
the call to separation. Beloved, I was engulfed in a sea of
truth. Accordingly, I just picked out a few scriptures which
I thought most vital .

First' came several verses from the Genesis creation account with the
headings: "Light Separated from Darkness," "The Waters Above

41

Separated from the Waters Below," "The Waters Separated from the Dry
Land," and "Day Separated from Night." The following comment, on the
fourteenth verse, was typical: "If we are the children of light, and
the children of the day, the night cannot dwell with us. We have no
place of fellowship with the night." It was next pointed out that
Abraham was called out from his homeland, and from him came a separated
nation. Neighbour next pointed to the fetching of Rebekah as a bride
for Isaac and then turned with greater attention to the bringing of
Israel out of Egypt by Moses. Here he stressed the efforts of Pharaoh
to persuade the Israelites to leave their herds behind, and then to go
not far away. All of these were of course treated with the separation
theme in mind. Turning to the New Testament, he first read II Corinthians
6:14-18, the passage most often referred to by fundamentalists as a
text for messages on separation, and then commented: "The heart of the
Bible is God's call, 'Come out.' What are we to come out of? Out of
everything—out of ourselves, out of the world, out of darkness, and
into Him, our all in all." Having presented the separatist theme in
broad principle, Neighbour turned to suggest specific things from which
Christians were to be separated. First he stated that evil brethren
should be avoided, citing I Corinthians 5:11. "I have written unto you
not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator,
or covetous, or an idolator, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extor-
tioner; with such an one no not to eat." Then, false teachers become
the object of separation, and Neighbour quoted several pasages, finally
reading a most important separatist passage from II John:

42

For many deceivers are entered into the world who confess
not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver
and an antichrist. Look to yourselves, that we lose not those
things which we have wrought, but that we receive a full reward.
Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ,
hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath
both the Father and the Son. If there come any unto you, and
bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither
bid him God speed. For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker
of his evil deeds.

His closing illustrations concerned two women who questioned hirn at
the end of a meeting. The pastors of the women had each denied some
point of orthodox doctrine, and his advice to each was unequivocal:
"Stay in that church only long enough to get out." This sermon, and
an innumerable company of others which could be presented, reveals that
separation had become far more than one scriptural injunction which
placed upon believers certain obligations. Separatism had become vir-
tually a system of doctrinal interpretation. It provided structure to
the entire biblical message and was determinative of that message at
numerous critical points. It was more than an injunction designed to
protect the church and the individual believer from the ravages of
the false teacher, though it was certainly that. In the fundamentalist
system it became part of the plan of God for the ages and one of the
dominant themes of Scripture.

Donald Tinder points out- that one of the important activities of
the General Association of Regular Baptist Churches, a group led for
many years by Robert Ketcham which withdrew from the Northern Baptist
Convention (American Baptist Convention), was the dissemination of
warnings concerning false teachers. He writes:

Biblical instructions about false teachers were plentiful.
H. C. Van Gilder, first full-time representative for the GARBC,

43

summarized many of them: Mt. 13:38 predicts the contemporaneous
existence of true believers and false pretenders in the world
and probably therefore in the local church, since otherwise the
pretension would not be very convincing; I John 4:1-3 and
Galatians 1:5-9 predict invasion by false apostles and deceitful
workers who are to be judged, contended against (Jude 3,4),
excluded (II John 10,11) withdrawn from (Eph. 5:11, I Timothy
6:3-5, II Timothy 2:20-21). Van Gilder believed the clearest
exhortation to be in II Corinthians 6:14-7:1, which says in part,
"Be ye not unequally yoked with unbelievers. . . .''

The attitude of fundamentalists toward those who held other theo-
logical positions was in their own thinking closely tied to their doc-
trinal views. Fundamentalists of course claimed to get their contempt
for other theological positions, as well as their orthodox theology,
from the Bible. They were therefore usually insensitive to any criti-
cism of their abrasive approach. In reply to a letter from a
modernist, who had objected to Rice's classification of him as an
infidel, Rice answered that he could not address the man as a Christian
brother because his publicly expressed beliefs showed him to be an
unbeliever. Rice wrote, "I wrote you in the language of the Lord
Jesus Himself, quoting His words in Matthew 23 to others, like yourself,
very religious in observance, but denying Christ's deity, rejecting Him
as Saviour, as you do." And later, commenting on his reply, he said:

Any modernist who brings any gospel besides the gospel of indi-
vidual salvation by personal faith in the blood of Christ should
be accursed, and Paul repeated it, "Let him be accursed!" Paul
was not 'civil' to these religious hypocrites pretending to be
Christians. . . . Instead of dealing with infidels and modernists
(who deny the Bible and deny the deity of Christ and forsake the
historic position of Bible Christianity) on the mere shallow
plane of human civility, why not deal with them on the Bible
basis commanded by our God and our Saviour?12
i
This did not mean that fundamentalists were being exhorted to have no

sensitivity to the human feelings involved. Rice had broken with

J. Frank Norris, as had virtually all of fundamentalism, largely

44

because of his intemperate attacks on other Christian leaders. Writing
at the time of his split with Norris, Rice suggested that even though
modernism must be exposed— he considered this to be axiomatic-- funda-
mentalists needed to "magnify the great fundamental of Brotherly love.
. . . Even the exposure of modernism ought to be so fairly done and in
such brotherly love toward the misled Christians involved, that the
fewest possible scars will be left. . . . Brotherly love is one of the
greatest of the fundamentals." Some might doubt that Rice in all
cases followed the advice he gave here.

Evidence of the consistency of the fundamentalist concern with
separation is the fact that the Sword, throughout the years, periodically
has printed a brief message by James M. Gray, one-time president of
Moody Bible Institute, delivered at the height of the fundamentalist-
modernist controversy and dealing with the relationship of the two
theological positions. Gray quoted a famous January 3, 1924, editorial
which set modernism solidly over against fundamentalism:

Christianity according to Fundamentalism is one religion. Chris-
tianity according to Modernism is another religion. Which is
the true religion is the question that is to be settled in all
probability by our generation for further generations. ... The
God of the fundamentalist is one God; the God of the Modernist
is another. The Christ of the fundamentalist is one Christ;
the Christ of Modernism is another. The Bible of Fundamentalism
is one Bible; the Bible of Modernism is another. . . . Which God
is the Christian God, which Christ is the Christian Christ, which
Bible is the Christian Bible. ... The future will tell.

Gray concluded:

The Christian Century is right.
' How can any compromise be effected between these two
things? . . . How can these two worlds be bound together? Can
' believers be yoked with unbelievers? Can righteousness have
'fellowship with unrighteousness? ... Can he that believeth
have part with the infidel ?^ ^

45

Both Gray's sermon and the 1924 Christian Century editorial continued,
and continue, for fundamentalists to be valid expressions through .
which to relate oneself to the American theological spectrum.

Consistently through the years, opposition to non-orthodox teach-
ing and the call for separation from "false teachers" and worldly liv-
ing occupied a major position in the fundamentalist effort. In September
of 1954 the Sword printed a message by Robert L. Sumner which had been

a winner in the Sword's annual sermon contest. The sermon was titled

m15
"The Twentieth Century Issue Facing Twentieth Century Christians.

Its topic was separation; its text was II Corinthians 6:14-7:1. The
following week another sermon contest winner appeared. Entitled "False
Prophets," tin's message by Robert Wells dealt even more rigorously with
doctrinal deviation. Many have been critical of the fundamentalist
attitude toward those of other theological positions. This was one of
the chief criticisms made by the new evangelicals with whom this
study is concerned. Fundamentalists were never willing to allow differ-
ence of opinion over what they called the "fundamental doctrines" to
be considered mere differences of opinion by honest men searching for
the truth. To the fundamentalist there need be no "search for truth,"
for the truth was already in hand. Those who chose to deny it were
engaging in wilful unbelief and in deliberate attempts to undermine
the belief of the faithful. Wells cited biblical evidence of "deliber-
ate design on the part of these false teachers." He warned: "Coming
from the ranks of the unbelievers, they enter the ranks of the believers.
It is a specific act and for a specific purpose." They were said to
be "Satan's ministers," and their activities were seen as "sinister,

46

malicious and insidious." On denominational particularisms, on questions
of baptism, church polity, and in other areas, there might be disagree-
ment among "Bible-believing Christians," but with regard to such
clearly taught matters as creation, the fall of man, the validity of
Old Testament prophecy, the virgin birth, the sinless life and sub-
stitutionary death of Christ, and his resurrection and deity, there
could be only two alternatives, acceptance or rejection. And any
preacher or professor rejecting any of the doctrines deemed essential
by the fundamentalists was considered a false teacher. It is impor-
tant to note that fundamentalists always made a distinction between
a religious figure and the common sinner, who made no profession of
Christianity and whose ideas about religion were expected to be false.
The "sinner" was the object of compassionate missionary effort, the
"false prophet" was the object of denunciation. The fundamentalists
insisted that such a distinction had biblical warrant. The apostle
Paul wrote in the New Testament many tender entreaties addressed to
the sinner and the erring Christian, but Wells also noted warnings
that certain men "pervert the gospel of Christ"- and teach "another
gospel which is not another." Fundamentalists were confident they
could distinguish simple sinners from the pernicious false teachers who'
were the objects of their attack. Commented Wells: "Although Jesus
ate with publicans and sinners, His Word tells us that we are not to
have fellowship with false teachers." They also made room for "weaker
brothers," who held erroneous doctrine though they were in fact
Christians, but toward those deemed fa^se teachers, fundamental ists were
unsparing in condemnation. Warned Wells: .

47

These wolves of Hell have so clearly disguised their naturally
beastlike qualities and camouflaged their hairy, brutish,
ferocious, ravenous character with the sheep's clothing of a
pious profession and the terminology, forms and trappings of
orthodoxy, that they have proven that it is possible to
"deceive the very elect.1' They have gained influence, posi-
tion and power through their cunning conniving and in this set-
ing they inject the deadly, devastating poison of error, false-
hood, heresy and downright unbelief into the bloodstream of
the human race J 7

He charged that the evidence of the activities of such teachers in
"each of the major denominations in America" would require scores and
scores of volumes while "nearly every religious institution" would
require additional volumes. The efforts of the Federal Council of
Churches (recently become the National Council of Churches) would
necessitate "literally hundreds of volumes more." Wells then pro-
duced the 1924 Christian Century editorial as evidence of the chasm
between modern religious thought and fundamentalism's orthodoxy, and
went on to attack the suggestion of one liberal theologian that the
father of Jesus might well have been a German soldier stationed near
Nazareth. The rejection of substitutionary atonement by Harry Emerson
Fosdick, pastor of Riverside Church in New York and long a prime
target of fundamentalist criticism, was presented as the essence of
false teaching.

Wells quoted six verses which he said presented God's instruc-
tions for a Christian with regard to false prophets; the Christian
was instructed to

. . . avoid them"

Be pot unequally yoked" (with them)
. , . come out from among them"
. . . withdraw" (from them)
. . . receive him not into your house"
. . . earnestly contend for the faith which
was once for all delivered unto the saints."

Romans 16:17

II Corinthians 6:14

II Corinthians 6:17

I Timothy 6:5

II John 10,11

dude 3

48

Wells declared, "To associate with them in any way; to fellowship with
them in any program; to give them the benefit of any support, moral or
material; to belong to their churches; to lend them your influence; to
give them the slightest indication of recognition, respect or honor;
is to ignore, deny and disobey the plain teaching of the Bible and to
compromise with the forces of Satan and Hell!" And in a final declara-
tion Robert Wells charged:

If these men are ministers of Satan and ambassadors of Hell,
and they are; if they are deceivers whose determination is to
destroy the flock, and they are; if these men are preaching
damnable heresies, denying the Lord that bought them and turning
the grace of God into lasciviousness, and they are; if, in the
sight of God, these men are wicked, ungodly, sensual men who have
not the spirit of God, and they are; if these men are as the
Bible declares, actually ignorant, presumptuous, arrogant fools
who revile those things they cannot understand, and they are; if
they are indeed leading multitudes of precious never-dying
souls to their eternal damnation in Hell, and they are; they are
the most vicious enemies of God and His Son and His church with
which we have to contend. They are dangerous, deadly criminals
in the realm of moral and spiritual truth and they need to be
exposed. There must be no compromise in this. We must "take
the gloves off" and in obedience to Divine exhortation, earnestly
contend for the faith! 18

Fundamentalists accepted the analysis of the 1924 editorial of
Christian Century as one of the permanent markers of religious division
in America. They were not totally ignorant of the changes brought to
the theological world by the emergence of neo-orthodoxy, and from time
to time, articles analyzing the dialectical theology appeared in funda-
mentalist literature. The neo-orthodox theologians were always cate-
gorized with the older liberals, however, and the basic distinction was
held to 1 ie between orthodoxy and non-orthodoxy, rather than between
neo-orthodoxy and liberalism. One of the distinctions between the new
evangelicals and the fundamentalists would be their attitudes toward the

49

emergence of neo-orthodoxy. Fundamentalists tended to see neo-orthodoxy
only as a complicating factor, one making it more difficult and more
needful to measure faithfulness to the Word. There was great variation
among new evangelicals with regard to neo-orthodoxy, and a fuller dis-
cussion of their views will be made later, but they tended to take a
more favorable view of the influence of the dialectical theologians,
stressing their contribution in dethroning classical liberalism. The
new evangelicals were certain that the changes in theological climate
in America called for a re-evaluation of conservative strategy, while
fundamentalists were even more confident that there had never been a
greater need for bold condemnation of false teaching.

The battle against non-orthodoxy absorbed considerable fundamen-
talist attention, but the pages of the Sword reveal that other matters
received equal attention. One of the consistent emphases of John R.
Rice and most fundamentalists over the years was the promotion of
evangelism. An evangelist himself, Rice devoted much effort to return-
ing mass evangelism to the prominence it had experienced earlier in
the century. It was Rice's hope that city-wide campaigns, backed by
all orthodox churches, could again capture the imagination of America and
act as the spearhead of the drive to restore orthodoxy and spiritual
vitality. In the late 1940s the attempt to restore mass evangelism as
an important part of the ministry of the church seemed to be succeed-
ing, and the high point of this success was the emergence of Billy
Graham, a fundamentalist evangelist, into national prominence in late
1949.

NOTES
CHAPTER 3

1 Sword, September 28, 1934, I, 1.

2Rice, The Unequal Yoke (Murfreesboro, Tenn.: Sword of the
Lord, 1944).

3Ibid., p. 4.
4Ibid., p. 16.
5Ibid., pp. 17-18.

6Rice, "The Reproach of Being a Fundamentalist," Sword, March 22,
1935, I, 1.'

7Donald Tinder, "Fundamentalist Baptists in the Northern and
Western United States" (Ph.D. dissertation, Yale University, 1972),
p. 452.

8Ibid., pp. 411-412.

9R. E. Neighbour, "God's Call to Separation," Sword, November 21,
1941, XI, 1-3.

10Ibid.

^Tinder, "Fundamentalist Baptists," p. 394.

12Sword, February 9, 1945, XI, 1-2.

13Sword, April 8, 1937, III, 1.

140ames M Gray, "Controversy, Compromise or Consent--Which?" ;
Sword of the ..Lord, May 9, 1947, IX, 1-3; Chris tian_Centur£, January 3,
1924, XL

' 15Robert L. Sumner, "The Twentieth Century Issue Facing Twen-
tieth Century Christians," Sword , September 10, 1954, XX, 1, 9-IU.

16Robert Wells, "False Prophets," 'Sword, September 17, 1954,
XX, 1, 7-10.

50

51

17

Ibid., p. 8.

5Ibid., p. 10

CHAPTER 4
THE ROLE OF MASS EVANGELISM

The defeat of the conservatives in the denominational wars, the
effects of the first World War and the social and economic changes
which followed, as well as the excesses of certain evangelists, had brought
the end of mass evangelism as it had .been practiced by Moody and Billy
Sunday and a host of lesser evangelists. The major denominations were
generally opposed to the involvement of the churches in programs of
mass evangelism, and other than the Southern Baptist Convention, no
major denomination considered evangelism the major task of the church.
Tent revivalists, pentecostal ists, and a variety of independent evange-
lists continued to hold "evangelistic meetings," and fundamentalists
continued to hold "special revival meetings" sponsored by individual
conservative churches but the days of massive union meetings sponsored
by many churches throughout a city seemed to be over. The only nation-
ally prominent revivalists tended to operate apart from any church con-
nection, sometimes, as with Aimee Semple McPherson, starting churches or
denominations of their own. Such revivalists as did achieve national
notice usually did so more because of scandals connected with their
work than because of any impact upon communities or churches. Many
sects and cultic groups were aggressive in evangelistic activities and
profited from the lessening of emphasis upon personal religion by the
established churches.1 Grover C. Loud expressed the opinion of the

52

53

major Protestant denominations when in 1928 he wrote that revivalism
was a thing of the past.2 Though earlier in the century, evangel ists
such as Sam Jones, B. Fay Mills, Reuben A. Torrey, J. Wilbur Chapman,
and Billy Sunday himself had held great meetings supported by the churches,
by 1930 it indeed seemed that the day of the large revival meeting was
over. Those conservatives who still supported the concept of mass
evangelism and the techniques of revivalism which had been developed
by Moody and Sunday failed even to secure the support of fellow conser-
vatives. In fundamentalist circles the single church revival took the
place of the large union meeting, and city-wide meetings were no longer
held in most parts of the country.

The methods of revivalism continued to be practiced in these single
church meetings, however, and many conservatives looked hopefully for a
day in which the large union meeting would return. John R. Rice pro-
moted the concept in the pages of the Sword , and through "Sword Confer-
ences" held throughout the country. Other evangelists continued to work
through the churches, and during the Second World War their efforts be-
gan to bring some success. In the last years of the war there seemed
growing signs that churches were looking more favorably toward mass
evangelism. Youth For Christ and other independent evangelistic organi-
zations were demonstrating that evangelism among young people could be
effectively done on a city-wide basis, and evangelists were again gain-
ing the attention of the broader commumity.

Early in 1945 Southern Baptist evangelist Hyman Appelman conducted
revival meetings in Los Angeles whic^were supported by a variety of
conservative groups, including the American Council of Christian Churches

54

and the National Association of Evangelicals. The meetings were very
successful, with nightly attendance averaging 4,000, and were supported
by over 200 churches. Robert Shuler, fundamentalist pastor of the
large Trinity Methodist Church in Los Angeles, reported on the meetings
in his paper, the Methodist Challenge. Having been an evangelist him-
self, Shuler was pleased to see in the meetings evidence that God had
not ceased to bless through mass evangelism as the critics of revival-
ism charged. He wrote: "The Methodist Church may be through. She may
never come back. But the revivals are still here, when the conditions
are met. More than that, God is not through. Nor is He through with
mass evangelism." He pointed to the massive youth meetings which had
recently been held by conservative evangelical organizations in New York
and in Chicago as further evidence of the continued effectiveness of the
revivalist methods. His own church and two others were the only Methodist
churches participating in the campaign, and the Methodist leadership of
the city had been "openly critical" and "hostile" to the meetings. All
the churches cooperating in the crusade were said to be "fundamental and
evangelical" though of every denominational persuasion. The movement
was sound, there were "no modernists or liberals in it!" There was no
disagreement among the churches concerning the inspiration of Scripture.
Shuler reported:

All believe the Bible to be the Word of God. They all believe
in the Virgin Birth of Jesus, the blood atonement, the bodily
resurrection of Jesus, salvation by the faith of man and the
grace of God, and a victorious life in Jesus Christ. Among
them are Calvinists and Arminians, those who baptize by various
modes and in various manners, people who are very emotional and
people who are the opposite.

Baptists furnished the greatest support, with considerable numbers of
Nazarene, Pilgrim Holiness, Church of God, Pentecostal, Presbyterian,

55

and Congregational churches also participating. Though the secular
newspapers had "practically ignored" the meetings, and the Methodist
denominational press would probably fail to "so much as mention" them,
Schuler saw in them "a mighty refutation of the claim of the Federal
Council of Churches that the work of Christianity must be done some
other way and that educational processes must take the place of a Holy
Ghost revival." The most important thing in Schuler' s eyes was that

there were plans for these same agencies to work together in sponsoring

4
such meetings throughout the country.

John R. Rice also placed great significance upon the success of the
Los Angeles meetings and similar meetings which were held in Philadel-
phia. In an article on "Union and Independent Revivals," he insisted on
the necessity of large city-wide meetings to put the gospel before the
greatest number of people. He strongly endorsed the kind of campaigns
being held by Appelman and exhorted churches to participate energeti-
cally. He noted the favorable report of the Philadelphia crusade which
had been printed in the Christian Beacon and some words of warning
concerning the inclusion of churches with modernistic leanings in the
sponsorship of any such meetings. Rice had long maintained that union
meetings should be sponsored exclusively by "Bible-believing, fundamen-
tal churches" and agreed that Mclntire's warning was important, but
the burden of his comments was to urge readers not to allow resistance
to compromise to be used as an excuse for rejecting the concept of
union meetings. Rice believed that if the word of God were preached as
it should be in the meetings, "these infidels falsely calling themselves
Christians, will not want to enter with us into revival campaigns."

56

He further believed, "modernism will not grow in a red hot revival,"
and warned, "A false idea of separation that keeps us from revival is

• „5

sin.

In the spring of 1946 Rice, Bob Jones, and Paul Rood came to
Chicago in a city-wide evangelistic crusade sponsored by over
200 churches and evangelical agencies. The campaign was the first
such city-wide effort since Billy Sunday had been in the city twenty-
eight years before. The three speakers were ail strong fundamental-
ists. Rood, with W. B. Riley, had been one of the founders of the World's
Christian Fundamental Association. The meetings enjoyed wide conserva-
tive support, with such organizations as Wheaton College, Moody Bible
Institute, Chicago Evangelistic Institute, Northern Baptist Seminary,
Lutheran Bible Institute, the Child Evangelism Fellowship, Salvation
Army, and Youth For Christ entering enthusiastically into the campaign.
The evidence was mounting that orthodoxy was yet an energetic element
in the church and that the obituary which had been pronounced over
fundamentalism ever since the twenties had been decidedly premature.
In October of 1948 the Sword printed an article which revealed
much about the attitude of John R. Rice and other fundamentalists
toward mass evangelism. Rice had long been involved in a controversy .
over a book which had been published by Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer earlier
in the century, titled True Evangelism.6 Chafer was strongly orthodox,
long president of Dallas Theological Seminary, and was a premillenial
dispensationalist. The book was an attack on the revival istic methods
employed in mass evangelism and had be«n originally published in the
days of the declining popularity of revivalism. Chafer had been

57

unfavorably impressed by the techniques of Billy Sunday, and the book
denounced public invitations, mass meetings, and other aspects of revival-
ism. Moody Bible Institute had secured the rights to some of Chafer's
works and announced plans to republish True Evangelism. Rice launched
a -campaign to prevent any republication of the book, even offering to
buy Moody's existing inventory, but was unsuccessful. This dispute over
mass evangelism was the major concern of the Sword during the late
forties, when revivalism again seemed on the verge of acceptance by at
least the conservative churches.

In this article Rice attempted to explain why he took, unpopular
positions on a variety of issues, even though it closed certain doors to
him and sometimes cost him friendships. Seeking to answer this question,
Rice revealed much concerning his view of the purpose of revivalism.
He warned that "the cheap way of trying to have revivals without ever
touching fundamental moral problems and without bringing conviction for
sin and transformation in life are indeed shallow and powerless efforts
at revival." The evangelist must also assume responsibility for "getting
people right on the main fundamental doctrines" if he wished to see
great revival. Preaching the great doctrines and strong preaching
against worldliness were necessary to great revival. They were neces-
sary because, in Rice's view, separation from worldliness and adherence
to orthodox doctrine were important criteria as to whether revival
existed or not. Modernism would not grow in a "red hot revival," as
Rice had earlier said, because revival necessarily included preaching
against modernism and other forms of false doctrine, because one of the
fruits of revival was orthodoxy of belief. Rice went on to tell of a
night several years past when he had vowed to God to expend every effort

58

to bring back city-wide revivals, whatever the cost. He disclaimed
any presumption that he was responsible for the resurgence of evangelis-
tic activity then underway, but rejoiced in the fact. He supposed that
there were "a hundred times" as many union revival campaigns as there
had been ten years before. He then described the purpose of all this
activity:

... I am not trying simply to get a few open doors for
revival services for myself. I am trying to change the thought
of a whole generation: . . . I am trying to "bring emphasis again
to the power of the Holy Spirit. I am trying to convince
preachers again that they need to preach against sin and world! i-
ness and call God's people to seek God's face and turn from their
wicked ways. I am trying to make America believe again that
God answers prayer. I am trying to get American homes turned
back to God, to get family altars established, to teach parents
to discipline their children and make them obey. I am trying
to bring back a fundame ntal viewpoint about the Bible and about
God and about soul winning that is essential to the winning of
thousands.

... We are trying to take the long look and to color a
whole generation. It takes longer to start a loaded freight
train of a hundred box cars than to start one empty. In trying
to turn a whole generation back to revival we will lose some
battles but, by God's grace, we will not lose the war.

So one must accept some defeats now for the good that will
follow. I must preach to Christians to "come out from among
them, and be ye separate," and against the lodges and the movies
and the dance and tobacco, though it loses me some friends now.
But it is turning hundreds of other preachers to preach on
these subjects. It is growing a conscience among tens of thou-
sands of Christians about holy living. In the long run, such
preaching will bring more revivals, save more souls, than if I
preached pleasantly, pleased everybody, and had all doors
open. 7 [Emphasis added]

Apart from the reference to lodges, these lines represent fairly the

views of most fundamentalists on the purpose and nature of revivalism.

Revivalism which was net designed to produce separated, dcctrinally

correct Christians was not worth the effort. Though in the short run

it might seem easier to avoid offense on unpopular issues, the purpose

dictated that exhortation against doctrinal error and world! iness

59

occupy an important position in revival preaching. To reverse the
verdict of the previous generation on fundamentalist orthodoxy in doc-
trine and morals was a central concern of all revivalist activity. Rice
was indeed trying to "change the thought of a whole generation."
Fundamentalists insisted that the real test of a revival meeting was
not the number of people who attended, or even the number who walked the
aisle, though as anyone else they wanted large numbers, but the real
test was the condition of the churches when the meetings were over. If
the churches were not stronger in the faith, if Christians were not
living more separated lives, then, however many might have come forward
at a meeting, revival had not come. But the fundamentalists felt they
were on the verge of a great revival. They saw in the renewed interest
in revivalism and mass evangelism an opportunity to recall wavering
churches to the faith and to strengthen and extend the ministry of
those which had been true. Revivalism would be the spearhead of a
renewed attack on the forces of religious liberalism. Once again the
fundamentalists would challenge the unbelievers who had through deceit
captured so many denominations and churches. This renewed attack on
religious liberalism was a central element in fundamentalist conceptions
cf mass evangelism.

Late in 1949 the Los Angeles revival crusade of Billy Graham was
brought to the attention of the nation by the conversion of three
celebrities and efforts of the Hearst newspapers. Singer Stuart
Hamblen, war hero Louis Zamperini, and wire-tapper Jim Vaus each
publicly announced his conversion in the Graham meetings, and the famous
"puff Graham" telegram from William Randolph Hearst made Billy Graham

60

a national figure. Time, L i f e , and all the secular press reported the
activities of the crusade, and once again a fundamentalist evangelist
was able to speak to a national audience. The meetings in Los Angeles
were extended, and over-night Graham was brought out of the obscurity in
which fundamentalists had worked ever since the end of the Machen con-
troversy in the Presbyterian church.

Billy Graham's roots were in fundamentalism. In his youth his
family attended an Associate Reformed Presbyterian church, a denomina-
tion with separatist origins. He had been converted under the preach-
ing of evangelist Mordecai Ham and had been ordained as a Southern
Baptist. Graham attended Bob Jones College for one semester but
found the regulations of the school, then located in Cleveland, Tennes-
see, too confining, and transferred to Trinity Bible Institute near
Tampa, Florida, where he spent nearly four years. He then attended
Wheaton College, graduating with a major in anthropology. All three
schools were strong conservative institutions. John R. Rice had moved
to Wheaton partly to be near the college where each of his daughters
would attend. Stanley High, in his authorized biography of Graham,
makes much of the broadening influence of Wheaton upon Graham, but he
has exaggerated the "enlightened" aspect of Wheaton to contrast it with,
the schools Billy Graham earlier attended. During the years Graham
was at Wheaton, the school was far more "separated" then it later
became. As one of the major centers of the new evangelical movement
with which this study is concerned, Wheaton would eventually move a
considerable distance from the fundamentalism of Bob Jones and John R.
Rice, but this carne after Graham's college days. Following graduation

61

from Wheaton, Graham served as pastor of a small Illinois church for a
little over one year, but in 1945 he joined with Torrey Johnson in the
work of the new Youth for Christ organization, as its first field repre-
sentative. He traveled with Youth for Christ rallies throughout the
United States and to Europe for three years. During 1947 Dr. W. B.
Riley, long-time fundamentalist leader and pastor of the First Baptist
Church of Minneapolis, urged upon Graham the presidency of Northwestern
Schools, which Riley had founded. Northwestern Schools included a Bible
school, liberal arts college, and theological seminary, and Riley
hoped to get the young evangelist as his successor as president of the
fundamentalist institution. Graham finally agreed on the condition that
he be allowed to continue his work with Youth for Christ. Graham served
as president of the fundamentalist institution for three and a half
years, until the pressures of time and the difficulties of running the
schools at a distance caused him to resign.

Through the years as president of Northwestern Schools and in
his evangelistic work with Youth for Christ, Graham worked closely with
many fundamentalist leaders. His activities were regularly reported in

the fundamentalist press. Rice devoted considerable attention to a

g

Graham preaching mission in England early in 1947. In the fall of

1948, Graham was one of the speakers in a Sword of the Lord Conference
on Evangelism held in Chicago. Other speakers included such fundamen-
talist leaders as Bob Jones, Joe Henry Hankins, Clarence Erickson,
Bob Jones, Jr., William McCarrell, and of course John R. Rice. The
conference was supported by Wheaton College and was the first of many
conferences on evangelism conducted by the Sword.

62

In June of the same year, Graham had agreed, after serving as

interim president for six months, to become the full president of

Northwestern Schools. Rice, as a member of the board of trustees of

the institution, reported on the event in the Sword. He was warmly

enthusiastic about the efforts of the young evangelist-president, lie

expected the great progress the school had made in the last year "to

continue under the strong leadership of Dr. Billy Graham." At the

urging of Rice, Graham had been given an honorary doctorate by Bob Jones

College after his appointment as president of Northwestern. In his

report to the Board of Trustees, Graham had emphasized his loyalty to

the program of the late W. B. Riley.

Publicly and privately you know the doctrines for which

we stand without compromise. We stand exactly where W. B. Riley

stood. . . . Every faculty member and staff member must sign

each year our statement of faith which includes all the great

cardinal doctrines. We will not tolerate liberalism or modern-
ism, and we will not compromise on any issue in which this
school stands so firmly entrenched. ^

In the first issue of The Pilot, a Bible-study magazine published by

Northwestern Schools, to come out after the death of Riley, Graham

assured the constituency of the schools that he would follow in the path

of Riley:

For more than a quarter century the Pilot has been one
magazine in the field of Christian publications which has never
compromised, and has ever made a strong defense of the truth.
It has indeed been militant in its stand against Modernism in
every form. During the past few weeks some friends have wondered
if there would be any change in the Pilot as it enters 1948, a
new year, under new leadership. ... the Pilot will continue
to be a voice for fundamental, evangelical Protestantism, and
will, continue, as the motto has always stated, "Holding Forth
the Word of Life."12

In March of 1944 Graham had written Dr. Bob Jones, Jr., president of

Bob Jones College, concerning the work of that school, "I am absolutely

63

sold on what it is doing and what it stands for."13 This profession of
loyalty to the position which the fundamentalist school held was re-
newed repeatedly during the next years. In early 1947 Graham wrote
again to Bob Jones, Jr.: "I want -you to be personally assured of my
love and loyalty to you, Dr. Bob, Senior, and all that Bob Jones College
stands for. I count it a sincere privilege to have had some early
training there."14 In December of 1949, after the breakthrough in Los
Angeles, Graham wrote to Bob Jones, Sr.: "Your counsel means more to
me than that of any other individual in the nation. Your long years of
experience not only as an evangelist but as an educator of Christian
young people makes you, as it were, the model toward which we are pat-
terning our lives."15 Certainly fundamentalists had every reason to
expect that the events in Los Angeles in late 1949 heralded a new day
for fundamentalism and that here was a man to lead the crusade to re-
store the old ways to the churches of America. Few could have suspected
that the new decade would bring the division of conservative evangeli-
calism or that the evangelistic efforts of Billy Graham would become
the focal point of the division. Indeed, for a time, it appeared that
the success of Graham in mass evangelism might move the fundamentalists
represented by Jones and Rice further from those represented by Mclntire.
Ketcham, and the American Council and closer to the men of the
National Association of Evangelicals.

After Los Angeles, Graham held meetings in South Carolina,
climaxed by filling the stadium of the University of South Carolina
in Columbia, and then moved on to a series of meetings throughout the
New England area. The New England meetings had been arranged by

64

Harold Ockenga, pastor of the Part Street Church in Boston, founding
president of Fuller Theological Seminary and the "father of New
Evangelicalism." The New England meetings were very successful, and
Newsweek reported that Graham had "clinched his title as America's
greatest living evangelist."16 Though there were certainly criticisms,
the secular press was generally kind to the young evangelist. Many
commentators were impressed by his sincerity. By the end of the decade,
Graham seemed to have brought revivalism back in much the form that the
fundamentalists wanted. Yet, in the early fifties there was an element
in the Graham presentation that set him apart from other fundamentalist
evangelists. His sermonic style had certainly changed since his days
with Youth For Christ. Stanley High commented favorably on this
change, noting that he had "come a long way." Referring to Graham in
the early days, High wrote: "The way he preached was pretty much in
the tradition of the 'Hot Gospeller.' His voice was strident. He was
inclined to rant. The same sound effects in politics would, in most
places, be called demagoguery." Many, though by no means all, funda-
mentalists were more accustomed to the more vigorous preaching style.
Nonetheless, until near the middle of the decade, all but a small group
of fundamentalists were strong supporters of Graham, considering him
one of themselves. And this was a view in which Billy Graham concurred.
In late 1951 Graham was criticized by Chester Tulga, a fundamentalist
of the Conservative Baptist Association. Graham wrote to Tulga:

Mr. Tulga, this is an hour when our nation is standing at the
crossroads. If you are going i ■:> hurl stones, hurl them at the
world, flesh, and devil. Hurl t+iem at the modernists, but
please let's not hurl stones at each other. I beg of you that
we love each other. None of us will ever agree on everything,
but we do agree on the fundamentals. My separation and my
theology have not veered one iota from that of W. B. Riley. lo

NOTES
CHAPTER 4

Lawrence L. Lacour, A Study of the Revival Method in America:
1920-1955 (Evanston, 111.: Northwestern University, 1965.), p. 228;
William W. Sweet, Revivalism in America (New York: Scribner's, 1944),
p. 174.

9

Grover C. Loud, Evangelized America (New York: Lincoln McVeagh.
1928), p. 369.

Robert Shuler, "Mass Evangelism," Sword, February 16, 1945,
XI, 4.

4Ibid. , pp. 1, 4.

5
Rice, "Union and Independent Revivals," Sword, February 16,

1945, XI, 1, 3.

Lewis Sperry Chafer, True Evangelism (Chicago: Moody Press.,

1946).

7

p. 113.
9

Rice, "We Take Our Stand," Sword, October 29, 1948, X, 1-6.
Stanley High, Billy Graham (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1956),

Sword, Februaryv17, 1947, IX, 1-3.
10Sword, June, 24, 1948, X, 2.

Ibid.
12The Pilot, January, 1948, XI, 113.

Billy Graham letter to Bob Jones, Jr. , dated March 14, 1944.

Graham letter to Bob Jones, Jr., dated January 16, 1947.

Graham letter to Bob Jones, Sr. , dated December 29, 1949.
16Newsweek, May 1, 1950, pp. 66-67.
'.17High, Billy Graham, p. 86.

I o

Graham letter to Chester Tulga, 1951.

65

CHAPTER 5
THE SWORD AND BILLY GRAHAM

In the Sword, defense and promotion of Billy Graham blended
easily with Rice's long-standing advocacy of mass evangelism. In March,
1951, the first major article answering the critics of Graham appeared
in the Sword, written by Rice himself. Titled "Billy Graham and
Revival Critics," the article began: "There have always been critics
of great evangelists. So now there is a rising tide of insistent criti-
cism of Billy Graham." The Christian Herald had been critical of Graham's

suggestion that there might be only two years left, asserting that no

2
man knew the day or the hour. Rice explained that Graham had told him

that he had been misquoted, that he referred not to the end of the world

but to judgment on America and that though date-setting was wrong,

Graham was surely right to warn of impending judgment if America did not

mend her ways. An English evangelical publication, The Life of Faith,

had printed an article by Thomas Rees which found fault with Graham for

a variety of reasons and had been quoted favorably by several American

3
evangelical magazines. Rees had said the statistical reports of the

meetings were inflated. Rice claimed they were as accurate as they

could be under the circumstances and that they were more accurate than

most such, reports from church organizations. Rees had charged that many

of those who came forward in a revival meeting were not genuine converts.

66

67

Rice answered that, of course, all who walked the aisle were not first-
time converts. Some were "backsliders" in need of rededication, others
were not sincere and did not remain true; but this had been the case
in every evangelistic ministry, even that of Christ, and there was
reason to believe that the relatively non-emotional style followed by
Graham would yield a higher percentage of genuine converts than was
ordinarily the case. Rice declared:

I do not know what the motive is when people criticize the Billy
Graham campaigns, but I believe, whether it is ignorance or
jealousy, or a critical, judging heart, that all such talk is
wicked and sinful. It does not honor Christ and is not the mark
of a devoted Christian brother.

What is wrong with a Christian who cannot be happy over thousands
brought to Christ?^

Rice also answered criticisms of Graham which had been made by

5
Carl Mclntire in The Christian Beacon. Graham had appeared on the

radio program'Town Meeting of the Air" with Dr. Ralph Sockman, identi-
fied by Rice as "a well-known Methodist modernist." The subject of the
broadcast had been "Do We Need the Old-Time Religion?" Harold Ockenga
had questioned Graham, and Truman Douglas questioned Sockman. Rice
charged that Sockman had been insincere. He had

. . . used the weasel words that infidels use, pretending to be
Christians when they are not, pretending to believe the Bible
when they do not, pretending to worship <\3esus Christ when they do
not admit His virgin birth or His deity, pretending to believe
the fundamentals of the faith and the old-time religion of the
Bible.6

Graham, however, had made his position clear. He had strongly set

forth the great doctrines of the faith. He had stressed the necessity

of the new birth, the necessity of a personal surrender to Christ. He

had spoken against the "pragmatism, behaviourism, relativism, secularism,

68

and materialism" of the age. Rice judged that since he had only

twelve minutes, he did well to get in "the plain teaching that all are

sinners, that the Bible is true, that Christ is the only Son of God,

that men must be born again by repentance and faith in Jesus." But

the comments of Rice which followed take on considerable meaning in the

light of the division which eventually came. Rice wrote:

Dr. Mclntire did not like Dr. Ockenga's questions. That is an
entirely different question, but I think Dr. Ockenga was honest
and straightforward in his position. Dr. Mclntire and I are both
old debaters, campaigners, controversialists. Very likely. I
would have demanded to know whether Dr. Sockman believed in the
virgin birth and the plenary inspiration of the Bible and the
bodily resurrection. No doubt Dr. Mclntire would have done so.
But at the same time he would probably not have done the wonder-
ful job that Billy Graham did— preaching the gospel to millions
of sinners who heard the program. ... I fear Dr. Mclntire' s
quarrel with Dr. Ockenga and the National Association of Evangeli-
cals leads him to accuse Billy Graham in this matter. ... I
believe Dr. Mclntire is thoroughly sincere in his hatred of
modernism. I think that his attack on Dr. Billy Graham has not
justified the facts and that he ought not to have made it. . . .
I think he was a good champion of the historic faith. He was
not a debater and did not pull Dr. Sockman out of his hole. But
he stated the position of the old-time religion so favorably that
Sockman felt he needed to be for it, too.7

Still trying to maintain friendly relations with both the NAE and the
ACC, Rice was here clearly being pulled closer to the NAE. To Rice at
this point, the failure of Ockenga or Graham to clearly distinguish
their position from that of Sockman could be excused. The shortness
of time, their disinclination to use that time for theological debate,
perhaps their lack of certainty regarding the views of Sockman, all
provided excuses for the failure. In any case, the gospel had cer-
tainly been presented without compromise. Though he might have tried
to force Sockman to admit his position, he could well excuse Graman
and Ockenga for not doing so. Mclntire, however, saw more clearly

69

the outlines of the new evangelicalism. To Mclntire, the fact that
Sockman was allowed to give the impression that he too was for the old-
time religion was the most important and most unfortunate thing about
the program. In his eyes the harm done by leaving the impression with
millions of viewers that the gospel which Graham preached and that which
Sockman preached were essentially in agreement did harm which far out-
weighed the good which was done. Further, Mclntire rightly saw that
this was, not coincidence, oversight, or a lack of time, but a further
development of the program against which he had competed for the alle-
giance of conservative Christians for over a decade. Ockenga would in
1957 describe the strategy of the new evangelicalism: "Instead of
attack upon error, the New Evangelicals proclaim the great historic
doctrines of Christianity. ... The strategy of the new evangelicalism
is the positive proclamation of the truth in distinction from all errors
without delving in personalities which embrace the error." Mclntire
sew in this the strategy that had allowed his own ouster from the
Presbyterian church and had allowed liberalism to gain control of the
major denominations. In time Rice would accept Mclntire's view of
the Graham-Ockenga strategy, but in 1951 his great concern for mass
evangelism caused him to reject the assertions of Mclntire that Graham
was moving in new and dangerous directions. Rice for nearly six more
years would continue to defend Graham against attacks based largely on
principles which Rice himself held strongly, but the attacks on Graham
came not purely, or even primarily, from fundamentalists such as
Mclntire, for most fundamentalists still strongly supported Graham.
The strongest attacks on Graham came from sources such as the Christian.

70

Century and from sources within conservatism which had long been criti-
cal of revivalism. It was much more satisfying to fundamentalists to
attack the liberal critics of Graham and claim him as one of their own
than to examine the basis of his evangelism too closely. Mclntire had
a-lready presented, in this editorial on Graham's appearance with Sock-
man, a critique which included what would be the basic elements of the
fundamentalist attack on Graham when the division finally came in 1956.
Mclntire wrote that the encounter with Sockman gave "an indication of
the very nature of the Billy Graham ministry and campaigns."

No questions can be raised concerning apostasy, or the so-called
city-wide campaigns do not become city-wide. And one of the
conditions that Dr. Graham lays down for his campaign is that all
cooperate—liberals, modernists, fundamental ists--and all cooper-
ate in supporting his evangelistic ministry and his ministry
supports all of them! Naturally, on such a platform he is not
in a position to question or to challenge or literally to denounce
the great sin of the apostasy of our age. His ministry is
devoid of any recognition or any consciousness of the apostasy
in the church, and the converts which are led to the Lord in the
campaigns are left to go to "the church of their choice" without
any instruction or indoctrination. They go into the modernist,
apostate churches, into the National Council of Churches, and
some even, as any number have gone, according to reports, into
the Roman Catholic Church itself. 9

Rice challenged each of these assertions. Graham did not make any such

demand that all churches be invited to participate, and he challenged

Mclntire to produce any proof that he had done so. Graham had in fact

denounced apostasy in the very radio program under discussion, and Rice

pointed to Graham's specific references to the "pragmatism, behaviourism,

relativism"— and Rice added the phrase--"which go with modernism." He

rioted thatv Graham had charged: "We humanized God and deified man. We

outlawed the supernatural." This was a "direct slap at modernism." The

weakness of Rice's argument at. this point indicated the extent of his

71

determination to support mass evangelism. As a veteran campaigner
against modernism, Rice knew that the examples he was citing bore little
resemblance to the kind of defense of the faith which either he or
Mclntire would normally credit. He then reported that Graham had
assured him that he always urged converts to join a "Bible-believing
church" and never settled for" the mere "church of your choice." Rice
further observed that "one converted in a great revival campaign with
solid Bible preaching does not usually feel at home in a modernistic
church." Rice denied that Graham converts were led to join churches
affiliated with the National Council, and he labeled as "false rumor"
the charge that Graham converts joined the Roman Catholic Church. Rice
quoted Graham in reporting that in Atlanta a committee which had been
set up before he arrived in the city had not been set up according to
his wishes. Graham had said it was difficult to control the situation
when the committee had been set before he arrived, but Graham added,
"I will insist that no modernist be given a place of responsibility
and leadership in my campaigns." Rice then wrote the following sen-
tences, which suggest that he had been working to hold Graham to the
fundamentalist program, even while defending him against the charge that
he had left it.

I talked with Billy Graham at some length. He does not
claim to knew all the answers. He said, "Dr. Rice, I need help."
I know that he has leaned heavily on the counsel of Dr. Bob Jones
and Dr. Charles E. Fuller, for example. I believe that, con-
sidering his youth and the rapidity of his rise to fame, Billy
Graham has held his head remarkably clear and kept his course.
I believe that God is with him. I believe that those who criticize
him and deride him and would hinder his ministry sin against God
and must answer for it JO

Rice concluded the article by returning to the attack on the book by

Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer, True Evangel ism, and again revealed the context

72

in which he was then considering the ministry of Billy Graham. Ser-
mons by Graham continued to appear in the Sword, along with news of the
Graham campaigns and letters from Graham expressing his confidence in
Rice and his appreciation of the support given him in the Sword.
In April, 1952, the Christian Century printed an analysis of

the results of the Billy Graham campaign which had taken place in

12
Seattle during July of the previous year. The analysis was presented

as a "factual study" and offered with the greatest show of objectivity.
It was to set forth "without comment" the 'facts and judgments" gotten
from the churches of Seattle through a survey conducted by the author
of the article, Arthur Lester Frederick, a liberal and the head of the
department of religion in a Methodist college. Predictably, the re-
sults of the survey were generally unfavorable toward Graham and were

13 '

reported by the national news media. Graham sent to Rice an answer

14
to the f-rederick article, asking that it be published in the Sword.

Rice again placed the defense of Graham in the context of the de-
fense of mass evangelism, opening the article: "There will always
be those who oppose mass evangelism. . . . the great soul winners--
Spurgeon, Moody, Torrey, Sam Jones, Finney, and Billy Sunday--have been
criticized. Hence it is not surprising that there are critics of
the Billy Graham campaigns." Rice noted that Graham had written ask-
ing him to "go into the matter thoroughly," and he quoted Graham,
"I feel the entire cause of mass evangelism is at stake in this
matter." Graham challenged the validity of Frederick's survey, point-
ing out that Frederick discounted those converts who were already
members of churches, while he felt they were as much converts

73

as any others. Wrote Graham: "One of the differences in present-day

evangelism and the old-time evangelism is that our churches are filled

with unconverted people; 65% of our decisions are by church members who

have their name on a church roll but have never been born again.

Naturally, the modernists do not like their members to be disturbed."

In the letter, Graham also addressed charges made by Mclntire that

modernists had been allowed to cooperate in the campaigns.

Contrary to any rumors that are constantly floating about,
we have never had a modernist on our Executive Committee and
we have never been sponsored by the Council of Churches in any
city except Shreveport and Greensboro--both small towns where the
majority of the ministers are evangelical. I do not think you
will find any man who has sat under my ministry in any of these
campaigns who would testify that I ever pulled a punch. 15

The answer to the Frederick article which Graham included had been
written by Dr. Albert J. Lindsey, pastor of the First Presbyterian Church
of Tacoma, Washington. The critique of the Frederick article contained
several elements which would become common in evangelical refutation of
liberal denigration of the results of the campaigns. It was noted
that as chairman of the religion department of the Methodist College of
Puget Sound and a known liberal, Frederick "would be definitely pre-
judiced against Billy Graham and his campaign." It was pointed out
that Frederick's survey taken only three months after the campaign,
had not reflected the complete results. Frederick had reported only
534 church additions, whereas Lindsey showed that within seven months
after the end of the campaign, convert cards returned by pastors re-
vealed 1,971 persons to have been received into churches as a result
of the crusade. Lindsey challenged Frederick's implication that
converts under fourteen years of age should be discounted, claiming

74

that "hundreds of thousands of Christians today can trace their conver-
sion to childhood." Frederick had reported that $67,268.67 had gone
to "Graham and team for love offering, TV, "Hour of Decision" broadcast,
and various missionary and other causes." Lindsey challenged the
"inference . . . that the evangelistic team received the larger portion,'
when the full financial statement of the crusade revealed clearly that
the team had received only 516,883. Lindsey concluded with an attack
on Frederick and the religion department which he headed:

... a far more important survey and analysis is that
which might be made of the Religious Department of which
Dr. Frederick is the head. ... it would seem to me that a far
better usage of Mr. Frederick's time could be made in the evalua-
' tion of his department in the light of God's Holy Word. ... if
these facts were clearly made known, some Christian parents . . .
would at once remove [their children] from the department if
not from the entire school.

I am sure that Professor Frederick was not the logical one
to evaluate the spiritual ministry of Billy Graham for he speaks
and writes a different language.10

In commenting on the entire matter, Rice was even more vehement.
Frederick was "wholly unsuited" to make such a survey. He was per-
sonally a modernist rejecting the "essentials of the Christian faith."
Rice described Frederick:

He does not believe the Bible is the infallibly correct Word of
God. He does not believe in the virgin birth, the bodily resur-
rection, nor the blood atonement of Jesus Christ. He is not a .
Christian in the historic meaning of the term. More than that,
he is well known as an opponent to Bible Christianity J 7

In addition, he had written the article for "the notorious spokesman

of modernism and unbelief in America, the Christian Century, an

article made to sell such an infidel magazine would be suspect by

honest people from the start." Frederick could have gotten accurate

statistics from the people handling the follow-up of the campaign, but

75

he chose not to, relying instead on a telephone interview. Rice charged
that most of those interviewed had been ministers who were opposed to
the campaign from the beginning and could not be expected to have gained
much from the campaign. He wrote, "To ask these men who were against
the campaign from the start, and who did not attend nor participate if
they had been mistaken, and if the campaign was a great success, shows
.either the most naive and childish understanding of people, or it was
a deliberately slanted effort to discredit the Billy Graham campaign."
Rice concluded:

... we would say that an honest analysis of the Billy
Graham campaign in Seattle shows that there are much permanent
results, that such a great city-wide campaign gets members for
fundamental and sound churches but does not get them for modernist
churches. It shows that sound churches get members with less
expense and trouble in a great campaign, such as the Billy Graham
campaign, than through the ordinary course of church activities
without revival campaigns.

... The Greek Orthodox ministers, the false cultists
and the modernists in Seattle do not like the Billy Graham cam-
paign. So what? Dr. Frederick made some money out of his
article, and the modernists got the kind of dope they wanted to
get, but honest, Bible-believing Christians may judge of the
facts for themselves as given by Dr. Albert Lindsey. . . .I0

This article has been dealt with extensively because it set the pattern
which would be followed in many such articles over the next four years.
This was a battle more to the liking of Rice. The combatants appeared
in their proper roles. To defend Graham against the charges of Mclntire
made him uneasy, and his defense of criticisms from that direction
would require increasing qualification as time went by, but to defend
Graham and revivalism against charges brought by the liberals required
no hesitation. It was a contest in which the parts were well re-
hearsed and could be spoken with certainty.

76

The ever-growing success of Graham was seen as an answer to Rice's
longstanding call for the return of union revivals. The crusade in
St. Louis was reported in an article headl ined, "Pastors Endorse Billy
Graham Crusade in St. Louis: First United Effort in Thirty Years Sets
Attendance Record."19 As evidence of Graham's acceptance beyond the
conservative evangelical circle began to appear, it was reported with
approval by the Sword , seeing in such acceptance a wider opportunity
for the preaching of the gospel and the calling of churches back to the
old-time religion. In the report of the 1953 St. Louis crusade, the
emphasis was upon the wide support of the crusade among the churches,
and a past moderator of the St. Louis presbytery of the Presbyterian
church, Dr. James W. Clarke, was quoted on the benefits which the
crusade had brought to the churches.

In my own church we have felt direct and encouraging results of
the Crusade. Of Billy Graham I would say, I appreciate his
humble, Christ-like nature, his attitude of understanding and_
love despite adverse circumstances, and his tremendous emphasis
upon the necessity of the converts getting into a local church
and going to work in the program of that church. ^

Graham had placed nc emphasis on the "apostasy" in the churches, and
non-evangelical ministers were beginning to find that they could cooper-
ate in a Graham meeting without being embarrassed by specific attack
from the pulpit upon non- orthodox positions. The positive proclamation-
of the gospel could be tolerated as long as there was no specific
preaching against "error." Rice was willing to overlook the lack of
clear denunciation of error and rejoiced in the widening audience
which was being given to the fundamentalist gospel. Though a small
group of fundamentalists, led principally by Mclntire, continued the
attack upon Graham, most were content to wish that he would take a

77

stronger stand against modernism and continued to claim him as one of
their own. Because the broader church was again willing to take notice
of the efforts of the conservatives, in the person of Billy Graham,
a re-evaluation of the relationship of orthodoxy to the rest of the
church would be necessary. Specifically, the doctrine of separation
would be called into question. Originally designed to protect evangeli-
cals from infiltration by liberalism, too rigid application of the
doctrine seemed to many evangelicals to needlessly hamper efforts to
seize the present opportunity to again bring evangelical orthodoxy
before the entire church and indeed the nation.

In 1954 the Billy Graham crusade in England gained broader church
support than had any American crusade. Enthusiastic support from within
the Church of England and from the Free churches was common. In
England there had been no fundamentalist-modernist controversy of the
dimensions of the American struggle, and in fact many "fundamentalists"
had not seen any need to leave the Church of England. The lines be-
tween various theological positions were not as tightly drawn therefore,
and these lines were not as closely tied to institutional lines. The
religious press of England. was strongly in favor of the Graham crusade
and gave extensive coverage to the preparations. The tremendous
success of the meetings tended to further smother criticism, and many
churchmen who were far from evangelical were glowing in their praise
of the efforts of Graham and the evangelistic team. In May the Sword
reported at length the enthusiastic reception which Graham had received
from the religious press of England. Rice noted that the religious
press had been "virtually unanimous" in endorsement of the campaign

78

and quoted The Times, in support of the assertion. Rice informed his
readers that the Church of England Newspaper carried large headlines,
and commented on the hope of the huge crowds filling the great Harringay
Arena for a renewing of the work which Torrey, Moody, Spurgeon, and
Wesley had done. "In their distress at contemporary religion they
clutched at the hope that a similar man with a genius for the mass meet-
ing will in 1954 set in train a similar development." A writer in the
same publication described the meetings:

There was no sweep of emotion, no tears, no hysteria. Billy
Graham is essentially a' healthy young man. He has the engaging
American habit of saying something far more shrewd and sensible
than you had ever expected. You have heard the Scriptures ex-
plained just as clearly in your parish church, Sunday after Sunday,
and I may say, just as eloquently. But there was a diffeience.

Another writer professed to have seen growth in the young evangelist.
Where two years ago he would have considered Billy Graham just another
American "hot-gospeler," he now thought Graham a man "who had been
given an exceptional gift by God."21 With such leading non-orthodox
churchmen as Dr. Leslie Weatherhead giving such enthusiastic support to
Graham, Rice might have paused to reflect upon the cause for their
enthusiasm. Certainly no indication of such reflection was given in
the pages of the Sword. Rice had long warned that no fundamentalist
need expect anything but abuse -from the modernists and other "un-
believers," but the fact of Graham's warm reception by men of far from
evangelical viewpoint did not in May of 1954 seem cause for negative

comment.

One year later, renewed criticism of Graham by Carl Mclntire
brought more defense by Rice, but with stronger than ever qualification,
Billy Graham had given a lecture at Union Theological Seminary in

79

February, 1954. Evidently, Mclntire had come across the text of his
remarks only much later, for over one year later the Christian Beacon
printed the lecture which Graham had given, with critical comments by
Mclntire. In the address Graham had made a positive presentation of the
gospel, but had not made any effort to distinguish his position from
those commonly held at Union Seminary. He had also during the lecture
made reference to having enjoyed a season of prayer in the company of
Dr. Jesse Bader, long-time Executive Secretary of Evangelism for the
Federal Council and then National Council of Churches; Dr. John S.
Bonnell, a non-orthodox Presbyterian; and Charles Templeton, an ex-
evangelical. Mclntire claimed the address suggested the gospel
preached by Graham and that of the modernists were the same. He charged
that Graham had compromised at Union Seminary and that he had failed
to take a clear stand for the faith.22 Rice was "not pleased that
Dr. Billy Graham seemed to mention favorably Or. Jesse Bader, Dr.
Bonnell, and Charles Templeton," but he did not think it was "necessarily
a compromise." Rice thought that the circulation of the statement in
printed form could well do harm, though it probably did no harm in the
message in Union Theological Seminary. Rice was "pleased that Billy
Graham took a clear stand that the Bible is the authoritative Word of

God." He went on:

No one could possibly say that Billy Graham is a modernist or
tending toward modernism from that address.

I personally feel that Billy Graham should have taken a
clear-cut stand against modernism in the message, and feel that
I would have done so. However, it is only fair to say that that
is probably one reason Billy Graham was invited to speak there
and I was not. I do not think it wrong to preach to sinners
anywhere, provided one does not endorse their sin nor allow
people to think he endorses their sin.

80

Rice claimed that Graham had matured considerably in the year since the
address had been made and that he would be much more confident in de-
claring his position after his crusade in London more firmly established
him. He doubted that now Graham would "especially cater to Dr. Jesse
Bader, Dr. Bonnell, and Charles Templeton, though he would be a cour-
teous Christian and a good friend to any man who wants his friendship."
That the dispute over Graham was pushing Mclntire and Rice apart was
reflected in the following Rice comment:

I believe that the Christian Beacon is unfortunately more
concerned with its fight on the National Council of Churches
and its insistence on secondary separation than it is in the
Great Commission in getting people saved. So this paper does
not think it amiss to harm Billy Graham's ministry. I do think
it wrong. I pray for Billy Graham every day. I thank God for
him with holy fervor every time he conies to mind. I have un-
speakable joy in the great revival campaigns God is giving through
him. I do not believe that Billy Graham is infallible. I do not
believe he is a superman. I do not necessarily agree with every-
thing he does or says. But I believe he is God's anointed man,
being used tremendously in great revivals, and that every
Christian in the world ought to rejoice in these revivals. 23

So wrote Rice in April of 1955. Before another two years passed, the
Sword would be deeply involved in controversy over the new evangeli-
calism, and Graham would be regularly attacked as the chief spokesman
of this movement trying to reform fundamentalism, but in the next months,
the promotion of Graham in the pages of the Swqrd would be extensive,
even as the intentions of the new evangelicals became clear. But Rice
would long refuse to accept the Graham association with the new evangeli-
cal program.

Graham realized the great concern which had been created among
fundamentalists by the publication of his Union Seminary address and
moved to repair the damage. Turning to personal diplomacy, he arranged

81

for Rice to be flown to Scotland to visit with him during his crusade
there. It was while with Graham in Scotland that Rice had prepared
his article on the Union Seminary speech. The May issues of the Sword
were devoted in large part to reporting the Scotland crusade. The
feature article of the May 13 issue was titled "7 Miracle Days With
Billy Graham." In this article the personal kindnesses shown the funda-
mentalist editor by Billy Graham and the tremendous spiritual impact of
the crusades were stressed. Rice commented that in spite of the con-
siderable liberalism in the Church of Scotland, "the Scottish ministers

were deeply moved by the London Crusade of Billy Graham. They saw the

24
need to call the people back to God and the Bible and the church."

The real results of the Graham diplomacy with Rice were reflected in

the June 17 issue.

The article was entitled "Questions Answered About Billy Graham"

and was a frank discussion of the concerns which had disturbed many

25
fundamentalists. Rice included seven questions:

1. Is His Preaching Sound Bible Preaching?

2. Are the Billy Graham Methods Sensible, Spiritual, Trustworthy?

3. Does He Seek the Sponsorship of Modernists?

4. Does He Use and Endorse the Revised Standard Version of the
Bible?

5. Does He Sometimes Consort With Modernists?

6. Do the Billy Graham Crusades Strengthen Modernistic Churches
and the Cause of Modernism?

7. Does Billy Graham's Future Promise to Turn Out Out-and-Out for
the True-to-the Bible Position?

The first two questions Rice answered in the affirmative without reser-
vation. Rice quoted several liberal observers to place Graham theologi-

t

cally with the most rigorous of the fundamentalists. He found no

grounds for any complaint with regard to Graham's theology. His re-
vivalistic methodology was also "beyond criticism" in Rice's eyes.

82

He observed that Graham had over the years become more and more sub-
dued in his preaching and his invitations, and felt that the methods
being used by Graham could not be offensive to anyone who believed
that the gospel should be preached at all.

To the third question Rice could not be as dogmatic. He first
disposed of a particular criticism which had been made of the Scotland
crusade. Dr. John S. Bonnell had been reported by the news media to be
joining Graham in Scotland at Graham's invitation. Rice informed his
readers that the report was in error. Bonnell had recently written an
article, published in Look magazine, in which he stated that many
Presbyterian ministers did not believe in many of the historic doctrines
of Christianity, with the implication that Bonnell concurred in at least

op.

some of the opinions he was reporting. Bonnell was therefore not in

good odor among fundamentalists, and when it was reported that he had

been invited to take part in the Scotland crusade, many fundamentalists

were very critical of Graham. Rice related that Graham had assured him

that he had not invited Bonnell to Scotland, but that he had been

brought over by Scottish churchmen who thought Bonnell would be helpful

in overcoming certain local liberal opposition to the crusade. Once

there Bonnell was given a place on the platform, but according to Rice

was never introduced by Graham 'and was invited to lead in prayer only

once, after Graham had gone to the counselling room. Rice reported

what Graham told him on the matter:

. . . he felt that he must not have any man speaking for him as
an official of the campaign or taking part on the public program
of the campaign who is net true on the great fundamentals of
the Christian faith. But he feels it is not wrong to preach
to modernists and their people, when he can do so without com-
promise, making his own position definitely clear, and standing

83

up for Christ and the Bible. Dr. Graham does not feel that he
is called or fitted for controversy on many matters of theology,
but does feel definitely called to preach a clear-cut Gospel,
sharp and clear on the great fundamentals of the faith. 27

Referring to the Scotland crusade itself, Rice admitted that certainly

there v>.'as liberalism within the Church of Scotland, which invited

Graham, but that as far as he knew, "no modernist had any place of

official leadership or honor." Again Rice admitted that Graham had

been sponsored by "some groups which included modernists in the group,

but he was not sponsored by modernists, and in every case it was known

that the preaching would be fundamental and scriptural." Finally he

summarized the understanding he had reached with Graham on the question

of modernist sponsorship.

As I understand Billy, he has definitely pledged that he
will not have any man in leadership in his campaigns to repre-
sent him officially who is not true to the inspiration of the
Bible, the deity of Christ, His blood atonement, and such
fundamental truths. He does want preachers invited to bring
their congregations, just as he wants other groups who need the
Gospel to attend. 28

Such was the arrangement that had been made in Scotland. It was not
satisfactory to either party and would break down before another year
had passed. Many fundamentalists would not work with modernists in the
crusades, even if the places of leadership were held by evangelicals.
Graham would soon see that the denominations would accept no such
arrangement. To get genuine cooperation from the denominational leader-
ship, places of power and honor within the crusades would have to go to
non-evangelical churchmen. Liberal, or non-orthodox, ministers would
hardly be inclined to join enthusiastically in a campaign where they
were so obviously barred from leadership. If the crusades were to con-
tinue to widen their base of support and thereby increase their

84

attendance, the liberal churchmen must be brought in, and brought
in fully, as partners to the enterprise. On the other hand, Graham
was reluctant to lose the fundamentalist backing. Most conservative
churchmen would continue to support him no matter what he did, but per-
sonal considerations, as well as the fact that the strongest fundamen-
talists tended to be the most energetic workers, encouraged him to make
some effort to keep hard-line fundamentalist support. Further he knew
that if he was publicly repudiated by such men as Rice and Jones, the
controversy created might cause cautious fundamentalist-evangelical
institutions to assume a neutral position, which could seriously weaken
his support. Finally Graham was himself a fundamentalist. The con-
cessions which he would eventually make to enlarge his constituency
were no doubt painful to him in the beginning. When he privately con-
demned the Bonnell article to John R. Rice in a hotel room in Scotland
in 1955, he was not dissimulating. Seven years before, at a function
of the Conservative Baptist Association, he had been asked what he
expected from the World Council of Churches meeting in Copenhagen, and
he replied, "I believe they are going to nominate the Anti-Christ."
Graham had traveled much, had met many new people, and been exposed to
new forms of worship, but underneath it all, some of the old views
remained, and sometimes in his sermons and his public statements they
showed through. Though he would soon cast his lot completely and en-
thusiastically with the new evangelicals, he still would know that many
of the men with whom he was working in the crusades were not "born again
* Christians," as he understood the term..

On the next question, Rice again was forced to hedge. Graham had
recommended the Revised Standard Version of the Bible, which had been

85

published by the National Council of Churches. Rice pointed out that
many conservatives had endorsed the New Testament portion, which came
out before the Old Testament, and that he himself had allowed the Bible
to be sold in the Sword of the Lord bookstore in Wheaton before the con-
troversy brought its weaknesses to his attention. What Rice failed to
mention was that he, in accordance with good fundamentalist practice,
had discontinued any promotion of the work and had repudiated it, while
Graham had allowed his endorsement to stand.

"Does Dr. Billy Graham sometimes consort with modernists?" Rice
rightly addressed the question of what was meant by consort, though he
did not answer the question. He thought that Graham had "unwisely had
fellowship with modernists on some occasions." He did not think there
was any intentional compromise involved and was not even sure there had
been any unintentional compromise, but Graham did have some friends who
were modernists, and they had "done him great harm," and Graham's asso-
ciation with them had "done the cause of Christ harm." He went on to
explain:

I am not an enemy of Billy Graham and I am not a critic. I am an
out-and-out friend and defender of Billy Graham. And I feel that
in general, the idea that Christians must love sinners, must
seek sinners, and must not hold themselves aloof from sinners is
right. Dr. Graham is a friendly man, a transparently sincere
man. He is eager, of course, to reach as many people with the
Gospel as possible. I think that when he reported that he,
Dr. Charles Tempi eton, Dr. Bonnell , and Dr. Jesse Bader had a
day's prayer meeting in the hotel room in New York, he wrongly
left the impression that these men are trustworthy Christians.
I do not set out to judge these men, but I do not think that they
are reputable and trustworthy Christians. ... I do not say that
these men are unconverted. I do not say that they mean to be
dishonest. I do not judge that. I simply say that they ought not
to be presented to the public as Bible-believing, Bible-preaching
men of God; and I think Billy Graham's influence on the matter
has been hurtful to some people, and has certainly put him in an
embarrassing position. 30

86

Graham had associated himself in the public mind with these non-orthodox
spokesmen and had begun to dissociate himself from the fundamentalists.
Rice noted that Graham's personal friendship with "some who are not
sound in the faith has caused him to make bad statements in some cases."
Rice referred specifically to Graham's rejection of the fundamentalist
label in the early days of the Scotland crusade. Graham had been asked
to define fundamentalism, but instead replied: "I am neither a funda-
mentalist nor a modernist, but a constructionist." Rice admitted that
certainly there were fundamentalists who were "cantankerous," who were
sometimes "overzealous," "unwise, unkind and perhaps not accurate," but
he argued that that was not true of all fundamentalists and that the
implications of such statements as Graham had made were harmful. Rice
went on to say that he was personally a fundamentalist, and so was
Graham, and "he ought to have said so." Rice offered the excuse that as
a Southern Baptist, Graham might have been turned against the term by
its special use in those circles to refer to the small group which had
worked with J. Frank Norris. Rice had himself once changed the name
of a church of which he was pastor from Fundamentalist Baptist Church
to Galilean Baptist Church, in order to excape the stigma of Norris'
reputation after he had broken with Norris. Graham might also have been
influenced by the fact that Mclntire and the American Council leaders
who were strong fundamentalists had attacked him "not always wisely
and, 1 think, not always accurately." Graham's harsh words against
fundamentalists would "discourage good Christians from supporting and
praying for Dr. Graham," but Rice observed that as long as Graham took
a clear stand on the fundamentals of the faith, "it is a minor matter
whether he calls himself a fundamentalist or not."

87

On the next question Rice could again be more definite. The

Graham campaigns absolutely did not advance the cause of modernism,

but instead were serious blows to modernism wherever they were held.

Modernism had been "set back greatly in Scotland by the All -Scotland

Crusade." Rice reported that the rumors that converts were sometimes

sent into modernistic churches were not true. He had personally heard

Graham several times instruct the converts that they should go to a

church "that preaches and promotes the Bible, a soul-winning church."

Further:

Neither Billy Graham nor his associates ever left the impression,
in my hearing, that it did not matter whether they went to a
modernistic church or a Bible-believing church. ... I would
say that the influence of the Billy Graham Campaign is always for
the fundamentals of the faith and the implication is that
Christian people ought to support sound churches and preachers,
and that new converts ought to go into sound churches.

To the final question Rice gave an answer which reflected many of
the factors which influenced the actions of fundamentalists, both be-
fore and after the split with Graham. Does Graham's future promise
to "Count Out-and-Out for the True-to-the Bible Position?"

Who can foresee the future? And who can properly weigh the
varying tides and currents of influence? I speak humbly. I do
not pretend to know all the answers. But I feel that two things
ought to be said on this point.

First, I have prayed for long hours and have propagandized
in The Sword of the Lord and have set an evangelistic pattern,
have insisted on evangelistic preaching and so no one has a better
right, I think, than I, to rejoice in the great Billy Graham
campaigns. Kneeling in a YMCA room in South Chicago fifteen years
ago, I prayed till 2 a.m. and begged God to bring back great city-
wide campaigns, mass evangelism. I promised God I would leave no
stone unturned, that I would suffer any persecution, any privation,
any /oil He would allow me to suffer, to help bring back mass
evangelism. I speak then, with abounding joy of the tremendous
.campaigns in which multiplied thousands of people have found
•Christ. Thank God for the upsurge of interest in evangelism.
Thank God that He has raised up many blessed evangelists, includ-
ing Billy Graham. So I think we may say that, on the whole, the

88

Billy Graham crusades will call out thousands of preachers to
preach the Gospel. I think these crusades will send missionaries
to the foreign field. I think they will turn multitudes of •
young people to believe the Bible and to be influenced by his-
toric Christianity. I think that, on the whole, Billy Graham's
future promises to have a tremendous impact for the true-to-the-
Bible position. And for that we thank God. 31

No man who had dedicated his life to bringing back mass evangelism could
lightly break with the campaigns of Billy Graham. The feelings of Rice
reflected those of countless other fundamentalists. Though Graham had
much altered the pattern of revivalism with which they were familiar,
though he had seemingly deliberately disassociated himself from them, he
yet preached the fundamentalist gospel before audiences which no one
else could attract, and most fundamentalists continued to claim him as
one of themselves. The first point which Rice had made—that his commit-
ment to mass evangelism was too strong to allow him to beck away from
Billy Graham—could well have stood for the great majority of fundamen-
talists, but his second point also echoed their views. Rice warned

32
that "some of the greatest men of God have made serious mistakes." He

then went on to describe how the close association of D. L. Moody with

men who were not fully orthodox had had tragic consequences, from the

fundamentalist point of view, both in his family and in institutions he

founded. Fundamentalists remained convinced that to keep the modernist

camel out of the tent, they must be ever vigilant against the nose.

The events of the coming months would push Rice, Jones, and most

fundamentalists away from Graham and toward Mclntire and the American

Council. The spring of 1956 would see many Sword articles defending

Graham against liberal critics, and the defense would be made with the

old energy, but the controversy with the new evangelicals would continue

89

to heat up and it would become clear that Graham, the new evangelicals,
and most conservative Christians were moving in a direction which the
fundamentalists were unwilling to take.

NOTES
CHAPTER 5

t o

^ice, "Billy Graham and Revival Critics," Sword, March 2, 1951,
XIII, 1-3, 6-8, 12.

Christian Herald, December, 1950, pp. 12-14.
3The Life of Faith (London: n.d.).

Rice, "Revival Critics," p. 3.

Christian Beacon, January 18, 1951, pp. 1-3.

6Rice, "Revival Critics," p. 6.

7Ibid., p. 7.

8William E. Ashbrook, Evangelicalism: The New Neutralism
(Columbus, Ohio: printed Drivately by Calvary Bible Church, 1970 ed.),
p. 5.

Christian Beacon, January 18, 1951, p. 2.

10Rice, "Revival Critics," p. 12.

11 Sword, January 31, 1951, XIII, 2.

12Arthur L. Frederick, "Billy Graham's Seattle Campaign,"
Christian Century, April 23, 1952, LXIX, 494-496.

13,1 Evaluating Graham," Newsweek, April 28, 1952, pp. 84-85.

14Rice, "Billy Graham's Seattle Campaign Reviewed," Sword,
June 6, 1952, XIV, 1, 9, 12.

15Ibid., p. 9.

16Ibid.5

p-

12.

17Ibid.

18Ibid.

90

91

19Sword, June 12, 1953, XIV, 3.

20Ibid.

21

Rice, What England Thinks of Billy Graham," Sword, May 7,

1954, XX, 4, 7, 9.

22
Carl Kclntire, "Billy Graham at Union Seminary," Christian

Beacon, March 16, 1955, pp. 1-2.

Rice, "Billy Graham at Union Seminary," Sword, April 22, 1955,
XXI, 3.

24

Rice, "Seven Miracle Days with Billy Graham in the All -Scot! and

Crusade," Sword, May 13, 1955, XXI, 1, 4-7.

25

Rice. "Questions Answered About Billy Graham," Sword, June 17,

1955, XXI, 1, 9-11.

26Johr; S. Bonnell, "What Is a Presbyterian?" Look, March 23,
1954, pp. 86-93.

27
Rice, "Questions Answered," p. 9.

28,,.,
Ibid.

29

G. Archer Weniger, "The Position of Dr. Graham Before He

Embraced Ecumenical Evangelism" privately distributed by San Francisco

Baptist Theological Seminary, n.d., p. 2.

30

Rice, "Questions Answered," p. 9.

31Ibid., p. 11.

32
■^Ibid.

CHAPTER 6
DONALD GREY BARNHOUSE

Following World War II evangelicals were forced by their renewed
prominence to consider again their relationships to each other, to
other elements of the Christian community, and to the secular society
in which they lived. One of the earliest manifestations of the
direction in which this re-evaluation would take some evangelicals came
in the pages of Eternity magazine, edited by Donald Grey Barnhouse.
Barnhouse was a Presbyterian, a graduate of Princeton, and a long-time
leader of fundamentalism in the Philadelphia area. Always a strong
individualist, Barnhouse had been vocal in his denunciation of apostasy
in the Presbyterian church. Because of the unbelief of the leaders of
the Philadelphia presbytery, he once refused to participate in a com-
munion service which the presbytery held in his own church. At another
time he advised a young minister to shave his head if the hands of the
elders and ministers of the presbytery should touch him in ordination.
He once wrote: "We have long held that it is necessary for Christians
to be out of the Federal Council because of the doctrinal modernism of
that body."1 In the controversy of the thirties he had been tried
and found guilty by the Presbyterian church of charging another
minister publicly with heresy. The trial was a high point of the
fundamentalist-modernist controversy i iT the Philadelphia area, but
Barnhouse had accepted the verdict and remained within his presbytery.

92

93

Writing in 1961 after the death of Barnhouse, Paul Hopkins emphasized
the importance of the trial: "Had this trial not occurred, he might
well have been Philadelphia's leader in the Machen-Independent Board
battle in 1935, his relations with the Presbyterian Church would have
inevitably been severed, and the course of his ministry totally
changed." As it was, Barnhouse continued his work as pastor of Tenth
Presbyterian Church in Philadelphia, operating largely without any
connection with the denomination or the local presbytery, carried on
an extensive radio ministry, and edited a Bible-study magazine. He
developed a personal constituency and spoke in churches across the
nation, though he was generally not received in Presbyterian pulpits.
In 1944 the death of his wife had a tremendous effect upon him. In
the words of Hopkins, "After her death, Donald Barnhouse wandered in
a wilderness." He had virtually cut himself off from his denomination
and had not developed any fellowship with the independent fundamentalists,
Though he had worked with the National Association of Evangelicals, he
had caused a disturbance in that organization by his protests over the
inclusion of pentecostal and other non-Calvinist groups. He had never
worked with the American Council and his failure to leave the Presby-
terian church in the years of the Machen dispute prevented any fellow-
ship with that group. His nationwide broadcast over the CBS radio
network had ended, and the circulation of his magazine had declined.
Again Hopkins wrote: "Some said that he was a ship without a rudder,
never having recovered from the loss of his wife. He was a lone wolf.
It. seeded that he could work with no one--and no one wanted to work
with him." Curing 1949, however, he began to recover. The"Bible

94

Study Hour" was started on several radio stations and grew rapidly.
In 1950 the name of "his magazine was changed from Revelation to
Eternity, and circulation began to increase. In the early 1950s he
began to move in a wider circle, and in the January, 1953, issue of
Eternity he presented a "New Year's Resolution," the implementation of
which would greatly affect his own life and which reflected great changes
which would take place in the thinking of many evangelicals.

He first stated that he had early conceived the notion that he
must strike out at error wherever he found it: "If it was in some
fundamental leader with whom I was in ninety-five per cent agreement,
I swung hard at the five per cent." Now, though he was still an
editor and must be editorially honest, he would "try to underline the
points of agreement and touch as lightly as possible the points of
disagreement." He then went on: "And I want to have Christian
fellowship with a much wider circle of people." He spoke of his recent
efforts to bring spiritual unity to the Christian community in Philadel-
phia and added:

I want that unity to be extended in many different direc-
tions. I want to make my circle of Christian fellowship on the
basis of the fact that a man is going to be in Heaven with me.
If he is, then why not get a little closer together here and
now. Give him the benefit of the doubt on the things we -do not
agree upon as soon as we find that we agree upon man's complete
ruin in sin and God's perfect remedy in Christ. I believe that.
many of us have been the victims of a religious McCarthyisrn.
Just as the Senator from Wisconsin has yelled "Communist" at
almost anyone to the left of center, so there are men who have
yelled "Modernist" at any one who disagreed with them on points
which are certainly secondary. . . .

Within my own denomination there are men with whom I have
not had much fellowship because of ecclesiastical differences.
Without in anywise changing. my theological outlook, and without
lowering my right to unveil, editorially, specific heresy when
I find it in print, I want to move closer to many men who are

95

undoubtedly going to be with me in Heaven, but with whom I have
disagreed on denominational emphasis.

Barnhouse assured readers who might not like the new direction he was

taking that "there is no deviation whatsoever in what I have written

here from all that I have written through the years."4

Evidence of the new direction was not long in coming. In the

March issue he quoted favorably an unnamed fellow evangelical who had

recently been exposed to an atmosphere of "ecumenism, Barthianism,

liberalism, as well as conservatism." This evangelical suggested:

"These men are earnest and sincere and honest. But many of them are

muddled. They just haven't been taught the truth . . . most of them,

down underneath, are trusting in the Lord Jesus Christ as Savior. . .

they just haven't been taught the deeper things." He went on to note

that one outstanding lecturer "definitely did not believe in the

essentials of Christianity," to which Barnhouse commented: "From

such we can turn away." Barnhouse then ended the discussion with the

following paragraph:

I am definitely moving in but one direction; trying to be
brought closer and closer to the Lord Jesus Christ. But I am
finding, as I get nearer to Him that there are true living stones
built on Him that are in another wall of the temple of the be-
lievers than that in which I am builded. They are around the
corner, yes, but I am finding that we me.et at the corner. 5

In the same March issue was printed an article suggesting the seven

crucial issues in Protestantism, prompted by a series of articles on

the subject in United Evangelical Action, the NAM organ. One of the

seven issues linked the "intransigence of the extreme Fundamentalists,"

who add their traditions and interpretations to the Word of God, with

the "apostasy of the Liberals," who subtract from the revelation by

lowering the authority of the Bible. Another hit the "neo-legal ism" of

96

many conservatives who substitute a "Drink not, smoke not, dance not"
formula for a system' of ethics. A third chided conservative failure
in social responsibility, and a fourth suggested ecumenical mission
effort because it was absurd to project denominational differences
on new converts on the field.6 Barnhouse was definitely moving away
from what had been his fundamentalist position.

In October of 1953 Barnhouse commented on the appearance of
G. Bromley Oxnam, a liberal Methodist leader in California, before the
House Un-American Activities Committee on charges that he had been a
Communist or had served a Communist front organization. While he
scorned Oxnam' s "false theology," the burden of comment was to criti-
cize those "extreme fundamentalists" who had falsely accused Oxnam of
political disloyalty. He declared, "Let us stop calling men Communists
who definitely are not so, and turn our efforts to positive proclama-
tion of truth. "

In June, 1954, Barnhouse, in an article titled "Where Am I Going?'
attempted to assure his readers that he had not made any changes in his
theology and that the new directions involved no departure from the
faith. He revealed that he had been approached by the National Council
of Churches about the possibility of producing some television films
that would be distributed under the auspices of the NCC, and indicated
that he was working with them toward that -end. In the following year
the programs were produced, and Barnhouse became a regular, featured
speaker on a NCC television series.

During these years articles critical of fundamentalism became
regular items in Eternity. One of the first of these was written by

97

Vernon Grounds, of the Conservative Baptist Theological Seminary in
Denver, Colorado. Grounds was a contributor of such articles through
the next years, and the seminary in Denver became a center of the
criticism of fundamentalism within the Conservative Baptist group.

Most of the articles followed patterns long established by the
liberal critics of fundamentalism in the years of the denominational
wars, though these new critics, because they were themselves theological
fundamentalists, sometimes were deeper in their understanding. In
"Is Love in the Fundamentalist Creed?" Vernon Grounds insisted that
the "forgotten fundamental of neighbor-love must be restored to its
supreme place in Christian behavior." Admitting that he was a theologi-
cal fundamentalist because he adhered to the historic doctrines, he
complained: ". . . some of us do not like to be tagged fundamentalists.
For fundamentalism in many quarters has degenerated into a quarrelsome
bickering over incidentals: indeed, it is incidental ism rather than
fundamentalism." The article maintained that fundamentalism had
ignored the supreme fundamental: neighbor-love. Barnhouse echoed
these sentiments in an editorial in the same issue:

I yearn for fellowship with the whole body of believers in whom
Christ dwells through the Holy Spirit. I have come to the con-
clusion that all true believers have this yearning for wider
fellowship and that many are afraid to let themselves go into
the love of God, fearing where its current might carry them.'0

In a January, 1955, editorial Barnhouse wondered: "... why some men

are spending so much time warning of apostasy when the movement is so

strongly the other way, and we should be spending our time helping

men who were once liberals and who are almost pathetically eager to be

received among evangelicals and who, in many cases, are willing
,11

humbly to be taught."

98

The importance of the impression that liberals were ready to re-
turn to the orthodox fold cannot be exaggerated. To many evanglicals
and fundamentalists, the battle lines which had been drawn at the end
of the controversies of the twenties had not altered. Many had not
followed the struggle between neo-orthodoxy and liberalism which had
occupied the main-line denominations in the intervening years, and
were pleasantly surprised in the late forties and early fifties to learn
that liberal isi, had been routed by a return to a theology of the Word.
Few fully understood the complexities of dialectical terminology.
To one as anxious for fellowship as Barnhouse, any very thorough exami-
nation of the pedigree of these newly found friends seemed uncharit-
able. Other evangelicals of much the same conviction as Barnhouse did
devote considerable effort to a delineation of the lines between ortho-
doxy and neo-crthodoxy. This was a major concern in the first years of
the publication of Christianity Today; but many were too pleased to
learn of the demise of liberalism to become much engaged in gift-horse
mouth-looking.

Eternity was soon involved in a campaign to demonstrate how
strongly orthodox theology was now represented within the denominations
and the National and the World Councils of Churches. Barnhouse was
deeply involved at the Evanston, Illinois, WCC meet in 1954 and re-
ported extensively on the meeting in Eternity. He recognized that
there was still doctrinal division within the WCC, but asserted that
"there has been some progress and some remarkable testimony to the truth."
The view which had been expressed by Dr. Visser t'Hooft, a WCC official,
that the majority of the leaders of the WCC did not endorse the idea of the

99

organic union of all denominations into one body was emphasized. The

report ended with the following words:

The reports must be read and digested. But Christians must
realize that there was a great deal of good accomplished at
Evanston. There were many people who are Christians 'in the
evangelical sense of the word who were at Evanston and who were
discussing great problems or. a high level of Christian thinking.
There were also some men whom we consider to be apostates who
were among the delegates but they seemed to be outnumbered and
their influence did not seem to weigh heavily. . . .12

By 1957 serious articles examining neo-orthodox theology began to
appearand some of the earlier naive optimism cooled, but Barnhouse
had by then cast his lot with the mainstream and his involvement with
the NCC and the WCC deepened.

The extent to which his contact with the denominations and the
councils affected his thinking was revealed by the position he took
in the controversy over religious broadcasting. Throughout the 1950s
the NCC attempted to put an end to paid religious broadcasts. Only
time donated by the stations would be used for rel igious broadcasts, and
this would be distributed through the councils of churches and the
religious agencies of the other major faiths. Naturally, the evangeli-
cals who were the largest buyers of commercial religious broadcast time
feared that any such arrangement would greatly lessen their access to
the airwaves. This battle over the airwaves was a major project of the
National Association of Evangelicals through its affiliate, the
National Religious Broadcasters, throughout the decade. In the spring
of 1957, Barnhouse came down in a compromise position which in many
minds .put him closer to the NCC position than to that of the evangeli-
cals. Whatever might be their disposition on other ecumenical questions,
on this issue evangelicals were almost unanimous in their opposition to

100

the NCC position. Barnhouse, on the other hand, used the opportunity
to press for more contact between the evangelicals and the NCC men.
He asserted that the issue was very complex, and had not been
presented fairly by either side. Both parties were said to be fighting
battles of an earlier day, reliving the fundamentalist-modernist con-
troversy as "certain sections of the country are still fighting the
Civil War." Fundamentalism had pursued the course of separation in the
"vain hope for a pure church." He charged:

In its effort to defend the faith, fundamentalism has be-
come defensive, suspicious, separatistic and belligerent, its
creed too often a barren legalism substituted for the vital life-
changing force that is Christianity.

Seemingly motivated by fear, some fundamentalists are
harshly critical of those with whom they do not agree, and it
has been all too easy for them to make the National Council of
Churches and its various commissions the symbol of theological
heresy, lowest-common-denominator inclusivism, socialism and
Communism.

Both the NAE and the NCC were said to be "culpable in making public

statements derogatory of the efforts of another group of Christians

without first trying to understand better the differing view." Barnhouse

probably thought he was taking a middle position, but he had actually

presented a rebuke to the leaders of the NAE. He had rejected their

charges that the NCC was trying to put evangelical broadcasting off

the air. The final sentence of .the piece concluded: "Ultimately,

Christian broadcasting is not imperiled except by the sins of pride and

self-seeking that too easily beset the whole Christian church"--

it is clear that he had presented a rebuke to the leaders of the

NAE. The public reactions to the editorial also corresponded

to this view. The Barnhouse position won praise from the NCC

leadership- but was held to be a disappointment by James DeForest

101

14 -
Murch, president of the National Religious Broadcasters. By this

time Barnhouse was beginning to show coolness to the activities of
the NAE generally. As he moved closer to the NCC he came more and
more to see the NAF. as an obstacle in his vision of evangelicals
taking their place in the broader Christian fellowship. In November
of 1957 an article in Eternity written by close Barnhouse associate
Walter Martin reported on the Faith and Order Conference of the NCC-
WCC which had been held at Oberlin, Ohio. Though there were signs in
the article that some sophistication in dealing with ecumenical activi-
ties had developed, the enthusiasm for such activities had also grown.
Martin stated in part:

Radicals on both sides will proclaim that it was a waste of
time, and that true unityin the Christian Church can never be
achieved this side of Heaven. However, we ought not to despise
any sincere effort in that direction that is grounded upon the
sound doctrines of the Word of God and ihe love which our Lord
commanded us to have one for another. ! he World Council of
Churches is making such an attempt, though there are still
elements within it that are hostile to the historic faith of
Christianity and which, although weakened over the past decade,
continue as a threat to true Christian unity. 15

In the spring of 1957, Eternity had offered the following comments in

a review of Murch 's history of the NAE:

As one peruses the pages of this well-written book, one
question arises in his mind. The NAF was founded in days of
great theological controversy, when the forces of modernism were
adamant in rejecting fundamental Christianity. There was no
room in the Federal Council for the conservative doctrine held
by those in the NAE. . . .

Today, as Dr. Murch notes, the issues have changed, and
one of the principal changes is in the attitude of present-day
cooperative Protestantism as represented by the National Council
of Churches. The NCC is putting far less stress on uniformity,
and much more on ecumenicity, the question then arises: What
is the NAE's raison d'etre today?. Today, as never before, the
church of Christ must show the world that it not only loves its
Lord, but all believersJ6

102

In the years left to him, Donald Barnhouse became the chief NCC defender
before the evangelical community. He had earlier defended the WCC
leader from behind the Iron Curtain, Joseph L. Hromadka, calling the
charges that he was a Communist ridiculous, and when Hromodka acknowl-
edged in print his personal Communist convictions, Eternity commented:
"The Holy Spirit still blows where He wills, and if He chooses to blow
through a Hromadka, who are we to question it? Although as Western
believers we may detest his political and economic views, this must not
blind us to the warm spiritual witness that Hromodka has given to his
faith in Christ."17 When in 1960 the NCC was involved in a dispute
with the Air Force over a training manual which suggested Communist
influence within the NCC, Barnhouse printed his own lengthy "impartial

investigation" which cleared the organization and was largely devoted

1 8
to attacking the critics of the NCC. Eternity regularly reported

NCC and WCC activities, interpreting them in a way likely to encourage
evangelical support. At the same time Barnhouse continued to widen
the circle of his Christian fellowship, including groups which he had
formerly scorned. In May of 1958 he urged the local council of
churches in Philadelphia to oust the Unitarians, saying that with them
excluded, the way would be clear for evangelical participation in the •
council's activities.19 This action indicated the fullest development
of Barnhouse's extension of the circle of his fellowship. He de-
clared in December of 1958:". . . if any man truly believes that Jesus
Christ is Lord and the Savior of the world, that I must have fellow-
ship with him. I may not be separate* from him because I don't like
him personally; I may not be separated from him because I think he

103

has some queer doctrines." After challenging his audience to produce

one verse in the Bible which says that they must be separated from some

other member of the Body of Christ on the basis of doctrine, he said:

We should be separated from all unitan'anizing tendencies,
from anybody who does not believe that Jesus Christ is God, for
they are not believers. They are the counterfeits, and they are
outside. But anybody who believes that Jesus Christ is God, then
we must get together with him. Sure, some of them will believe
in certain doctrines that we repudiate utterly. 20

Thus, Barnhouse had fully committed himself to the WCC basis.

In his journey from theological separatism to theological inclu-
sivism, Barnhouse was not typical of the evangelicals with whom this
study is concerned. He was an extreme individualist at all times, as
belligerent preaching a "loving" inclusivism as he had been preaching
a "divisive" separatism. His enthusiasm for the NCC and WCC was unique
among important evangelical leaders. His individualistic temperament
blinded him to institutional considerations which were important to
other evangelical leaders trying to move fundamentalism to a more cen-
tral position. The traumatic nature of his personal conversion from
separatism to inclusivism also set him apart from other evangelicals.
Most evangelicals who moved away from separatism did so more for
strategic than personal reasons, though the desire to be more at peace
with the church as a whole was -always a factor in such a movement. In
some respects, Barnhouse was an embarrassment to the men with whom this
study is primarily concerned. He was moving in the direction in which
they were moving, and his large personal following made him an important
ally. Eternity carried many articles written by men such as Vernon
Grounds, Bernard Ramm, and Carl Henry, who were leaders in the effort
to refashion fundamentalism. But Barnhouse's eccentric, personal

104

approach set him apart from the "mainstream" of this effort to bring
fundamentalism into the mainstream. He felt personally much that the
others accepted for strategic reasons. His approach to the complex
issues often seems naive, and certainly lacks the depth of under-
standing found in the writings of men such as Carl Henry or Harold
Lindsell. Where some were willing to work with non-evangelicals in a
Graham crusade for the sake of the meeting, Barnhouse really seemed
to seek their fellowship, and in the end came to be more "at home" in
their presence than with other evangelicals. Nonetheless, while the
changes in Barnhouse were more dramatic and came with an intensity that
was unique, his career after January, 1953, reflected changes that
were occurring within evangelicalism. One writer who was very critical

of these changes stated that in Eternity the emphases of the move-

21

ment were presented in the broadest fashion.

It was perhaps significant that at his death in 1960 the eulogy

given him in Christian Century was warmer than that in the evangelical

22
Moody Monthly.

NOTES
CHAPTER 6

William E. Ashbrook, Evangelicalism: The New Neutralism
(Columbus, Ohio: printed privately by Calvary Bible Church, 1970 ed.),
pp. 6-7.

2Paul Hopkins, "What Made the Man?" Eternity, March, 1961, p. 37.

3 1 b i d .

Eternity, January, 1953, inside covers.

5Eternity, March, 1953, p. 5.

Eternity, March, 1953, p. 9.

7

Eternity, October, 1953, p. 8.

o

Donald Grey Barnhouse, "Where Am I Going?" Eternity, June,
1954, pp. 7, 39-40.

Vernon Grounds, "Is LOVE in the Fundamentalist Creed?"
Eternity, June, 1954, p. 13.

10Eternity, June, 1954, p. 15.

Eternity, January, 1955, p. 8.

12Eternity, October, 1954, pp. 8, 40.

13Barhnouse, "Who's Putting Religion Off the Air?" Eternity,
April, 1957, pp. 14-15, 34-35.

14Eternity, May, 1957, pp. 20-21.

Walter Martin, "Oberlin Report," Eternity, November, 1957, p. 43.
16Eternity, May, 1957, p. 26.
17Eternity, November, 1957, p. 28.

Barnhouse, "Communism and the National Council of Churches,"

Eternity, September, 1960, pp. 6-9, 30-33.

105

106

19Eternity, Hay, 1958, p. 4.

20Eternity, July, 1958, p. 20. _

21 Dennis M. Walton, An Identification of New Evangelicalism
(Minneapolis, Minn.: Central Press, 1960)1 p. 10.

22Christian Century, December 7, 1960, LXXVII, 1948; Moody
Monthly, January, 1961, p. 15.

CHAPTER 7
THE DEVELOPING DIVISION

In 1947 the first significant, public statement of the need to
move fundamentalism in new directions was made by Dr. Carl F. H. Henry
in a series of lectures published under the title, The Uneasy Con-
science of Modern Fundamentalism. Henry's uneasiness was primarily
over what he saw as the failure of fundamentalism to develop an ade-
quate system of social ethics. He wrote in the preface to the book:

Those who read with competence will know that the "uneasy con-
science" of which I write is not one troubled about the great
biblical verities, which I consider the only outlook capable of
resolving our problems, but rather one distressed by the fre-
quent failure to apply them effectively to crucial problems
confronting the modern mind. It is an application of, not a -j
revolt against, fundamentals of the faith, for which I plead.

No 'jery great notice of the book was taken at the time, but about
the newly founded Fuller Theological Seminary and a few other centers,
discontent with the existing contours of evangelical orthodoxy began
to find expression.

Harold John Ockenga was the founding president of Fuller
Theological Seminary, directing its affairs from Boston where he was
pastor of the prestigious Park Street Church. The new seminary,

located in Pasadena, California, soon drew to itself a group of young

t
scholars determined to make serious changes in the shape of modern

fundamentalism. (At the time, fundamentalism was a term often used to

cover all shades of evangelical orthodoxy, especially that which

107

108

found expression in independent institutions.) In an address opening
the seminary, Ockenga called for a "new evangelicalism" and in so
doing gave a name to a movement which eventually would divide evangeli-
cal orthodoxy into evangel ical ism and fundamentalism, with* by far the
largest part of the orthodox group represented in evangelicalism. In
its new formulation fundamentalism was to lose its pugnacity; it was
to challenge unbelief on a higher intellectual level without resort
to obscurantism; its divisive separatism was to be moderated; and above
all.it was to develop a comprehensive social philosophy. Ockenga,
Henry, Harold Lindsell, Edward John Camel 1, and the older Dr. Wilbur
Smith would develop at Fuller the outlines of this "new evangelicalism.1
When Ockenga stepped down as president, Carnell took his place. The
seminary over the years established a claim to scholarship that no
thoroughly evangelical seminary had enjoyed for many years. For the
first years the production of a serious body of apologetic literature
occupied the talents of the young men at Fuller. At the fourth annual
convention of the National Association of Evangelicals in the spring
of 1946, Dr. Wilbur Smith had urged that evangelicals "undertake a new
world-wide program for the creation and distribution of the finest
possible literature, that will properly and truly interpret the Holy
Scriptures, exalt the Lord Jesus Christ, combat the errors that so
viciously penetrate the minds of the mass multitudes from the subtle

deceptions of skeptical and naturalistic philosophies." Later in the

t
same address, he stated:

•I think we need a new, strong, scholarly work that will deal a
hard, staggering blow to this diabolical theory of evolution.
I call it a theory. I am more persuaded today than ever that
the whole concept of Darwinian evolution, and the so-called

109

origin of species by natural selection, is based upon nothing but
the speculation of men. . . . [We need men] trained in science,
who know all the so-called evidence for evolution in an authori-
tive way, and can give us a volume that can be depended upon,
and that will in a noble, commendable, scholarly way expose this
vicious modern concept. 2

In the preface of a book by Carl Henry published in 1946, Gordon H.

Clark, a scholar not at Fuller but associated with the Fuller effort,

complained that the great need of the age, and one too long neglected

by fundamentalism, was a "contemporary Christian literature that studies

3
all phases of intellectual interest. . . ." This book by Henry,

Remaking the Modern Mind, was the first in an impressive list in the
area of Christian apologetics which appeared near mid-century and were
produced by those associated with Fuller. Edward John Carnell in 1948
published his Introduction to Christian Apologetics and was joined in
1949 by Bernard Ramm with Problems in Christian Apologetics. Ramm, like
Clark in close sympathy with the men at Fuller through teaching at other
•institutions, added Types of Apologetic System in 1953, and Clark himself
produced a Christian View of Ken and Things in 1952. Though later
additions were made, the strict apologetic effort centered in these
years. Further, in the later additions there was often a decided de-
parture from the traditional pattern of orthodox apologetic literature.

In the fall of 1954, the publication of The Christian View of
Science and Scripture, by Bernard Ramm, then teaching at Baylor Univer-
sity, stirred new interest in evolution among evangelicals and revealed

5
the direction in which an increasing number of evangelicals were moving.

It appeared that many evangelicals were willing to abandon the effort

to "strike a death blow" to the theory of evolution. Smith himself

called the book the most significant discussion of the question in fifty

years.

no

Christian Life commented that Ramm's book was the "most vigorously
reviewed book among evangelicals since the Revised Standard Version" and
observed that the volume had either been "buttered or baked" by vir-
tually every conservative publication. As Christian Life .indicated,
the reactions to the book were extremely varied. Some saw it as a
wholesale sell-out to the theory of evolution while others thought that
orthodoxy had been set in a context which would make it a viable com-
petitor for the loyalties of modern men. The reactions to the book
revealed that the split in evangelical orthodoxy, which would be nearly
complete by the end of the decade, was not visible in 1955. Arthur
Kuschke wrote a sharply critical review for The Presbyterian Guardian,
which was reprinted in the Sword of the Lord. Christian Life called
it, "most penetrating of all. . . ." H. 0. Van Gilder offered only mild
objections in The Baptist Bulletin, while John Devries was sharply

Q

critical in the Calvin Forum. The general reaction, however, was

warmer, and many evangelicals seemed ready to abandon the cause which

g
had been championed by Bryan so many years before. The review by

Joseph Bayly published in Eternity was one of the more critical non-

, , . , . , . 10
fundamentalist reviews.

The most important new element in Ramm's book lay in his dis-
tinction between the "cultural" and the "transcultural" in the Bible.
While this was a distinction long made outside of fundamentalist or
evangelical circles, and one with which any educated fundamentalist
would be familiar, its prominence in a major work by an evangelical
was a', cause for considerable attention. Ramm claimed to be making no
challenge to the doctrine of inspiration, stating: "The author of this

in

book believes in the divine origin of the Bible. If what follows dis-
agrees with cherished beliefs of the reader, be assured it is not a

1 2
difference over inspiration but over interpretation." But any tamper-
ing with the doctrine of the inspiration of the Bible was sure to come
under careful scrutiny, and his statements were subjected to the
closest analysis. Joseph Bayly asked:

Why is it necessary to distinguish between the cultural and
the transcultural? Seemingly, to explain supposed errors of
(prescientific) fact while retaining the theological concepts in
an error-less condition. If this conclusion seems too harsh,
observe that Dr. Ramm does not accept the following statement by
Francis Pieper, "But remember: when Scripture incidently
treats a scientific subject, it is always right, let 'science'
say what it pleases; for all Scripture is given by inspiration of
God."

Later, Bayly concluded that "this particular remedy for an obscurantist

hyperorthodoxy seems disquietingly similar to the neo-orthodox remedy

for liberalism's rejection of the Old Testament on critical grounds."

This judgment was followed by a comment that a liberal spokesman,

L. Harold DeWolf, had recently observed among the fundamentalists "signifi

cant conciliatory gestures toward their more liberal contemporaries."

After noting Ramm's statement that the language of the Bible indicates

that the flood described in Genesis was a universal flood, Bayly came to

the central point of his criticism of Ramm:

At this point, although the author claims that inspiration
is not invol ved--only interpretation--we have met one of the basic
problems which could conceivably change evangelical Christianity's
view of Scripture and inspiration. If the Biblical narrator pre-
sented an erroneous view of the flood's universality in language
which convinced readers that mankind was destroyed until modern
geology showed that it was merely local, can we any longer
honestly claim to believe that divine inspiration has protected
the whole Bible from error?

Further, if the lack of modern scientific corroboration of the
universal flood leads us to abandon the clear language of

112

Scripture, how can we logically maintain our belief in the at
least equally difficult and similarly uncorroborated story that
a man who had been in a grave three days dead came forth alive.
Dr. Ramm will no doubt maintain his own faith in Jesus Christ,
in the inspiration of the Word, in the Virgin Birth, and in other
areas which shine from this book and his life. But the test of
the Biblical nature of the theory will come in the next genera-
tion if this view sweeps the evangelical field. 13

In a three-page review, fundamentalist John R. Rice was even more criti-
cal, accusing Ramm of watering down the doctrine of the inspiration of
Scripture. Rice charged:

... it is seriously untrue to the Scriptures. It does not
represent Bible-believing Christianity. It makes unnecessary
and hurtful concessions to unbelieving scientists. It casts
reflections on the best fundamental preachers and teachers who
defend the faith. . . . [We urge] the book be avoided as not repre-
senting the conservative viewpoint, as being dangerously slipshod
and inaccurate as a representation of the scriptural position
about inspiration J4

In presenting what he called "progressive creationism," Ramm

challenged another position long held by conservative evangelicals.

Bayly commented that Ramm's view "reflects the changing attitude among

evangelical Christians toward evolution (whether it is called theistic

1 5
evolution, progressive creationism, or some other name).'" Another

noted that Ramm had' written what many evangelicals had been saying in
private for ten years and praised Ramm for bringing the matter into
the open.15 Indeed, the fact that no enduring controversy was. generated
by the appearance of the book and that apart from the separatist funda-
mentalists few in the discussion expressed their views with much heat
would tend to support this view. Few took up detailed discussion of
the question of evolution itself, and there was far less concern about
the endorsement of "progressive creationism" than about the principle
of deferring to scientific thought in questions involving the validity
of Biblical statements. Neither Bayly nor Rice specifically raised

113

the question of evolution except in the context of challenging Ramm's
•view that in the area of scientific statement the conclusions of
academic investigation should have precedence over clear Biblical
statements because the Bible is "prescientific."

One element in the Ramrn book drew lengthy criticism from Rice
and was an element which would occupy a prominent place in. much evan-
gelical literature in the next years. This was Ramm's tendency to
establish the intellectual respectability of his own position by un-
favorable reference to the work of earlier orthodox spokesmen. Par-
ticularly singled out for disparagement were Harry Rimmer, a Presby-
terian pastor, and William Jennings Bryan. When it is realized that
even today the Sword of the Lord occasionally publishes a Bryan sermon
on the subject of evolution, the difference in viewpoint between Rice
and Ramm becomes apparent. Rice replied to Ramm's criticism of these
long-dead defenders of the faith:

I heard Bryan, in his magnificent defense of the faith in
the University of Chicago. I know that multiplied thousands of
questioning college students over America were turned back to
God by his addresses. I do not appreciate a sneer at Bryan.
I agree with Bryan and disagree with infidels, Clarence Darrow
and~Scopes. I knew well and loved Dr. Harry Rimmer. I know
that the dynamite of God was in his message and that he helped
establish multitudes in the faith and that he put to rout, again
and again, the unbelievers who opposed him, in high schools,
colleges, and on the public platform. I think that it is a poor
business for any Christian to try to curry favor with the
scientists and scholars by sneering at Dr. Harry Rimmer. '/

Perhaps a more telling criticism on this point was made by the son of

Dr. Rimmer. He pointed out that to analyze works of decades past by

reference to contemporary scientific views was less than fair and

suggested that Dr. Ramm's own book would probably show up poorly in an

analvsis written in 1990.

114

Another element which drew fire from Rice, and which became a
fixture in the new evangelical literature, was the tendency of Ramm to
go far in accepting criticism for orthodoxy in the past. In one
instance he, in behalf of theology, accepted the blame for Martin
Luther's belief in the curative powers of manure, and both Rice and
Bayly were quick to dispute the point. As Ramm used this as a key
illustration in a chapter praising science for the purifying effect
which it had had on theology, Rice made the rejoinder: "... why
should anyone in the world charge such nonsense to 'theology.' The
silly views which Luther had about manure were the views of science,
not of theology! He got those from the science of his day. Science
changes." In another place Ramm remarked that it was not intellectually
respectable to condemn science as satanic while enjoying the fruits of
modern science. Rice insisted: "No person I ever heard of condemned
true science as satanic." The more Ramm tried to render his own evan-
gelical position respectable, by demonstrating how far it had come from
an unworthy earlier position, the more Rice felt the rebuke. Rice
informed his readers:

The favorite epithet of Dr. Ramm in his book is "hyper-
orthodox." Sometimes he uses the word "fundamentalist" as
approximately a synonym for the hyperorthodox. He feels very
bad about what he calls "the ignoble tradition which has taken
a most unwholesome attitude toward science, and has used argu-
ments and procedures not in the better traditions of established
scholarship." And the hyperorthodox, these fundamentalists,
Dr. Ramm belabors page after page.

Rice complained that the bibliography was divided into four categories,

the fourth of which was labeled: "Fundamentalist Works of Limited Worth

Due to Improper Spirit or Lack of Scientific or Philosophic or Biblical

Orientation." And Rice further complained that under this last

115

category were placed "practically all the good books in defense of the
faith. . . ." In the reactions to Ramm's book, many of the differ-
ences in viewpoint which would shape the coming divisions in conser-
vative evangelicalism were revealed. At that time, however, the lines
were not all neatly drawn. As already noted, Eternity, itself critical
of the fundamentalism against which Rarnm set himself, warned that
any weakening of the doctrine of inspiration would be dangerous.
Dr. Russell Mixter, on the science faculty of Wheaton College, one of
the leading evangelical institutions, gave the book the strongest kind
of endorsement, stating: "His opponents have not caught up to his
enlightened thinking." Dr. Robert Culver, another Wheaton professor,
gave the book a qualified endorsement in the Journal of the American
Scientific Affiliation, as did other reviews appearing in that journal.
On the other side, Dr. Harold Lindsell, then dean of administration at
Fuller Seminary, joined himself to Bayly's criticisms and stated that

on

he had others besides. But Lindsell, Bayly, and the fundamentalists
were in the minority, and in the years to come it became clear that
evangelicalism was indeed moving in the direction which Ramm had
pointed.

A series of articles, published in Christian Life between March
of 1955 and May of 1956, concerning the origin of the universe and the
development of life reflected thinking much like that of Ramm. The
writers agreed to the great age of the earth and to the use of natural
development over a long period of time for the creation of man, though
they were vague on the exact meaning of this development and said
little that disagreed explicitly with either the accepted findings of
modern science or the clear statements of Scripture, and they certainly

116

stopped well short of a comprehensive endorsement of the system of
evolution.21 These articles received little public criticism, and the
letters columns of Christian Life, though they certainly contained
critical letters, did not reveal any widespread opposition to the

articles.

In February, 1956, an important article appeared in Eternity,
written by Dr. Vernon Grounds, then president of the Conservative
Baptist Theological Seminary.22 Grounds had earlier produced a care-
ful discussion of the distinctions to be made between. evangelicalism
and fundamentalism, which was circulated in privately mimeographed form,
but it had not been published. In June, 1954, Grounds had complained
in print that "some of us do not like to be tagged fundamentalists." '
In 1954 he wrote as one within a movement attempting- to correct its
abuses, while by February of 1956 he seemed to be writing as a per-
son within one movement-evangelical ism—attempting to defend it
against charges which should rightly be placed against another movement-
fundamentalism. This new article contained the first sustained public
attempt by an evangelical scholar to dissociate himself from fundamen-
talism. The article was entitled "The Nature of Evangelicalism" and
began with the following sentence: "What is the nature of Protestant

Orthodoxy, that embodiment of historic Christianity which sometimes

n24
bears the label evangelicalism, sometimes the libel fundamentalism?"

As was suggested in the introduction to this study and in the first

chapter, there had long been uneasiness with the fundamentalist label

among a considerable segment of evangelical orthodoxy. Certain leaders

of independent evangelical efforts had been embarrassed by the

117

vehemence v/ith which fundamentalist leaders, such as Carl Mclntire,
John R. Rice, or Bob Jones, opposed non-orthodox religious figures.
The point to be made here is that this had, indeed, long been the case.
Rice remarked upon the fact from time to time in his paper, expressing
the wish that these brethren would "contend more earnestly for the
faith." Feelings concerning Mclntire were of course stronger, because
he often attracted the attention of the secular press whereas other
fundamentalist leaders did not. But there had not before been felt the
necessity to engage in public examination of the differences between
themselves and the fundamentalist leaders. All considered themselves
part of one movement even though they recognized differences within the
movement. All fundamentalists were evangelicals, and all evangelicals
were fundamentalists. As noted earlier, Jones and Rice had been active
in the early days of the NAE and had faulted Mclntire for his criticism
of that group. The co-operating board of the Sword of the Lord included
men such as Dr. V. Raymond Edman, president of Wheaton College; Robert A.
Cook, president of the Youth For Christ organization; and Billy Graham
himself. These men would be on the evangelical side when the division
came. Rice had served on the board of Northwestern Schools while
Graham served as president. Only after 1955 did the tension become
such that co-operation became first difficult and then impossible;
Before, they had recognized a kinship which allowed them to work harmoni-
ously together. Only in 1956 did it become necessary so to define
evangelicalism as to distinguish it carefully from fundamentalism, and
only then did it become necessary so tfl define fundamentalism as to
carefully distinguish it from evangelicalism. In 1946, J. E. Wright

118

could speak to the delegates of an NAE convention of "Fundamental ists--
Conservatives--~Bible-believing Christians" and define them" by adding

"whatever term you wish to use to describe those who stand for the

25
historical doctrinal positions of the Christian church." , As Vernon

Grounds wrote ten years later, it was beginning to seem necessary to
distinguish carefully divisions among the group of Christians of whom
Wright spoke in 1946.

In the sentence quoted above from Grounds' article (1956), he
placed in proximate equation: Protestant orthodoxy, historic Chris-
tianity, and evangelicalism. He then described what this position
shares with other religious positions and where it is forced to part
company with them. After in brief compass distinguisning evangelicalism
from the Eastern religions, Islam, Judaism, liberal Protestantism,
neo-orthodoxy, and Roman Catholicism, he turned to relate it to fundamen-
talism. If fundamentalism was allowed to mean "tenacious insistence
upon the essential and central dogmas of historic Christianity," he
would be content to identify evangelicalism with fundamentalism. He
rejected this identification, however, if fundamentalism was to be taken
as it was "ordinarily construed." That he had considerable sympathy
with such construction was made clear in his next comments:

A thoroughgoing evangelical recognizes with a wry smile the truth
in the liberal jibe: "Fundamentalism is too much fun, too much
damn, and too little mental!" A thoroughgoing evangelical realizes
that with unfortunate frequency Protestant orthodoxy has degener-
ated into a rabid sectarianism which furnishes many recruits for
the lunatic fringe of religion. But if America is not adequately
represented by the conduct of some irresponsible tourists,
neither is evangelicalism adequately represented by every snake
'. handler, every holy roller, every bigoted fanatic. No, evangeli-
calism ought to be judged by its truly representative creeds and
spokesmen. So, a thoroughgoing evangelical endorses the dictum

119

of J. Gresham Machen: there is no good reason why, after two
thousand years of glorious history, main-stream Christianity
should suddenly degenerate into an ism and become fundamentalism.
Actually, instead of being an ism of recent vintage, evangeli-
calism is main-stream Christianity in modern form."

Perhaps the greatest difference between evangelicalism and fundamentalism
was, and is, this determination to regain for Bible-believing orthodoxy
a status within mainstream Protestantism. The fundamentalists had
^written off the mainstream as hopelessly apostate and pointed to their
premillenial eschatological system to show that biblically this was
to be expected. They accepted a subculture status and often rejoiced
in their alienation from the "apostate" mainstream. The evangelicals
insisted that orthodoxy was the center of the mainstream and that though
the Protestant community had moved toward liberalism in past years, it
was now moving back toward orthodoxy. Since the debacle of the twenties,
evangelical orthodoxy had been able to exert little determinative in-
fluence upon American society, even upon the Protestant church estab-
lishment. To the evangelicals this was intolerable. The fundamental-
ists of course welcomed influence whenever it fell within their grasp,
but the determination to retain the theological integrity of orthodoxy
dwarfed every other consideration in their minds and in time rendered
them largely insensitive to the opinions, of those not part of their
movement. Thus, while Ramm would bend far in an attempt to make

orthodoxy as intellectually respectable as possible, Rice would examine

27
his efforts under the title: "Shall We Appease Unbelieving Scholars?"

Thes* "new evangelicals," as they were being labeled and were label

ing themselves,, were certainly not engaged in any headlong rush toward

120

unbelief. In the context of the total Protestant community, all the
principals in this study were, and nearly all are, extreme conservatives.
Even to this day, the Christian Century refers to them all as fundamen-
talists and has not recognized any new "evangelical" category. Grounds
made it clear that evangelicalism was both a positive witness, and a
protest:

Negatively, evangelicalism is a protest, a witness against the
the excessive, unnecessary, eviscerating concessions which
liberal Protestantism has made to the modern-world view. _ Evan-
gelicalism is concerned about the preservation of Christian
essentials, convinced that liberalism has needlessly surrendered
the very fundamentals of its historic faith. Evangelicalism
aspires, consequently, to re-state and defend the irreducible
minimum of the Gospel. . . .28

Every evangelical spokesman accompanied whatever complaints he might
have against fundamentalism with strong declarations of loyalty to
fundamentalist theology, but those who were the named or unnamed tar-
gets of such complaints recalled that virtually every movement away
from orthodoxy had presented itself as a program for re-stating the
Gospel in such a way as to make it acceptable to "modern minds" and
thereby preserve its essential features. The statements of those
unhappy with fundamentalism as it actually existed continued, therefore,
to be subjected to strong criticism, despite their protestations and
sincere declarations of belief .in the essentials. When questions of
personality became involved, the criticism on both sides became quite
bitter. The dispute bore most of the marks of a family disturbance.

When Grounds began to present the specific emphases which char-
acterized the evangelical program, again differences with the older
fundamentalism appeared. He first stated the evangelical adherence
to an "indefectible Word of God" but then added a lengthy series of

121

qualifications which, although none of them were greatly different from
qualifications which any educated fundamentalist would add, changed the
emphasis from what the fundamentalist emphasis would have been. Funda-
mentalists would emphasize the necessity of the doctrine of the verbal
inspiration to a truly Biblical view, Grounds emphasized the reasonable-
ness of the evangelical position when contrasted with a series of
extreme and foolish opinions about the Bible. Evangelicals were not
bibliolatrous; they were not given to a crass literalism; they rejected
the "dictation theory of inspiration"; they accepted other versions than
the King James; they recognized the existence of errors having crept in
through transcription over the centuries. Evangelicals welcomed "objec-
tive scholarship and research," and though they held to the doctrine of

verbal inspiration, they held to it "humbly," recognizing that many

29
problems remained unsolved. Again, almost no educated fundamentalist

would have had difficulty accepting any of the qualifications listed
by Vernon Grounds, but the total package produced a different emphasis
from that which they would have given. Fundamentalists felt, perhaps
not without reason, that the irresponsible positions which Grounds had
rejected were considered by him to be those of fundamentalists. In the
years to come, the fundamentalists would regularly charge that their
views were being criticized by false caricature by the new evangelicals,
just as they always had been by the liberals.

The view presented on evolution reflected the influence which had
been exerted by Bernard Ramm, Christian Life, and others, reserving the
right "to be agnostic about broad extensions of the evolutionary con-
cept." The closest he came to the question of evolution itself was to

122

suggest that some of the theories of science were "unwarranted extrapola-
tions of scientific data."

While to those outside of evangelical orthodoxy, these concessions
to intellectual sensitivity seem meager indeed, it must be remembered
that they represent considerable "enlightenment" from a position which
regards the last word on the subject of evolution to have been spoken by
William Jennings Bryan, and that the specific nature of the "concessions"
made was hardly as important as the existence of the desire to present
orthodoxy in a form as little offensive to the "modern conscience" as
possible. With the publication of this article by Vernon Grounds, the
process of the division of evangelical orthodoxy into evangelicalism
and fundamentalism came into the open. It seemed that battle lines were
forming, and "Bible-believing Christians" would soon be called upon to
make unpleasant, sometimes painful decisions.

NOTES '
CHAPTER 7

Carl F. H. Henry, The Uneasy Conscience of Modern fundamentalism
(Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1947TTp- i i i .

2
National Association of Evangelicals, A Report of the Fourth
Annual Convention (Chicago, 1946), pp. 43-45.

3

Henry, Remaking the Modern Mind (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans,
1946), p. 13. " ~ ~

4
Edward John Carnell, Introduction to Christian Apologetics
(Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1948)"; Gordon H. Clark, A Christian
View of Men and Things (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1952); Bernard
Ramm, Problems in Christian Apologetics (Portland, Ore.: Western
Baptist Theological Seminary, 1949); Bernard Ramm, Types of Apologetic
Systems (Wheaton, 111.: Van Kampen Press, 1953).

5

Bernard Ramm, The Christian View of Science and Scripture
(Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 19547!

r

Eternity, August, 1955, p. 4.
Christian Life, September, 1955, p. 46.

8Ibid.

9
Eternity, August, 1955, p. 4.

10

Joseph T. Bayly, "The Christian View of Science and Scripture:

A Critical Review of Bernard Ramm's Book," Eternity, August, 1955,

pp. 4-5, 44-47.

Ramm, Science and Scripture, p. 78.

12Ibid., pp. 41-42.

13

Bayly, "Review of Ramm's Book," pp. 5, 44, 46.

14 '
John R. Rice, "Shall We Appease Unbelieving Scholars?" Sword,

June 24, 1955, XXI, 7.

15

Bayly, "Review of Ramm's Book," p. 46.

123

124

Eternity, October, 1955, p. 19.
Rice, "Unbelieving Scholars?" p. 3.

^Eternity, October, 1955, pp. 34-35.

)
Rice, "Unbelieving Scholars?" pp. 2-3, 7,

Eternity, October, 1955, pp. 18-19, 34.

21

Christian Life, "Origin of the Universe," March, 1955;

"Life and How It Began," September, 1955; "The Development of Life,"

January, 1956; "The Creation of Mar;," May, 1956.

22

Grounds, "The Nature of Evangelicalism," Eternity, February,

1956, pp. 12-13, 42-43.

23
24
25
26
27
28

29

'Eternity, June, 1954, p. 13.
Grounds, "Nature of Evangelicalism," p. 12.
NAE, Report of Fourth Convention, p. 48.
Grounds, "Nature of Evangelicalism," p. 13.
Rice, "Unbelieving Scholars?" pp. 2-3, 7.
Grounds, "Nature of Evangelicalism," p. 13.
Ibid., pp. 13, 42-43.

CHAPTER 8
"IS, EVANGELICAL THEOLOGY CHANGING?"

One month after the appearance of Grounds' article in Eternity,
.another article, entitled "Is Evangelical Theology Changing?", printed
in Christian Life demonstrated that the views presented by Grounds v/ere
representative of a considerable group of young evangelical scholars.
Written by Christian Life staff, the article featured prominently the
views of faculty members from fuller Seminary, Wheaton College and
Asbury College. Grounds of Conservative Baptist Theological Seminary
in Denver and Ramm of Baylor University were also quoted.

Christian Life set the stage by a brief look at "what fundamen-
talism was_." The readers were told in one \/ery short paragraph that
fundamentalist was a label in the twenties for men who were involved
in the defense of certain great doctrines of the faith such as "the
inspiration of the Scriptures, the deity of Christ, the Virgin Birth,
the Atonement, the Ressurection. " The next two paragraphs are pre-
sented in full :

Then what started as a high-level theological discussion
degenerated into a cat and dog fight. The Virgin Birth ran
neck and neck with murder on the front pages of newspapers.
Evolution was pitted against the Bible in the Scopes trial of
1925. Fundamentalism began to be a catch-all for the lunatic
fringe; Holy Rollers, snake handlers, even Mormon polygamists
were calling themselves fundamentalists.

That's why to the man on the street fundamentalism got to
'.be a joke; As an ignorant, head-in-the-sand, contentious ap-
proach to the Christian faith, it seemed as out-dated as high-
button shoes. 2

125

126

There could here be no mistake; these "new evangelicals" were turning
their backs on a heritage which to fundamentalists was no joke, no cat
and dog fight. To the fundamentalists, the defense of the faith which
had been made during the twenties was no cause for shame. Indeed, it
was one of the most glorious hours of testimony, for in the face of
such widespread departure from the faith there were still those will-
ing to suffer the reproach of Christ and stand as witnesses against
the apostasy of the day. Not that the apostasy could be halted or
reversed; this was clearly precluded by premillenial eschatology, but
the testimony was to be just that much brighter because of the over-
whelming darkness around it. John R. Rice complained of "these young
self-styled 'intellectuals,' sneering at the old-time defenders of the

faith like W. B. Riley, Willi an Jennings Bryan, Dr. H. A. Ironside,

3

Dr. Harry Rimmer, etc." Dr. Alva J. McClain, president of Grace

Theological Seminary, in an article published in The Brethren Mission-
ary Herald, expressed the belief that the conclusion of the Christian
Life editors that "the older fundamentalism was giving place to a new
evangelicalism" was based on inadequate sampling, and he was critical
of those who decried the belligerence of historic fundamentalism but
spent "so much effort and time belaboring and fighting against their
own side." McClain judged: "It looks sometimes as if they might have
gotten lost in the dust of the real battle for the faith." Richard V.
Clearwaters, then dean of Northwestern Seminary in Minneapolis, wrote
an article "intended as an answer to tne Christian Life article,"
which was published in the Sword in May, 1956. He made use of the
Hegelian dialectic in suggesting that "the THESIS 'thrust' is

127

Fundamentalism and the ANTITHESIS 'counter-thrust' is Liberalism and the
new SYNTHESIS is the new evangelical ism- -neither Fundamentalism nor
Liberalism but rather a New Liberalism." Dr. William Culbertson,
president of Moody Bible Institute, wrote an editorial for Moody Monthly
which was strongly critical of the new evangelicalism. Moody had
developed a very cautious approach in dealing with issues which were
controversial among conservative evangelicals, and indeed this editorial
mentioned no names, but it was clear that Culbertson felt the new
direction was a dangerous one.

there are times when we turn from one position to embrace
another as though what we formerly held were altogether wrong
and what we now espouse is altogether right. . . .

From certain sources in evangelical circles there have
recently come quite caustic criticism of fundamentalism and
fundamentalists. . . . We are not concerned about a healthy
self-examination and a. proper rectification. But we are con-
cerned when the criticism is tantamount to a repudiation that
is in danger of going to the opposite extreme. 6

Were these new evangelicals engaging in self-criticism which would

correct errors of emphasis in fundamentalism or were they, as Culbertson

suggests, repudiating fundamentalism itself? Many fundamentalists

thought that the latter was their intent, as it finally became the

result.

After painting such an unfavorable picture of fundamentalism,

t;

Christian Life went on:

But all the while there was a solid core behind the garish
shell. Even before World War II that core began to push out.

When the war was over, the crust split wide open. Out
popped a younger generation. They agreed with their elders.
But they thought there was more to Christianity than being on
the defensive all the time. They wanted to build on the con-
tributions of old leaders a posjtive, not a reactionary, move-
ment.

128

. . . fundamentalism is still a protest against the mishmash
liberal Protestantism makes of Christianity. It's still as con-
cerned over preserving the Christian essentials as were the
early fundamentalists.

But it is something more: a positive witness for God's
redemptive love, wisdom and power as revealed in Jesus Christ.

In short, fundamentalism has become evangel ical ism.

The fundamentalist watchword is "Ye should earnestly con-
tend for the faith." The evangelical emphasis is "Ye must be
born again."

That's the major change in conservative theological thought.

Harold John Ockenga, the man who had first coined the term new evangeli-
cal in an address at Fuller Seminary nearly ten years before, would
characterize the strategy of this new evangelicalism as "the positive
proclamation of the truth in distinction from all errors without delv-

Q

ing in personalities which embrace the error."

Dr. Alva McClain found the "shift from contending for the faith
to insistence upon the necessity of the new birth" the "worst thing about
the entire article." He denied that there had been any lack of emphasis
upon the need to be born again by the leaders of fundamentalism, either
past or present. He suggested that comparison of the literature pro-
duced by fundamentalists and evangelicals would reveal much greater
emphasis on the new birth in the work of the former. Nonetheless, the
fundamentalists were not wrong "in giving first place to matters of
Christian 'faith,'" for the new birth was dependent upon the "faith"
which was preached. He deplored the shift from objective matters of
Christian faith to matters of subjective experience which he saw in the
new evangelicalism. Though the editors of Christian Life expressed
concern over the divisions which had hampered the efforts of fundamen-
talism in the past, he feared that this new evangelicalism would pro-

9
duce a division which "will be the deepest and most disastrous of all."

129

Certainly in this last observation he was not far from the mark.

Chester E. Tulga, long-time foe of modernism in theNorthern
Baptist Convention (American Baptist Convention), analyzed the new move-
ment and presented what he considered its major weaknesses, in an article
published in the Sword titled "More Than Evangelicals." He saw "so-
called evangelicalsm" as a "diluted and infiltrated form of fundamen-
talism, lacking the positiveness of fundamentalism and the consistency
of true evangelicalism." He charged that it "manifests its shoddiness
in an ambitious intellectual ism which craves recognition from liberal
schools of thought instead of devoting itself to that purity of doctrine
which our times need." He charged that evangelicalism was attempting
to distinguish itself from the oiler fundamentalism, not because of any
extremists who might have brought fundamental isn, into disrepute--a"ll
groups have such extremists who make fools of themselves and embarrass
their colleagues--but because modern evangelicalism was drifting to
"a more compromising position." He charged the evangelicals with con-
demning fundamentalism through the use of caricature and pointed out
that they were much more gentle with the liberals than they were with
their fellow conservatives. He wrote that Vernon Grounds "handles
liberalism very respectfully and objectively—no wisecracks, no sneers,
no generalizations that reflect upon them in any way. Fundamentalism
is handled in the opposite way. ..." Tulga saw the differences be-
tween his own position and that of the new evangelicals as basic and
not at al i peripheral .

The "evangelicalism" which is being promoted in certain
quarters (Christian Life magazine and Eternity magazine) is
unlike the older fundamentalism not in its freedom from fools,

130

but in spirit and essence. There is a move to subtly change
evangelicalism, to accommodate evangelicalism to the prevailing
culture pattern, and to somehow obtain in liberal circles that
recognition which some evangelical scholars crave. Evangeli-
calism, due to intellectual accommodation to modern thought, the
compromises of societies and institutions who want to keep the
contributions of ecclesiastical and theological mugwumps, the
natural tendency of the human heart to compromise for its own
advantage, is changing its essence.'0

To many, it seemed that the differences between the older fundamentalism
and this newer position would force a division, though some tried to
de-emphasize the differences between the two groups. John Stoll , a
professor at Cedarville College, was generally appreciative of the
Christian Life article but complained that the distinction made be-
tween fundamentalist and evangelical was unwarranted.11 Others sug-
gested that the criticisms offered by these younger men were needed
correctives, but did not warrant any new theological category. Most
who felt this way remained silent, however, because most public comment
of the development within conservative evangelicalism was beginning to
stress the difference between the two sides to the advantage of one
side or the other.

The shift from defense of the faith to positive proclamation
having been established as the major distinction between the new posi-
tion and the older fundamentalism, Christian Life went on to examine
eight specific areas where differences were felt to exist:

1. A friendly attitude toward science.

2. A willingness to re-examine beliefs concerning the work of
the Holy Spirit.

3. A more tolerant attitude toward varying views on eschatology.

4. A shift away from so-called extreme dispensational ism.

5. An increased emphasis on scholarship.

■€. A more definite recognition of social responsibility.
• 7. A re-opening of the subject of biblical inspiration.
8. A growing willingness of evangelical theologians to con-
verse with liberal theologians J2

131

The newer views in the area of the relation of the Bible to

science have already been discussed, and here we only point out that

the reaction of the fundamentalists was even stronger than it had been

to Ramm's book, Richard Clear-waters asked:

Is it not strange that these teachers still 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 meek the Bible as a divine
and exclusive revel at ion J 3

John R. Rice, after raising doubts as to the validity of the carbon 14

dating method, asked: "Would it not be silly for Christian people to

leave decisions about whether the Bible is correct on the matter of

how old man is, and such matters, to the less than a dozen laboratories

who decide such matters by the carbon 14 dating method?" He went on:

Why Christian people, evangelicals, on such light evidence, would
be willing to make unnecessary and hurtful concessions about the
accuracy of the Bible and the authority of the Bible, in favor
of the guesses of a few scientists, is beyond me.

How often must we prove the scientists wrong in their
infidelity? Again and again they retreated. They retreated from
Darwinian evolution, because it was proved unscientific. They
retreated from the silly talk about "the missing link." They
do not even agree with each other. The proved scientific evidence
about Mendel's law has now whipped the scientists off entirely
from their doctrine of the persistence of acquired character-
istics in heredity. Unbelieving and infidel scholars simply form
their theories because they do not want to believe the Bible, not
because scientific fact is against the Bible. Always, as more
facts come to light, unbelieving scientists lose. The Bible is
true, all of it, in science as in everything elseJ^

Change in the attitude of conservative evangelicals toward the
Pentecostal ists had begun with their association in the National Associa-
tion of Evangelicals. Their admission, against which Donald Grey
Barnhouse as well as others had protested, led to a wider consideration
Of the particularities of that group on such questions as the place of
tongues, faith healing, and the work of the Holy Spirit in the church.

132

Christian Life, in particular, wanted to develop interest in these areas,
and Barnhouse, after his "conversion" in January of 1953, had culti-
vated relations with various pentecostal groups. The major impact of
the charismatic movement comes after the time period with which this
study is concerned, and certainly in 1956 it was a critical issue only
to some individuals in some places.

Changes in the eschatological views of conservative evangelicals
reflected the improved socio-economic standing of the group as a whole,
and especially of the group of intellectuals which moved furthest from
apocalyptic premillenialism. While too much can easily be made of
the influence of social and economic condition on religious views, the
link between an improved material situation and a lessening of apocalyp-
tic enthusiasm seems too clear to deny. Many of the men seeking to
move fundamentalism in a new direction had rejected the premillenialism
which had been important in the origins of fundamentalism. Ernest R.
Sandeen has placed much emphasis on eschatology in his recent work on
the origins of fundamentalism, saying flatly that fundamentalism was the
result of joining apocalyptic premillenialism and the Princeton theol-
ogy.15 I would suggest that opposition to liberalism was equally
determinative of the shape which fundamentalism assumed. Nonetheless,
dispensational premillenialism was an important element in the theology
of most of the early fundamentalists, and remained so in the theology of
most fundamentalists in 1956, as indeed it remains so today.

While the details of the various possible eschatological positions
are much too involved to be presented here, some understanding of the
distinctions between premillenialism and other positions is necessary.

133

The basic tenet of premi "Menial ism is that the return of Christ will
"precede a thousand-year reign on earth, during which righteousness and
justice will be imposed. The element which most affects the subject
of this study is the pessimistic view of the prospect of man in his-
tory which results. History is seen to be moving toward the setting up
of the Anti-Christ as the ruler of the earth. The true church— made up
of all who have been genuinely converted— would be taken from the earth
by the supernatural act of God before the calamities of the last days
would actually begin, but the "signs of the times" would be a warning
to believers that the end time was near. Numerous specific prophecies
concerning Israel would be fulfilled, the nations of the earth would be
gathered into several great blocs, variously described, and the churches
would be joined in a great organization. The nations and churches would
be joined together in order that after the removal of the "true church"
they might join in adulation of the Anti-Christ. Related to, but not
identical with, premi llenial ism was dispensationalism. Dispensational-
ism was essentially the notion that God dealt with men in varying ways
through different periods of history. The comment was often made by
dispensation ists that any Christian who did not offer an animal on
the sacrificial altar was in essence a d.ispensationalist. However,
anti-dispensationalists insisted that the elaborate process of "divid-
ing the word" in which some engaged was tantamount to adding the tradi-
tions of men. Another element of the prophetic picture was that most
fundamenta fists were pretributationists. They taught that the rapture
would-occur before a time of great tribulation on earth, during which

134

God's wrath would be visited upon men, and during which the earth itself
would undergo great convulsions.

The significance of the shift in eschatalogical thinking which
was taking place was not explained in Christian Life, but the fact that
such a shift was under way was emphasized. The writers' discussion
began by recognizing that at one time most fundamentalists were pre-
millenial and pretribulation, and pointed out that for the last ten
years debate had raged on the subject. Some evangelicals were said
to be teaching that there would be no millenial reign while others
held that the true church would not escape the calamities of the end
time (tribulation). It was noted that in some instances debate had
been so heated that the faculties of seminaries had been divided, but
then they commented that "among theologians," at least, the "free and
open" spirit is winning out. They noted that the reaction had been
favorable to two articles which their magazine had run during the
last year in which two evangelicals, Harold John Ockenga and John
Walvoord, had taken opposing sides on a question of eschatology, and
that most comment had agreed that discussion of such a question was
quite appropriate in an evangelical magazine committed to an in-
spired Bible. They then quoted with approval Paul Woolley of West-
minster Theological Seminary: "... there is "a more healthy open-

, ■ i u .."16
mindedncss about the details of the eschatalogical scheme.

One of the most important elements in the new evangelical program
was an increased emphasis on scholarship. It was not merely scholarship

135

which was called for, however; it was scholarship that would win accep-
tance in liberal and secular circles. Christian Life declared: "It's
clear that evangelicals do not glory in ignorance. The evangelical
scholar does not stab a finger at the Bible and say, 'This is it,
take it or go to hell.'" Warren C. Young of Northern Baptist Theologi-
cal Seminary was quoted: "The evangelical believes that his position
can be supported and justified by a scholarly consideration of the
case. He is the apologist for conservative Christianity." Christian
Life claimed that the young evangelical could "get a well-rounded
education at a good number of schools firmly committed to the teaching
of God's Word." 17

The emphasis to be placed on the social responsibilities of
Christianity was cited as another difference with the old fundamentalism.
The significance of this element in the new evangelical program had
early been chosen for special emphasis by Ockenga, who would soon

declare: "The New Evangelicalism adheres to all the orthodox teachings

1 R
of Fundamentalism but has evolved a social philosophy." Vernon

Grounds was quoted as admitting "that a compelling ethic in terms of
biblical categories has yet to be worked out. We must . . . make evan-
gelicalism more relevant to the political and sociological realities of
our times." And another evangelical warned: "Unless conservative
Christian theologians take more time to point out the relevance of

Christ and the Bible to important (social) issues conservatism will be

1 9
neglected by the rising generation."

The last two areas were those in which the greatest objections

would" be raised by fundamentalists. The question of the inspiration

136

of the Bible was considered by most conservative evangelicals to be
settled and in no need of any'Ve-opening." The question of the rela-
tionships of the believer to non-evangelicals had long been a source of
conflict within evangelical circles. As we have seen, it was a con-
tinual source of difficulty for the National Association of Evangelicals.
and was a question on which no position acceptable to all could be
constructed.

"Now just a pebble on the pond of conservative theology. It
could expand to the bombshell of mid-century evangelicalism." Thus,
the editors introduced this re-examination of the inspiration of
Scripture. Evangelicals and fundamentalists both accepted the Bible
as the "infallible, inspired Word of God," but the meaning of these
terms was being brought under review. The by- now- standard disavowal of
mechanical dictation was made, and the recognition of the possibilities
of errors in translation or copying were duly registered. This much
would have been admitted by the staunchest fundamentalist. There were,
in fact, few real indications of change in this area. Carl Henry
warned of a "weakening even in some conservative circles of confidence
in the high doctrine of Scripture." Another evangelical was quoted:

"Any type of verbal inspiration which fails to recognize the concep-

20
tual side will not carry much weight today." The lack of anything

very new in the discussion of inspiration indicates the extremely sensi-
tive nature of the issue and the reluctance of even the "newest"
evangelical to publicly commit himself to any alteration here.

The willingness of the new evangelicals to "converse" with liberal
and non-evangelical theologians was the issuewhich finally brought

137

the division between evangelicals and fundamentalists, though apart
from the other differences some accommodation on this point could probably
have been arranged. Vernon Grounds was quoted: "An evangelical can be
organizationally separated from all Christ-denying fellowship and yet
profitably engage in an exchange of ideas with men who are not evangeli-
cals. Why not? How else can we bring them into an experience with the
Christ Who is Truth incarnate?" And Lloyd Kail and of Gordon Divinity
School stated: "Evangelical scholars are more willing to be drawn into
open conflict with the liberals than at any other time in recent history."
Of all the sections of the article, this was the least candid. The
type of new apologetic approach to the denominations which was being
called for was not described, and readers were left to draw their own
conclusions. That fundamentalists had been in open conflict with
liberalism was one of the points on which the new evangelicals criti-
cized them. The new approach to "conversations" with liberals must be
understood in the context of the Billy Graham evangelistic crusades
and their dependence on the cooperation of non-evangelical spokesmen.
As long as conservative evangelicalism operated in relative isolation,
and was generally ignored by the denominations and church councils,
differences of opinion on the subject of the believer's relationships
outside the "authorized" circle could be kept under control. Only an
occasional dispute between Carl Mclntire and some other individual or
agency of evangelicalism would bring attention to this issue. With
the emercpnce of Billy Graham and the support of his ministry by those
outside the evangelical group, the questions of separation and fellow-
ship again were raised and had to be faced.

138

The fundamentalist reaction to the Christian Life article left
little doubt that here was the beginning of two movements, where before
one had stood. The tone of the replies indicated considerable escala-
tion since the publication of The Christian View of Science and
Scripture. The meaning of Vernon Grounds' article of February had been
discerned, and fundamentalist leaders knew that the controversy which
had been confined to the classrooms of evangelical seminaries and
colleges and the pulpits of individual churches would now be fought in
the pages of the evangelical press. While Carl Mclntire, Robert Ketcham.
and other leaders of the American Council of Christian Churches had
long condemned the activities of those not committed to the total
fundamentalist interpretation, the dispute over this new evangelicalism
would push independent fundamentalist leadership much closer to the
Mclntire position. While many evangelical leaders had earlier been
able to work with men such as John R. Rice and Bob Jones, the dispute
over this new evangelicalism would, in the minds of many evangelicals,
place Rice and Jones in the same camp with Mclntire. The repudiation
of fundamentalism by the new evangelicals, in time, was matched by
fundamentalist withdrawal from all except explicitly fundamentalist
organizations.

One fundamentalist pastor wrote in Christian Life:

Fundamentalism is not out-dated, defensive only or a joke.
No one can be a real believer and not be a fundamentalist. It
seems, too, that it is time to discontinue the terms conservative
and "liberal and use the more biblical terms believers and un-
bel severs.

This newborn evangelicalism, so called, is nothing more or
'less than a drift away from the Word of God into unbelief. It
is led by many "small" men, would-be scholars with big words
and fancy phrases, ever ready to bow to the "science" idol, men
of knowledge but little spiritual understanding, men of books,
but not "The Book. "21

139

Other fundamentalist comment often reflected this same resentment, and
often in very strong terms. Often pointed out was the lack of stand-
ing, in fundamentalist eyes, of the scholars who were the source of the
new views. As John R. Rice saw the leadership of the new movement,

It represents a new generation, untried, largely unrecognized in
their own denominations, not yet proven leaders in Christian
life and work and soul winning, yet hoping to be; a. left-wing
fringe, influenced by neo-orthodoxy, and trying so hard to be
popular with liberals as well as conservatives. They try to
gain favor by criticizing fundamentalists."

Dr. Richard Clearwaters' lengthy article in rebuttal to "Is

Evangelical Theology Changing?" was entitled "The Bible; The Unchanging

Evangelical Volume." He found the central weakness in the new position

to be its foundation in human experience: "Ye must be born again,"

rather than in a strict adherence to a body of doctrine. Those familiar

with statements of faith drawn up by evangelical agencies mignt well

complain that in all cases a rather comprehensive body of doctrine was

outlined. Nonetheless, Clearwaters had addressed a very real point.

Increasingly, evangelicals would define their basis of fellowship in

terms of a heart experience rather than acceptance of a body of doctrine.

Barnhouse had already loudly declared that heart response and not

adherence to received doctrine was to determine the circle of fellowship.

Clearwaters linked this foundation in human experience with criticism

of the new movement as "pietistic." He singled out three unfortunate

characteristics of this pietism: its basis in human experience, its

depreciation of doctrinal difference, and its depreciation of outward

ecclesiast'cal arrangements. He suggested a kinship between the new

evangelical reliance upon human experience and the reliance of

140

neo-orthodoxy in existential experience. He denied any novelty to the
new evangelical "friendly attitude toward science" and pointed to a
long line of evangelical Christians who were at the same time front-
rank scientists. He offered the familiar fundamentalist distinction
between science and "pseudo-science." The latter was generally reserved
for the elements of the scientific community which put forth views
concerning the origins of the universe, man, or life which conflicted
with their interpretation of the Genesis account. The call of the new
evangelicals for more scholarship in defense of the faith was seen as
unworthy intellectual ism. Clearwaters pictured the attitude of the
apostle Paul at length, quoting numerous scriptures which suggested
Paul's lack of confidence in the wisdom of man and his utter dependence
on the message given him by God. He concluded: "The Apostle Paul,
the fundamentalist, was no mind-worshipper; he realized that his legs
were not long enough to straddle the chasm between Reason and
Revelation! . . . Through the ages the revealed Gospel of faith has
been an offense to the pride of the carnal minds of reason." He
quoted Dr. W. B. Riley in opposition to the claim that the new evangeli-
cals had a more developed social conscience than the fundamentalists.
Riley had complained when Carl Henry years before had criticized
fundamentalism for its social omissions. In a long recitation of the
kinds of social service performed mainly by evangelicals, Riley insisted
that there was no reason for his colleagues' admission that fundamen-
talists lagged behind liberal churchmen in that area. Finally, Clear-
waters commented on the new openness toward non-evangelical theologians:

141

The founding fathers of Fundamentalism, . . . were not only
willing to "converse" with the unbelieving liberal theologians,
but were willing to "work" with them; to "serve" with them; and
to give them their proportion of time and number on denominational
programs and panels. Those early Fundamentalists learned what
has yet to be learned by the teachers of the New Evangelicalism;
namely, that they could not continue steadfastly in the apostles'
doctrines, and in fellowship, and in breaking of brea'd, and in
prayers with those who rejected the "apostles' doctrine."'13

A strong letter to Christian Life from Bob Jones, founder of Bob
Jones University, hit many of the same features of the new evangelicalism.
He declared that the "old-time orthodox crowd will never win by com-
promise or by a soft attitude toward neo-orthodoxy." He charged that
many fundamentalists had become mind-worshippers, and again claimed the
apostle Paul for support against an over-ambitious intellectual ism. He
reported that in fifty years of ministry he had "never really met a man

who was brought to the Lord Jesus Christ by what the world calls an

24
intellectual approach. . . ."

Dr. Alva McClain insisted that "the central controversy of funda-
mentalism has never been a mere cat and dog fight," and he asked:
"Do the editors of Christian Life think that the great fundamental
truths of Christianity are no longer under serious attack.' . . ?" As
to the new willingness of evangelicals to converse with liberal theo-
logians, McClain warned that "hobnobbing too closely with the enemy has
always cost the cause of Christianity much more than it ever gained.
... You do not find the Apostle Paul suggesting an 'exchange of ideas'

with Hymenaeus and Alexander. . . . Modern blasphemy is no less re-

25
prehensib:!: than it was in ancient days."

• Chester Tulga attempted a somewhat deeper analysis of the origins

of the new .movement than other fundamentalists and found its roots in

the experience of the younger group of scholars who did not live in

142

the days of the denominational struggles but who inherited the funda-
mentalist position. He noted that movements are invariably shaped by
their association with what they oppose, and saw fundamentalism "forced
to live and think in an atmosphere dominated by theological liberalism
which was infected by secular culture." While keeping the form of
fundamentalism, the young scholars were "deeply influenced by the books
they studied and the teachers they admired. The passing of time heals
old wounds, but also weakens old convictions." Tins decadent fundamen-
talism was the result of the "impact of science, philosophy and neo-
orthodoxy on evangelicalism, plus the always present reluctance of the
human heart to take the narrow way." Tulga challenged the new evangelical
softening of the basis of fellowship. He asserted that before the rise
of modernism there was a body of truth which was to be preserved and
proclaimed and was also the ground of fellowship. Since the coming of
modernism, religious experience has been substituted for adherence to
received doctrine as the basis of fellowship, and now, he charged,
evangelicals are accepting this substitution. He cited a Watchman-
Examiner editorial of 1951 which argued that modernists were Christians
rather than unbelievers, and declared:

the new birth is interpreted so loosely and so broadly in
our time that it has come to mean almost any kind of religious
" ° experience. . . . modernists do not believe in the God of the
Old and New Testaments even if they do use the word, but a_
remodeled God who suits them better. They do not believe in the
Christ of the New Testament but the Christ who has been recon-
structed by historical scholarship. . . . Evangelicalism,
shifting from truth to experience as a basis of fellowship, will
not 'long be loyal to the truth.

Tulga ended his discussion of the new evangelicalism with a series of
questions which accurately summarized the concerns which had been ex-
pressed by all the fundamentalist spokesmen, and gave these questions
the heading "Which way evangelicalism?"

143

Are evangelical scholars trying to accommodate evangelical-
ism to science, philosophy and neo-orthodoxy, as the early
modernists accommodated orthodoxy to evolution, higher criticism
and scientific method?

Are evangelical scholars too concerned about winning respect
of liberal scholars? Are evangelical scholars willing to blur
the sharp lines of truth in the interest of intellectual frater-
nity?

Are evangelical scholars in danger of creating a new
synthesis of evangelical truths with liberal and neo-orthodox
"insights" more philosophical than biblical?

Are evangelical scholars seeking to clarify evangelicalism
in the light of the Word of God, or seeking a new synthesis to
replace the present antithesis of liberalism and evangelicalism?

Are evangelicals subjecting fundamentalism to criticism
by caricature, rather than objective analysis to gee rid of the
label dreaded by every intellectual ist, the label of obscurantist?
Are scholars more afraid of sinning against the cultural pattern
of their day than sinning against God?26

Tulga thought he knew the answers to these questions, but the fact

that he yet used the form of question indicates the reluctance with

which a further division of conservative evangelicalism was faced.

Neither side wanted the division. Vernon Grounds declared the future

to be bright for the evangelical cause if it could counteract its

27
"fissiparous tendencies." But neither side could accept any com-
promise of its essential position. The fundamentalists saw the
changes proposed by the new evangelicals in the context of the battles
of the early days of the century, and saw in the changes the destruc-
tive forces which had years before moved them out of the Protestant
mainstream. The evangelicals felt that it was a now day in which an
offensive should be pressed to restore evangelicalism to its rightful
place in the Protestant establishment, but that any success in the
effort would depend on the readiness of evangelicalism to avoid the
offense which had become associated with fundamentalism. Stated Paul
Wool ley:

144

Conservative Christianity is faced with a decision. It can stick
to a lot of unnecessary traditional baggage in the forms of customs,
practices and lingo beloved through the generations but now
obstacles to preaching the Gospel to the unsaved. Or it can recog-
nize that it has the opportunity to state the truths of the
Christian faith in new terms and by new methods. ^°

A point of decision had indeed been reached, and during the next
two years the division would take place. The issue which would force
decision was the ecumenical evangelism practiced by Billy Graham. In
the spring of 1956, he was claimed by both the new evangelicals and the
fundamentalists. Richard Clearwaters was critical of Christian Life
for associating Graham with these new evangelicals, and declared that
"there is not any of the eight points listed above that has any signifi-
cance whatever in his Gospel." Graham had been criticized by Carl
Hclntire and some other fundamentalists but had been defended by Rice,
and most fundamentalist leaders still saw him as a defender of fundamen-
talism. Christian Life, more accurately, claimed Billy Graham as the
foremost spokesman for the new position. In the months ahead, Graham and
the ecumenical evangelism which he practiced so successfully would be-
come the dividing line between fundamentalist and evangelical.

NOTES
CHAPTER 3

"Is Evangelical Theology Changing?" Christian Life, March,

1956, pp. 16-19.

2
"Evangelical Theology," p. 16.

3Sword , May 4, 1956, XX, 2.

4
Alva J. McClain, "Is Theology Changing in the Conservative

Camp?" Brethren Missionary Herald, February 23, 1957, pp. 123-124.

Richard V. Clearwaters, "The Bible: The Unchanging Evangeli-
cal Volume," Sword, May 4, 1956, XX, 1-2, 5-7.

William Culbertson, "The Swing of the Pendulum," Sword, May 25,
1956, XX, 5.

"Evangelical Theology," pp. 16-17.

o

William E . As h b roo k , Evangel icali sm: The New Neutralism
(Columbus. Ohio: printed privatelv by Calvary Bible Church, 1970 ed.),
p. 5.

9McClain, "Is Theology Changing?" p. 12.

10Chester E. Tulga, "More Than Evangelicals," Sword, July 27, 1956,
XX, 1, 3-5.

Christian Life, May, 1956, pp. 3-4.

12

"Evangelical Theology," pp. 17-19.

13Clearwaters, "The Bible," p. 1.

14Rice, "Our Beloved 'Intellectuals' Again," Sword, May 18, 1956,
XX, 1, 12.

Ernest R. Sandeen, The Roots of Fundamentalism: British and
American Mi 1 ler.arianism, 1 600-1 930~TChicago : Uni vers i ty of Ch i cago
Press, 1970).

"Evangelical Theology," p. 18.

145

146

17Ibid., p. 18.

19,

Ashbrook, Evangelical ism, p. 4.
Evangelical Theology," p. 18.

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

Ibid., pp. 18-19.

Christian Life, May, 1956, p. 4.

Sword, May 4, 1956, XX, 2.

Clearwaters, "The Bible," pp. 1-2, 5-7.

Christian Life, June, 1956, p. 4.

McClain, "Is Theology Changing?" pp. 123-124.

Tulga, "More Than Evangelicals," pp. 1, 3, 4, 5.

"Evangelical Theology," p. 19.

Ibid., p. 20.

Clearwaters, "The Bible," p. 5.

CHAPTER 9
THE TURNING POINT: APRIL, 1956

Some fundamentalists had for many years been critical of Billy
Graham's insistence that churches of all stripes be invited to partici-
pate in his evangelistic campaigns. Carl Mclntire, through the
Christian Beacon, had voiced such criticisms from time to time. Other
fundamentalists had broken with Graham after his Union Seminary address.
Dr. Monroe Parker reports that he rode the Billy Graham bandwagon until
he heard the message preached at Union Seminary in which Graham "threw
bricks at the Fundamentalists and roses at the Modernists." In Decem-
ber of 1955 Dr. Bob Jones preached a message in chapel at Bob Jones
University which voiced strong objections to the policy of ecumenical
evangelism which Graham had developed, but which made no mention of him
directly. Jones declared that he had never "conducted any campaign
under the sponsorship of any ministerial association if I knew there was
a modernist in that association." Still, most fundamentalists continued
to support Billy Graham into 1956. Strong criticism had begun to be
directed at Graham from non-orthodox sources, and Rice rushed to the
defense of revivalism as he had done so often in the past. Nothing
would retain fundamentalist support for Graham more than the attacks of
the modernists, for their attacks were evidence that the distinction
between Graham's ministry and that of the modernists was being maintained.
As the preliminary preparations for tbe New York campaign, which would
take place in 1957, began to be made in early 1956, several liberal

147

148

spokesmen attacked Graham in attempts to warn their colleagues of the
dangers involved in supporting "fundamentalist" evangelism. The
Christian Century was strong in its criticism of the coming New York
crusade, as were other liberal spokesmen.

Rice responded to the liberal criticism of Graham" in the
February 3 issue." Rice first remarked that if there were not modern-
ist criticism of Graham, "something would be wrong with his ministry."
He then went on to build a picture of solid modernist opposition to
Graham. He went back to quote a liberal critic of the 1954 London
campaign, who had said that Graham's theology was "forty years out of
date." He reported the efforts a Scottish churchman had made to pre-
vent Graham's crusade in that country and quoted him: "The fundamen-
talism of Dr. Graham ill-accords with the work the Church has done
these fifty years in relationship with science. His social escapism
hardly gears into the real pressures of our world while his authori-
tarian methods have their counterpart in a wrong trend in our social

future." A Christian Century editorial attacking the coming New York

. - 4
campaign, "New York Eggs All In One Basket," was quoted extensively.

A caustic Christian Century review of Graham's recently published Peace

With God was also mentioned.5 Rice saw the attacks of the modernists

as a "good sign." "They prove, first, that Bi'lly Graham has not

trimmed his gospel message at all. They prove, second, that Billy

Graham is getting it over, and that modernists find themselves losing

everywhere crowds hear the historic Christian Gospel from the lips of

this Spirit-filled young evangelist. "^ Rice then went on to quote,

almost in its entirety, a newspaper article which had been strongly

149

critical of Graham. The theology of Graham was said to be "at least 50
years behind that of contemporary scholarship." The writer of the
article had contacted forty-three converts of a Graham meeting and
claimed that these converts revealed the lack of constructive results
by the great revivalist rallies. Eighteen of the forty-three were
already church members and thus were discounted. Of the remaining
twenty-five, none was a "true outsider." "Most were impressionable
adolescents, already attached to some church." Only one of these had
actually joined a church in the time since the campaign. Rice found
the article "rather foolish" and challenged both the author and his
conclusions. He charged that the forty-three converts investigated were
"names turned over to some modernist church, who allowed this other
modernist to check them." Forty-three had some original connection with
the church, but only one actually joined that church after the cam-
paign. From this, Rice concluded:

Evidently the instructions which Dr. Billy Graham and his team
give the converts in the counselling room that they should "get
in a Bible-believing, Bible .reaching church" was taken to heart
by many. Others, obviously the best converts, did not return to
this church where the Gospel was not preached. Only one went
against the Billy Graham counsel and joined this church, and
that one ceased attending, evidently disappointed that the church
did not preach the historic Christian Gospel, the old-time
religion preached by Billy Graham. 6

No doubt Rice credited influence to the instructions given the new

converts far beyond their real significance, but his comments here show

his determination to see Graham as part of the fundamentalist war

against modernism. Even more revealing was the heading which he gave

the next section of his discussion: "Ihe Critic, as an Unbelieving

Modernist, Opposes Bible-Believing Billy Graham." Rice charged:

m

150

This modernist would have Dr. Billy Graham preach the ideas
of Barth and Brunner, the ideas of Nels Ferre and Elton Trueblood
and Bishop Oxnam. He would have Dr. Billy Graham preach the
criticisms and doubts of Georgia Harkness and George Buttnck.
And all these have left the historic Christian faith and the in-
fallible Bible that Billy Graham preaches, the blood atonement
which he cherishes, the simple plan of salvation that he makes
clear in every sermon, the Hell of which he warns people. The
- preachino of the Christ who is God incarnate is called "a theology
which is"at least 50 years behind that of contemporary scholar-
ship."7

One month later Rice reported on an attack by an archbishop of the
Church of England on Graham and fundamentalism. Archbishop Ramsey had
written an article, "The Menace of Fundamentalism," which had been
widely circulated.8 Rice quoted extensively from Ramsey and then com-

nted, "Our first reaction is to thank God for the faithfulness of
Dr. Billy Graham." Making explicit his view of the relationship be-
tween the fundamentalist perspective on Graham and the modernist attacks,
Rice observed: "The Archbishop doesn't like Billy Graham's theology
that 'Christ bore your punishment; believe and be saved.' Thank God
for the faithfulness of Dr. Billy Graham to the old-time Christian
faith. Let his critics please take note."9 Here Rice pointed fundamen-
talist critics of Graham to the negative witness of the modernist. The
high point of Rice's campaign to join Graham to the fight against
dernism came in the following month, April of 1956.

In an important article entitled "Modern Critics Beset Fundamen-
talist Billy Graham," Rice made a last effort to force an interpretation
on the situation which would be acceptable, even satisfying, to the
fuudamenU'list mind.10 Rice again recounted the liberal opposition
which Graham had faced in London, Scotland, and at home, quoting again
passages in which the modernists attack Graham. He then reported the

mo

151

publication of a small booklet by The Times of London containing letters

to the editor, opposing and supporting the appearance which Graham had

made at Cambridge University. Rice quoted from several letters and

then commented:

We wish we could quote the entire 17 letters. All of them show
that the issue was clearly drawn. Dr. Billy Graham is a fundamen-
talist. He believes the Bible is true. He believes that the
blood of Jesus Christ is the only hope of a sinner. He preaches
the historic Christian Gospel in plainness and power without
wavering. And it is the historic. Christian Gospel which modern-
ists hate. They hated it in England. They hated it in Scotland.
They hate it in New York J 2

He went on to report criticisms of the New York crusade which had been
made by Reinhold Niebuhr and John C. Bennett, making appropriate re-
joinders. Finally, Rice made one last comment which revealed the
frustrations which he faced in dealing with the new situation:

We believe that the fight of the modernists against Billy
Graham and his fundamental stand for the truth will clear the
air everywhere. It is reassuring to know that even the most
violent unbelievers recognize Billy Graham as an out-and-out
Bible believer and Bible preacher of this historic Christian
Gospel. And let all of us pray for him and rejoice in his
blessed Spirit-filled ministry. 13

Rice had done his best. He had expended every effort to place
a construction on events which would correspond to the battle which
fundamentalists wished to fight, and felt they were called of God to
fight. He had for years apologized to his fellow fundamentalists for
the errors of the young evangelist. He had pleaded the youth and
inexperience of Graham as an excuse for his harsh words against funda-
mentalism. He had pointed to the harsh criticism of Graham by certain
of the fundamentalists as provocation. He had here painted a picture
which represented the classic fundamentalist interpretation of religious
struggle in the modern time and in fact for all time. He had placed

152

each player in his appointed role. The heading of the conclusion of
this last article read, "Again It Is Modernist Versus Fundamentalist,
Believer Versus Unbeliever." His deep concern for mass revivalism had
helped him to resist the inclination, always strong in a fundamentalist,
to break with Graham because of differences he considered important.
Now, in the spring of 1956 he hoped that the attack of the modernists
on Graham would "clear the air" and relieve the tension which was
building inside the conservative camp. He had set the stage, but the
players refused their proper roles.

Rice had presented a false analysis, because he had misread past
events. Liberal critics had indeed spoken out against Graham in London
and had criticized his fundamental theology, but in London, Graham
hid enjoyed wider church support than he had ever received before. Much
of this support, perhaps most of it, came from decidedly non-evangelical
churchmen. One liberal critic had tried to prevent Graham's coming to
Scotland and had spoken against him when he was there, but he had not
prevented the crusade, and the Church of Scotland had given strong
support to the crusade, despite the fact that there was little evangeli-
cal strength in it. The Christian Century regularly attacked Graham,
but as journalists rather than working churchmen, their interests
always tended to be more ideological than those of ministering pastors
or even denominational leaders. Pastors and denominational spokesmen
were supporting the crusades in greater numbers all the time, whatever
their theological views. The great New York campaign would in fact
demonstrate conclusively that the great majority of Protestant clergymen,
however much they might disagree with his theology, would participate

153

in the giant rallies. Graham would of course have to forego any but
the mildest mention of false doctrine, and the non-orthodox ministers
would certainly insist on fair representation on the committees of the
campaigns, and on a reasonable share of the inquiry cards, but these
accommodations would be made, and the outcome would be far from that
which Rice had wished. In the end the decision which Rice, Jones,
and other fundamentalists would make was that which Mclntire had made
long before.

Many circumstances led to the final break, but one which was
important, particularly with Rice, had to do with the Southern Baptist
Convention. In the thirties Rice had, with J. Frank Norris, been
bitterly critical of non-orthodox teaching within Southern Baptist
circles, particularly in the colleges and seminaries supported by the
convention. After his break with Norris in 1936, Rice's, relations with
the convention began to warm. He had always had many friends within the
convention and had always done considerable preaching in Southern Baptist
churches. The sermons of Southern Baptist preachers such as Robert G.
Lee, W. A. Criswell, and past leaders such as George Truett and Lee R.
Scarborough often appeared in the pages of the Sword . The high point
of the warming of relations with the convention came in the spring
of 1950. An issue was dedicated to Southern Baptists, and Rice de-
clared that he honored them because they were the "most evangelistic
of all the larger denominations." He observed that "modernism has
made little headway among Southern Baptists, for which we devoutly
thank God, though we know there is some infection and a great need for
vigilance and prayer."14 During the early fifties, new signs of conflict

154

appeared, and Rice was again often critical of Southern Baptist activi-
ties. Since that time he has moved steadily away from" the convention,
and today his activities are usually carried on in independent Baptist
or other fundamentalist circles. Disputes over teaching considered by
the fundamentalists unacceptable and over administrative policies in the
Southern Baptist schools relating to such activities as dancing and
drinking of alcoholic beverages prompted many of the controversies in
the early fifties. Fundamentalist Southern Baptists responded by-
eliminating their contributions to the Cooperative Program, the channel
through which the convention's major activities are financed. Denomina-
tional spokesmen began to place great emphasis on support of the
program as an element of Southern Baptist life, and this further gener-
ated conflict. An aggressive, fundamentalist church and one of the
largest Southern Baptist churches in the country was the Highland
Park Baptist Church of Chattanooga, Tennessee. Pastored by Dr. Lee
Roberson, this church had built a complex of schools under the name
Tennessee Temple Schools, which included a liberal arts college, a
bible school, a seminary, and an elementary school. The schools had
been built somewhat on the pattern of the old Northwestern Schools
built by Dr. W. B. Riley in Minneapolis. On December 13, 1954, the local
Southern Baptist ministers' association issued a statement strongly
critical of the work of Highland Park Baptist Church and of Tennessee
Temple Schools. The attack on the schools had been carefully planned
and was quickly published in Southern Baptist papers throughout the

country. Rice responded with a long article detailing the virtues of

15
the church and its pastor and condemning the actions of the denomination.

155

Typical was the following Rice comment: "This kind of an event will
separate the men from the boys. It will separate the men of genuine
conviction from the kowtowing, toekissing 'yes' men." He reported that
with 12,000 members, Highland Park, was one of the largest churches in
the world. During the twelve years of Dr. Roberson's pastorate, over
9,000 people had been baptized into the fellowship of the church, while
•6,000 others had been baptized but had joined other churches. The church
was said to be an evangelistic, missionary Baptist church with 40 per-
cent of its income going for missions, but'the contribution to the
Cooperative Program had remained what it had been when Roberson came to
the church, approximately $3,600 per year. As the denominational
leaders began to move against what, they saw as abrasive and too inde-
pendent fundamentalists, relations became even more strained. In
April, Rice repeated advice that he had long given to Southern Baptist
churches, that they should designate all their contributions to
specific activities and give nothing through the Cooperative Program.
Thus funds would be kept from activities deemed unworthy of Southern
Baptist support. Rice accused those who supported denominational
activities despite the modernism of denominational leaders of being
guilty of "denominational idolatry." In the next months the pages of
the Sword contained numerous letters taking various positions in the
controversy, as a considerable portion of its readership were Southern
Baptists. On March 30, 1955, the Highland Park Baptist Church voted
itself out of the local Southern Baptist association, pending the
granting of an apology from that organization. It was said that the
relationship of the church to the total Southern Baptist Convention

156

had not been decided, but "waits upon events." In April of the follow-
ing year, a group of fundamentalist Baptist pastors met in Chattanooga
to organize the Southern Baptist Fellowship. Led by Roberson and
Dr. Harold Sightler, pastor of the Tabernacle Baptist Church, of Green-
ville, South Carolina, the largest church in that state, the organiza-
tion was composed of Southern Baptist, World Baptist, Conservative
Baptist, and Baptist Bible churches, as well as independent. Baptist
churches. A similar organization in the Northern Baptist Convention
had years before led to the Conservative Baptist Association, a group
made up primarily of churches which withdrew from the Northern Baptist
Convention. Sighiler had withdrawn from the Southern Baptist Convention
when its local spokesmen disagreed with him about the need for a Baptist
church in the location where he built the Tabernacle Baptist Church.
Roberson was not yet out of the convention but was well on his way.
Though the organization was called only for "fellowship and mutual
encouragement," it seemed that a new denomination might in time emerge
out of this group. The issue which would actually be the occasion of
the break between Graham and Rice would arise out of the internal
Southern Baptist difficulties.

April, 1956 was the turning point as far as Rice is concerned.
After this, his energies were more and more concentrated on matters
which would push him av/ay from Graham. The debates over Bernard Ramm's
book had occurred the year before. The Christian Life articles had
further pointed the way toward a new evangelical position on evolution.
In February the Eternity article by Vernon Grounds had been published,
and in March had come the full revelation of the new evangelical

157

philosophy in the Christian Life article, "Is Evangelical Theology
Changing?" The discussion which took place during the spring and
summer of 1956, related in Chapters 7 and 8 of this study, revealed
the distance between the fundamentalists and the new evangelicals.
Rice had developed the picture of Billy Graham as the fundamentalist
champion against the forces of modernism, while the new evangelicals
claimed Graham as a leading spokesman of the effort to reform fundamen-
tal evangelicalism. Graham soon made it clear that he stood completely
with the new evangelicals, as indeed he always had. The principles
of the program of ecumenical evangelism which he had developed were
exactly those of the new evangelicalism. At least since the London
crusade, Graham had moved consistently toward a position of greater
accommodation with the established churches and less reliance on the
specifically evangelical minority. He had come to realize in the prepara-
tions for New York that the non-orthodox church leadership would have to
be brought fully into the campaign. He- certainly knew that this would
cost him the support of the fundamentalists. By the summer of 1956
he was prepared to accept that fact. The long bickering with certain
fundamentalists, such as Mclntire, and some leaders among the Conserva-
tive Baptists had undoubtedly taken their toll. The confidence which
he gained, especially from London and Scotland, and from the effect of
repetitive success made him more independent. And certainly long before
he had recognized how really unimportant, statistically, the handful
of fundamentalists were, compared to the masses with which he was then
deal ing. Finally, the winds of reform were blowing strongly in the
conservative camp, and Graham as we'll as other reform leaders knew that

158

change could come only after the influence of the men who had guided
conservative evangelicalism since the days of the denominational strug-
gles was broken. Outspoken fundamentalists like Jones, Rice, and
Mclntire would have to be bypassed; and the men who guided most con-
servative religious institutions would have to be pushed into the program
which the new evangelicals believed would put orthodoxy back into a
place of honor in American theological discussion. Graham would no
longer try to keep the hard-line fundamentalist support. A clean break
with fundamentalism would be necessary.

In April, 1956, a letter signed by Graham appeared in the BapJJi!
Standard, the Southern Baptist denominational paper for Texas. The con-
troversy over the Cooperative Program had prompted the editor of the
paper to contact Graham. As the world's leading evangelist, as a
Southern Baptist, and as a member of the co-operating board of the Sword
0f the Lord, one of the most vocal parties to the dispute, Graham's
views would have great influence. Graham asserted his complete loyalty
to the convention and the Cooperative Program. Graham wrote: "Concern-
ing the Cooperative Program, I believe it is the greatest means ever
devised by the church for giving one's tithe. ... In private and public
conversation I support the Cooperative Program without hesitation."

He added:

For those who are looking for the perfect church, they will
never find one on earth and if they -did find one, it would be
imperfect the moment they joined it! Jesus taught that the wheat
and the tares would grow together until the end of time. . . .
We have a lot of people within and without the church who con-
tinually try to do God's work for Him by separating the tares
and the wheat. I'm certain there are always areas within our
denomination that we. can improve. This is also true in the
Co-opera ti ve Program. ' '

159

Graham had repudiated the position of the fundamentalists with regard
to the specific question of dealing with modernism in the Southern
Baptist Convention program and had repudiated even more by his position
of the "wheat and the tares." In language understood by the public to
mean one thing and by conservative evangelicals to mean something
entirely different, Graham had denied that the church held any corporate
responsibility to preserve its theological integrity. Wheat and tares,
to most evangelical Christians meant all those who made a profession of
faith and who were on that basis received into the fellowship of the
believers. In the context in which Graham had used it, tares referred
to those within the leadership of the churches who preached doctrines at
variance with the fundamentals of the faith. That is what the distur-
bance in the convention was about, and Graham was completely aware of
the implications of his words. In the years to come, such an interpre-
tation of his meaning would be borne out many times over. Graham had
refused to be associated with any fundamentalist holy war against un-
belief and further had been sharply critical of the efforts of those who
waged that war. It was clear that Rice's picture of Graham as the
fundamentalist champion in a battle against modernism was one wholly
of his own making, having little relation to the actual situation.
Rice, of course, immediately recognized the significance of the letter
and contacted Graham, asking him to renew his endorsement of the
statement of faith which had appeared at the top of the front page of
the Sword for so many years. The statement reads:

An Independent Christian Weekly, Standing for the Verbal
Inspiration of the Bible, the Deity of Christ, His Blood Atone-
ment, Salvation by Faith, New Testament Soul Winning and the
Premillenial Return of Christ. Opposes Modernism, Worldlmess
and Formal ism.

160

Graham declined to make any such renewal and asked that his name be
dropped from the list of members of the co-operating board of the Sword
of the Lord.18 Graham was removed from the list, though no public men-
tion of the fact was made at that time. The decision had been made.
Graham had severed his last tie with separatist fundamentalism. He
had come to the conclusion that any identification with these contro-
versialists would be a definite hindrance as he tried to widen his
support within the denominations. The event was far more than a per-
sonal split between Rice and Graham. In the days to come, Graham would
emerge as the chief public spokesman of the new evangelicalism, and the
division of conservative evangelicalism would follow.

During the spring and summer, controversy raged within the conser-
vative circles over public efforts being made by the new evangelicals
to make significant changes in the evangelical program. The bitterness
of these discussions was indicated in Chapter 8. As long as the new
evangelical position was promoted primarily by young scholars such as
Henry, Camel 1 , and Ramm and by Barnhouse, whose influence was weak
beyond the circle of his personal following, the dispute between the
fundamentalists and this new group could be considered by the majority
of conservatives as a relatively minor matter upon which they would not
be forced to take a position. As Graham became the spokesman for the
new position and the controversy came more and more to center upon his
program of ecumenical evangelism, decision would be forced upon all, and
it would i'.come increasingly difficult to remain out of the controversy.

• The appearance of Christianity Today in October of 1956 marked
a new stage in the controversy. The new magazine was founded by

161

Dr. L. Nelson Bell, father-in-law of Billy Graham, and from the begin-
ning it was recognized that its pages would reflect the convictions of
the evangelist. Graham had given $10,000 to the work and had raised
much additional support for its activities. The magazine would be a
consistent promoter and defender of ecumenical evangelism. Dr. Carl
F. H. Henry, of Fuller Theological Seminary, a leading new evangelical
author, was chosen as editor. Henry represented the more cautious
edge of the new evangelical movement; he would feel it necessary to warn
his fellows from time to time of the dangers they approached in the
boldness of some of their assertions. One of the first tasks of
Christianity Today was to define the new position in a way which would
as little as possible offend those who were hesitant to leave the old
ways and yet would be sufficiently flexible to gain the respect of
those outside the evangelical circle. In doing so, the magazine in-
variably presented its position as an attractive middle course, true
to the historic faith but scorning the abrasive isolationism of the
extreme fundamentalists and of course rejecting as error the varieties
of non-orthodoxy. The editors were not hesitant to declare, "The
doctrinal content of historic Christianity will be presented and
defended." They took a firm position on the inspiration of the Bible,
accepting the "complete reliability and authority of the written Word

of God" and holding that the Scriptures "teach the doctrine of plenary

• +- „19
inspiration.

A major concern of Christianity Today would be to examine the

relationship of orthodoxy to neo-orthodoxy in the context of modern

theological discussion. The usual results of their examination would

152

be to find reason for deep gratitude to Barthianism for unseating
classical liberalism and then, weakly or strongly, to point to differ-
ences with the dialectical theologians on the inspiration of the Bible
and sometimes on the atonement. In the first issue the editors sought
to properly relate Graham and Barth. They suggested:

However varied their talents and influences," both Barth
and Graham have come to symbolize a religious springtime after
the long, cold winter of Liberalism. They stand as giants of
our generation protesting against the liberal reduction of the
Bible to the category of sacred literature generally. The
Hebrew-Christian Scriptures differ uniquely from all other
religious writings in their witness to special revelation;
... In stressing this fact, the "theology of the Word of
God" and the evangelism of "the Bible says" are in formal agree-
ment, and share in the rebellion against the classic liberal
distrust of the special revelation claim that is everywhere
implicit in the Bible.

Nonetheless they went on to recognize the fact that one who saw no

essential differences between the position of Barth and that of Graham

was "in need of theological lenses." The bulk of their comments then

reflected upon the differences. They pointed out that in contrast to

the "theology of the Word of God" that' of Graham did not "rush to draw

a line between what God says and what the Bible says. It does not

locate what God says in the misty flats above the Bible, above its

written propositions and words." In an even more important paragraph

they carefully placed a marker between orthodoxy and neo-orthodoxy:

The Church may rejoice that an emphasis on the New
Testament evangel is finding its way once again into pulpits
from which it was long absent. In this proclamation of the
evangel there is often a considerable similarity between those
who hold the high view of the Bible and those who shy away
froi* it. Whoever preaches the Gospel must lean heavily on
the warnings of Jesus about sin and its connection with the
• wrath of God and the judgment to come, no less than upon His
' assurances of the gracious forgiveness and the welcome awaiting
sinners who come to the Father "in Christ's name." The omission

163

of either of these elements is destructive of the Gospel. But
the Gospel is far more definite than this; the simplest New
Testament statement of it includes the substitutionary death
of Christ for sinners and His bodily resurrection (I Cor. 15:
104). It is at this point of the sharper definition of the
Gospel that the difference between evangelical and sub-evangeli-
cal preaching comes more clearly into view. 20

They had certainly distinguished their own position from that of the

dialectical theologians, but they had done it in such gentle fashion

that the meaning of their words--that the Barthian reconstruction

denied essential elements in the Christian message, however valuable

its service in combating liberal ism— was lost to all but the initiated

reader, and from their tone none would gain the impression that their

subject was one which might have eternal consequences.

In contrast, the fundamentalists considered neo-orthodoxy to be

another form of modernism. In a sermon printed in the Sword, Dr. R.

Laird Harris, of Faith Theological Seminary, had traced the history of

21

neo-orthodoxy and positioned it in the theological spectrum. Though

he recognized the strong attacks made on classical liberalism by the
neo-orthodox theologians, Harris credited the demise of liberalism to
its identification with opinions about man which the catastrophes of
the twentieth century made wholly untenable. It was not possible for
modernists to cling to their earlier views without, modification, so
neo-orthodoxy grew as a position allowing them to retain their basic
unbelief but bringing them more in line with the observable facts of
existence and also relating them more satisfactorily to the mood of the
times. He urged the name new modernism as more accurate than neo-
orthodoxy. He pointed to the neo-orthodox habit of giving esoteric
meanings to orthodox terminology, thereby usually denying the

164

historicity of the Christian events. Noting the same flaw which had
been pointed out by Christianity Today, he stated that in the Barthian
scheme "atonement becomes an accepting of our condition rather than a
satisfaction of divine justice." Unlike the Christianity Today treat-
ment, however, that of Harris left no impression that the differences
with neo-orthodoxy were of less than ultimate importance. He concluded:

What, then, shall be our answer to neo-orthodoxy? When they
use the old terms in a new meaning, what shall we do? Surely
true Christians who see what Barthianism really mens can be
trusted with the answer.

Barthianism should first be understood. Thcr. it should
be feared just like the old style modernism, which, from a
different angle, also denies the Bible, its Christ, and our
salvation. Then it should be opposed as God's Word tells us
to oppose all the wiles of the Devil.22

The first strongly worded criticism of Graham in the pages of the

Sword came in a July, 1956, article of Chester Tulga, "More lhan

Evangelicals." Only one line mentioned Graham. Tulga had referred to

"the evangelism of Graham, which now depends for its support upon a

working union of all sorts of modernists, middle-of-the-roaders

and evangelicals which God is supposed to bless regardless of the

23
teachings of His own Word."

In the September 14, 1956, issue of the Sword was included a
carefully worded and brief article which had been written by Dr. Tom
Malone, pastor of the Emmanuel Baptist Church, a strong fundamentalist
and a graduate of Bob Jones University. The piece was titled "What
Do You Think of Billy Graham?" Malone first modestly disclaimed any
presumption that what he might write would "make or break" Graham.
Graham was already "made," his meetings being the largest since the
days of Billy Sunday. He then at length pointed out elements of

165

Graham's ministry which he could wholeheartedly endorse. He listed

the elements he could endorse and discussed each in a paragraph:

1. I wholeheartedly endorse the man: Billy Graham.
?.. I wholeheartedly endorse his message.

3. I endorse his motives. . . . to win the lost, churched or
unchurched, to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ.

4. I endorse wholeheartedly his ministry. His is a ministry
of evangelism.

Malone believed, "Beyond any shadow of a doubt God has raised up Billy

Graham along with many other men of God, in our day for the work of

evangelism." But there were "two or three things" about the Billy

Graham work that he could not wholeheartedly endorse. He told of two.

First, he did not agree with Graham's recent endorsement of the Southern

Baptist Cooperative Program. He then quoted from Graham's letter to

the editor of the Texas Baptist Standard, discussed earlier in this

chapter. After citing examples of non-orthodox speakers at Southern

Baptist institutions and worldliness at Baptist colleges, Malone went

on to the second area of disagreement with Graham. "I do not agree

with Billy's sponsorship in many of his great campaigns." Recognizing

Graham's desire to "win every soul he can," Malone yet challenged his

insistence on modernistic endorsement. Malone declared.:

The Ministerial Association of nearly every city in America is
officially a part of the modernistic National Council of
Churches. He ought not to insist on the endorsement of such a
"mixed multitude." ... I personally think Billy's crowds would
be greater, the net results greater, the body of Christ more
edified, and the Lord Jesus more honored, if Billy were
sponsored by the men about whom there is no question as to their
orthodoxy. . . .

Beyond question the Bible teaches there can be no mutual
relationship between a Bible-believing child of God and a reli-
gious but lost "blind leader of the blind." How can we recon-
cile any tolerance of liberalism with the teaching of II John 10,
11: "If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctine,
receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed; ^
For' he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds."

166

This tentatively written article was an indication of what' would
follow. At first the friendly tone would be used, but in a short time .
the spirit of controversy would cause both sides to use the more harsh
phrases which were more common to religious disputes among those who
believed what they believed.

Any lingering hope which John R. Rice might have had that Graham
would back away from a full identification with the new evangelical
challenge to fundamentalism was dispelled with the publication of the
first issues of Christianity Today. Though the new magazine was more
subdued in its criticism of fundamentalism than Eternity or Christian
Life, it was no less certainly aligned with the new movement. In
November, Rice made public the correspondence which led to Graham's
withdrawal from the board of the Sword and gave his interpretation of
the issues which divided them. A one-page article in the Sword asked,
"Which Way, Billy Graham?"25

Rice cited a letter from a reader asking questions about Graham

and the appearnace of Christianity Today and phrased his discussion of

the issues partly as an answer to this letter. This was the editorial

device he most often used in discussing controversial matters. He

related that he had received many such enquiries concerning the position

of Billy Graham, asserting that young evangelists had asked if they

should follow Graham's lead in accepting liberal sponsorship. Rice

first addressed himself to the publication of Christianity Today, a

"venture sponsored largely by Dr. Graham," which was "unfortunate."

He then characterized the magazine: m

A magazine highbrow and formal in tone, by choice, with emphasis
primarily on the scholarly instead of primarily on the spiritual,
a magazine primarily of the schools and not primarily of the
churches and soulwinners, a magazine somewhat friendly toward

167

Barthian theologians and partly unorthodox leaders, I feel will
do little good and may do harm.

I do not believe that Dr. Carl Henry, the editor of
Christianity Today, intended his editorial comparing Barth and
Billy Graham to be d.n endorsement of neo-orthodoxy. I do not
believe his friendly report on the large Methodist meeting to
be an endorsement of the outright modernistic leadership and
literature and education to which the Methodist church is wholly
committed. But neither do I believe that Dr. Henry intended to
repudiate either Barth or modernistic Methodist leadership. I
think that Christianity Today is intended to be a middle-of-
the-road publication not offensive to modernism and only slightly
offensive to fundamentalists. I think there will be aspersions
cast at fundamentalists from time to time, as in the first issue.
and mild disagreement, but not denouncement, of modernism and
unbelief. And I believe that the magazine definitely repre-
sents and is so intended to represent the Billy Graham view-
point.

Rice then recounted the controversy within the Southern Baptist

Convention and reported the circumstances behind Graham's letter to

the Baptist Standard, his correspondence with Rice, and his request to

be removed from the list of the co-operating board of the Sword of

the Lord. He then printed a letter which he had sent to Graham

which is of sufficient importance that it is included here in its

entirety:

Dear Dr. Graham:

Very reluctantly, of course, I am coming to believe that
you are right and that I should release you from the Co-operating
Board of the Sword of the Lord, as you suggest. I am reluctant
because of my personal love for you and even more because of
my deep concern about evangel ism and my great joy in your ministry.
But, as you say, it is becoming increasingly apparent that we
are not going the same direction, and that you cannot, in good
conscience, back up the doctrinal position and principles stated
on The Sword of the Lord front page every week.

I understand that you are generally sound in doctrine. I
am not your enemy, not even your critic. But I know now that
The Sword of the Lord does not speak for you when it defends
fundamentalists, because you do not claim to be a fundamental is;..
I know it does not speak for you when it exposes the modern un-
. belief and lack of scholarship in the Revised Standard Version
' • which you recommend. I know now that The Sword of the Lord does
not represent you when it denounces the folly of Ferre, Brunner,

168

Buttrick, McCracken, all of whom have spoken at Southern Baptist
Seminary, and whose books are required reading at Louisville
sinceyou do not feel as we do about the fight against modernism
when it comes among Southern Baptists. You are for the fundamen-
tals of the faith, but you are embarrassed at my fight which is
getting very strong and definite results. I am sure also that
we do not represent you in our opposition to the young "intellec-
tuals," the left-wing fringe including Bernard Ramm, Dr Carl
Henry, Dr. Vernon Grounds, etc., and the Christian Life editorial
policy. So in justice to you, and to us, we will drop your name
form the Sword of the Lord Co-operating Board. And I wish you
well. I shall pray for you daily. I shall rejoice in God's
blessing upon your ministry.

It was good to be in your home. God bless your family and
all your workers. Your team is a wonderful crowd and I love them
everyone.

I will always be glad to hear from you, and we will
rejoice exceedingly over every soul won to Christ in your meetings

In the Savior's name, yours,
John R. Rice

Rice ended the article: "We advise all Christians to rejoice in the

blessings of God upon Dr. Graham and the souls saved under his ministry.

We hope that they will continue to pray for him as we do earnestly,

daily, and lovingly." 6

NOTES
CHAPTER 9

Monroe Parker, More Desirable Than Gol_d (Owatonna, Minn.:
Pillsbury Baptist Bible College, 1963), p. 42.

2Bob Jones, Sr. , "Evangelism Today," Sword, January 13, 1956,
XXII, 11.

3Rice, "Another Modernist Attacks Billy Graham," Sword,
February 3, 1956, XXII, 2, 10-11.

4"New York Eggs All In One Basket," Christian Century, Septem-
ber 21, 1955, LXXII, 1076.

5Theodore Gill, "Evangelists Three," Christian Century, March 23,
1955, LXXII, 369; Billy Graham, Peace with God (Garden City, N.Y.:
Doubleday, 1953).

Rice, "Another Modernist," p. 11.

7Ibid.

A. M. Ramsey, "The Menace of Fundamentalism," Chicago Daily
News, February 3, 1956.

9Rice, "English Archbishop Attacks Billy Graham's Fundamentalism,"
Sword, March 2, 1956, XXII, 5.

10Rice, "Modern Critics Beset Fundamentalist Billy Graham," Sword,
April 6, 1956, XXII, 1, 7.

^Fundamentalism: A Religious Problem (London: The Times, 1956).

1 ?

Rice, "Modern Critics," p. 7.

Ibid.

14Rice, "Southern Baptists, Hail," Sword, May 12, 1950, XXI, 1.

15Rice, "Dr. Lee Roberson Attacked by Southern Baptist Leaders,"
Sword, March 11, 1955, XXI, 3, 5, 7.

1 Sword, April 8, 1955, XXI, 1.

169

170

17Letter by Graham, Sword, November 23, 1956, XXII, 2; first
printed in Baptist Standard, April, 7, 1956.

■ 18Ibid. " " -

1 Christianity Today, October 15, 1956, I, 1.

20Ibid., pp. 22-23.

21R. Laird Harris, "Barthian Theology Today," Sword, February 18,
1955, XII, 1, 5-7.

22Ibid., p. 7.

23Sword, July 27, 1956, XXII, 1.

24Tom Malone, "What Do You Think of Billy Graham?" Sword, Septem-
ber 14, 1956, XXII, 2.

25Rice, "Which Way, Billy Graham?" Sword, November 23, 1956,

XXII, 2.

26lbid.

CHAPTER 10
CHRISTIANITY TODAY AND THE NEW COALITION

Christianity Today has its origin in a deepfelt desire to
express historical Christianity to the present generation.
Neglected, slighted, misrepresented—evangelical Christianity
needs a clear voice, to speak with conviction and love, and to
state its true position and its relevance to the world crisis.
A generation has grown up unaware of the basic truths of the
Christian faith taught in the Scriptures and expressed in the
creeds of the historic evangelical churches.'

Thus did the new magazine describe its purpose in the first issue
on October 15, 1956. Here was an attempt to force the churches to give
renewed attention to the claims of orthodoxy, in a form hardly diluted
since the great denominational struggles of the twenties and thirties.
The strategy was to secure respectability by repudiating separatist
fundamentalism and thus gain a hearing for the fundamentalist theology.
Carl Henry, who would guide the fortunes of the magazine through its
formative years, represented the conservative wing of the new evangeli-
cal group. Though at times others of that group would lose sight of
the purpose for which the abrasiveness of fundamentalism had been left
behind, Henry would ever remember that the forwarding of orthodoxy, and
not the alteration of orthodoxy, was the goal of the new evangelicalism.
In the section concerning "Science and Religion," in a volume, which
he edited in 1957, entitled Contemporary Evangelical Thought, he warned

of the danger in the concessions being made to evolutionary theory by

2
other new evangelicals, such as Ramm and Carnell. When Fuller

Theological Seminary would years later move away from adherence to the

171

172

full inspiration of the Bible, Henry and Christianity Today would more
resolutely insist upon it. Nonetheless, Christianity Today fully re-
flected the emphases of the new evangelicalism and was one of its
authoritative spokesmen. The outlines of the movement can "be seen
clearly in its pages.

It has already been remarked that new evangelicalism tended to
see itself as a middle position avoiding the extremes of fundamentalism
on the one hand and non-orthodoxy or, the other. Early in the career of
the publication this was made explicit in several articles. Two articles
which were built on the theme contrasted "The Perils of Independency"
with "The Perils of Ecumenicity." Separatist fundamentalism was repre-
sented by the American Council of Christian Churches; the liberal drive
for Church Unionism was strong in the National Council of Churches.
Over against these two groups was set. the National Association of
Evangelicals. It was "opposed in temper" to both, though it subscribed
"to some concepts of each of the extremist groups."

The first article treated the errors of fundamentalism and tended
to retrace steps, taken long before in the debates of the forties be-
tween the NAE and the ACC, but given new meaning because of the re-
surgence of conservative evangelicalism and the renewed opportunity for
conservatives to work within the established churches. Christianity
Tpda^ first recognized that, whatever the failings of the fundamentalists
"those who honor fidelity to doctrine cannot but endorse the concern
for theological soundness." The theological orthodoxy of independency
was recognized. This had always been the first point in the discussion
made by the NAE men. The next part of the discussion also followed

173

the debates of the previous decade.

Independency tends to produce a divisive spirit. It re-
fuses to cooperate even with those with whom it is in ssential
theological agreement. Its concept of separation forbids fellow-
ship with men sound in the faith but associated with objection-
able movements. It indicts others for allegiances they have
held for years, and often promotes a divisiveness- that is dis-
ruptive. ^

It was admitted that independency often began as a movement against
"heresy or apostasy" and further admitted that where this was the case
it could not be labeled as divisive, but it was also pointed cut that
many times a protest which began as a movement against apostasy would
develop a psychology which would promote further divisions which had
nothing to do with apostasy. The example offered was that usually
produced in such discussions--the split-ridden career of those who with-
drew from the Presbyterian church with Gresham Machen. Christianity

Today charged, "The divisiveness of Independency becomes so highly

4
exclusive that it excludes true believers from its fellowship."

Christianity Today found the basic motivation of ecumenism, con-
cern for the unity of the body of Christ, to be as commendable as the
desire of independency to preserve the theological integrity of the body.
But again, the areas where evangelicals were forced to dissent were
those which received emphasis. The major criticism of ecumenism offered
was, naturally enough, laxity in regard to truth. The drive for unity was
said to be often accompanied by "a rather pale and anemic concern for
basic Christian doctrine." Various ecumenical leaders were quoted as
supporting organic union into one organization, which Christianity Today
opposed as being impossible of achievement, inadequate as a primary
goal of Christian effort, and productive of an intolerance toward those

174

who wished to remain without. Ecumenism was accused of having "little
use or respect for those with whom it 'ffers, easily regarding as

fanatical and divisive those who refuse to cooperate within its orbit

5
of inclusivism. "

Reinforcing its middle position, Christianity Today concluded that

both independency and ecumenism were "essentially heretical. Neither

one is truly biblical nor finally acceptable." "This much is clear:

neither movement is entirely in error. But neither possesses the sum

total of truth." To the fundamentalists, such a position was far from

acceptable. While fundamentalists, such as Rice, had made the same

criticisms of the American Council leadership that were here made against

fundamentalism generally, they made them from a perspective different

from that which Christianity Today here assumed. The new evangelical

disassociated himself from both the fundamentalist and the ecumenicist,

then proceeded to behave as if he were treating the weakness of two

groups guilty of offenses of somewhat equal severity. Such a posture,

to the fundamentalist, seemed to be a cowardly retreat from the battle.

If the theological battle lines were drawn, as the fundamentalist never

questioned, on the basis of the great fundamentals of the faith, then,

however unpleasant an orthodox warrior might be, his offense was of an

entirely different order from that of the modernist who denied the faith

and led others to the same denial. Though fundamentalism might not

possess the total truth, as differences upon important points of

biblical interpretation proved, the position represented by the label

"•ecumenism" was totally in error--not because of its ecumenicity but

because of its "modernism." As the new evangelicals sought to create

175

a position distinct from fundamentalism, in order to engineer the restora-
tion of orthodoxy to mai lis t ream respectability, they would increasingly
exhibit a tendency to muddy the theological issues in their presenta-
tion to the broader community, while trying to maintain the integrity
of their own constituency. This was the most difficult task which
confronted them, and it was indicated in this early attempt. As fully as
the fundamentalists, the evangelicals believed that the central issues
were those which pertained to the great doctrines of the faith. At the
same time, they knew that controversy over these doctrines would damage
their re-entry into the Protestant mainstream. Because of these two
factors, their position often seemed ambiguous. Ambiguity is of course
the characteristic of any central position, but the desire to reach out
to the broader community without loosening the theological convictions
of their evangelical followers made the problem particularly acute for
the new evangelicals. The very real uncertainty which they felt toward
the Barthians greatly added to this difficulty. Particularly when the
division in neo-orthodoxy cast Barth in the role of defender of the
faith, against the "neo-liberal ism" of Bultmann, it became impossible
for any consistent interpretation of the contemporary theological world
to be constructed by anyone of the new evangelical school. At times
they warned of the diluting effect of neo-orthodoxy, as Henry had, even
in the Christian Life article heralding the new evangelical position.
At other times they adopted neo-orthodox phraseology, though investing
it with greater substance. Among new evangelicals, Edward John Carnell
expressed the greatest appreciation for Barth, possibly because his
long study of Reinhold Neibuhr made him especially conscious of the

176

conservative implications of the later Barth in the total theological
picture.

In April of 1956 Christian Life carried a companion article to
the one which had presented the changes in evangelical thought. "Is
Liberal Theology Changing?" reflected the considerable optimism which
the new evangelicals felt because of the conservative shift in theologi-
, cal discussion, which in America came during and after the Second World

o

War. The article reported that "repentant liberals" were "scattering
like dust raised by a housewife's broom to a dozen theological positions-
many of them not far from what evangelicals believed to be orthodox
Christianity." It was said to be no longer possible to "separate
Protestant churches into two watertight compartments labeled 'liberal'
ana 'fundamental.'" The article gave full credit to neo-orthodoxy for
the decline which doctrinaire liberalism had suffered and stressed
those elements of dialectical theology which have appeal to evangelicals.
The emphases in modern theology which Christian Life chose to list
were:

1. A more respectful attitude toward the Bible.

2. A re-emphasis on the sovereignty of God.

3. A higher view of the Person of Christ.

4. A re-emphasis on the conversion experience.

5. An acknowledgement of the supernatural in Christianity.

It was recognized that a "yawning gulf" still existed between most
modern theologians and orthodoxy, but no very careful analysis was made
of these differences. The importance of symbolism and paradox in neo-
orthodoxy Wds pointed out, but their usual effect in denying historicity
to the '.Christian events was not made apparent. The dependence of all
contemporary- theological schools on the "higher critical view" of the

177

Bible was recognized, and was said to constitute the greatest variance
from the position of orthodoxy. At that point three evangelical spokes-
men who had been very critical of the various non-orthodox positions were
quoted. J. Barton Payne of Trinity Bible Seminary was quoted giving
the strongest warnings:

This mixture of belief in the Bible and doubt of it appears funda-
mentally unstable, a temporary situation perhaps resulting from
world conditions. Evangelicals should make all use of the trend
and work and pray that seekers may be led to full faith and a
banishing of doubt. But they should also recognize the danger,
for the appeal of biblical authority may be used as bait to lure
seekers into such full religious doubt as to banish truly yielded
faith. 9

More characteristic of the tone of the article was a quote from a
spokesman of Wheaton College: "This new movement is paradoxical and
inconsistent, but we must remember these men have come through 'the
long night of liberalism.' So let's not be ready to hit them over the
head. If we don't draw our Pharisaical robes about us, perhaps the
younger men can be caused to move to a more consistent position." In
these two quotes the difficulty of the new evangelical analysis is
revealed. The move toward conservatism led these younger, intellectual
evangelicals to hope that a general turning toward an orthodox position
might be possible. The vision of raising in the established churches
the standard of solidly orthodox theology prodded them to alter care-
fully their own position, to avoid giving offense to those moving from
liberalism to neo-orthodoxy, in the hope that they might be brought
fully to an orthodox theology. The danger to their own integrity in such
a strategy was seen more fully by some evangelicals than by others.
Some, such as Donald Grey Barhhouse, assumed that involvement with
leaders of non-orthodoxy would have no effect on the evangelicals, and

178

were shocked when signs of faltering in areas he considered essential
began to appear. Others, such as Carl Henry, warned from the beginning
that the new openness to theological dialogue involved dangers to
theological faithfulness, though he seemed confident that these warnings
were sufficient to protect against these dangers.

For this study the most important statement in this Christian
Life article was made by Harold Lindsell,of Fuller Seminary, the
successor of Carl Henry as editor of Christianity Today. It revealed a
change in the evangelical attitude toward those of other theological
positions: "Fundamentalism has been chastened so that it is sloughing
off its reactionary character. It has become more positive. It now
attacks the viewpoint, not the individual. A man may entertain whatever
viewpoint he wishes and the fundamentalist, may disagree with him without
assuming that he is dishonest, a scoundrel and one who should be hung
from the nearest gibbet." This was a perspective which the separatist
fundamentalists were not prepared to adopt. They insisted that
specifically the opposite was correct and claimed biblical warrant
for the view that men who departed from the fundamentals of the faith
did so from base motives and not from any genuine intellectual sensi-
tivities. They pointed to countless Scripture passages in which false
teachers were assigned the most creditless motives, and they declared
that to believe otherwise was the result of confusion over the rela-
tionship of these motives to salvation and ultimately of salvation to
the fundamental truths of Scripture. No fundamentalist would, in a
thoughtful moment, portray adherence to all the "fundamentals of the
faith" as essential to salvation, for they recognized the possibility

179

of a person coming to belief in Christ as Savior, who had no knowledge
of important elements of the fundamentals. At the same time they in-
sisted that though a person might be saved while possessing a very
incomplete knowledge of the fundamentals, the regenerative act of the
Holy Spirit would certainly preclude any wholesale denial of the funda-
mental truths of the Christian faith. No very specific efforts were
made to define this action or to elaborate how many fundamentals might
be denied before a profession should be considered suspect, but it was
an important element of the fundamentalist analysis that, in general, it
was not fellow believers with whom they were contending, but false
teachers who from base motives served their father, the Devil. The
attempt to drive a wedge between the conversion experience and the funda-
mentals of the faith was seen as one of the earliest tactics of modernism
and one of the most serious errors of the new evangelicals. No doubt
the new evangelicals were less than candid on the matter, and in most
cases their opinion of specific non-orthodox leaders is difficult to
ascertain. If the new evangelicals believed what they preached, they
must surely conclude that many of the men with whom they began to be
involved outside the evangelical circle, judging from their published
writings, did not accept the minimum that the evangelicals declared to
be necessary to salvation. In time, this became one of the deepest
sources of ambiguity in the new evangelical position.

This ambiguity was further revealed in a series of articles
published /hrouqh four issues of Christianity Today during June and
July pf 1957. The articles, under the title "Dare We Renew the
Modernist-Fundamentalist Conflict?", were abridgments of lectures

180

given by Carl Henry at Northern Baptist Theological Seminary in May of
that year. The reaction to the articles revealed even more certainly
their ambiguity. Some wrote challenging what they believed to be the call
of the editor for the renewal of controversy while others took excep-
tion with the editor in his denial of the need for controversy. Liberal-
ism of the Fosdickian variety, neo-orthodoxy primarily of the Barthian
variety, and fundamentalism of the American Council variety furnished
the subjects for the first three articles respectively, while the last
suggested the direction in which Henry desired evangelicalism to move.
Even at this distance it remains difficult to provide a clear interpre-
tation of these important articles, though some elements are recognizable.

The recent publication of the autobiography of Harry Emerson

12
Fosdick provided the structure of the first installment. Henry pro-
vided a page-by-page critique of the self-justification of the aging
minister. He seemed irritated that Fosdick's autobiography was not
cast in the form of a confession of life-long theological error, and
wrote:

Dr. Fosdick's affirmation of the theological relevance of
last-generation liberalism comes as a keen disappointment to
many evangelical leaders. Prone to assume that liberalism had
been chastened, curbed and forced to abandon its defenses by
the drift of the times, if not by the authority of biblical
revelation, these evangelicals will find in Dr. Fosdick's The
Living of These Days a revelation that he has not really lived
through our era with theological awareness; . . . Casting the
fortunes of liberalism in this unrepentant mold will not only
evoke wide disappointment, but it will provide the conviction ^
that the time for theological controversy is once again upon us.

Henry also wrote, "Modern churchmen who permit only secondary criticisms

of classic liberal theology make its adequacy a contemporary issue

through continued espousal " and he was critical of liberals who

181

refused to "share Karl Barth's and Emil Brunner's sharp criticism of
classic, liberal theology." In the first article he seemed to be saying
that by refusing to abandon liberalism for neo-orthodoxy, Fosdick and
the Christian Century were perpetuating the lines of theological division
laid down in earlier years. He particularly complained of the Century's
continued unwillingness to recognize the efforts which the new evangeli-
cals were making to achieve respectability. Nonetheless, he went on
to point out that the view of Fosdick and the Christian Century was
certainly a minority view and that most of the great centers of the old
liberal thought had long been engaged in making adjustments in liberal

theology and were "eager to get beyond the modernist-fundamentalist con-

14
troversy."

The critique of fundamentalism offered in the second article
centered largely on one alleged weakness. Henry charged that funda-
mentalism had become absorbed in defending the few basic fundamentals
to such an extent that it failed to present a full -orbed theology. The
fixation on the fundamentals crowded out study and preaching of other
doctrines and so drained the energies of the fundamentalists that other
legitimate church activities suffered. This was an easy charge to make,
but one equally easy to disprove. Donald Tinder, in his study of funda-
mentalist Baptists, concluded that fundamentalists in fact preached on a
great variety of themes and that the broad range of Christian interests
was well represented in their work. The fact that Tinder is today
the book review editor of Christianity Today adds weight to his con-
clusions in this area. The impression that fundamentalists were con-
cerned only with defending the fundamentals in a controversial manner

182

arises from the fact that most persons outside of fundamentalism come
into contact with the movement only in this area of fundamentalist
activity. The routine activities which fundamentalists carried out,
much like other evangelicals, would be little cause for comment or
notice. Furthermore, it was the rigorous defense of the faith which
distinguished fundamentalists from other conservative evangelicals, and
it was naturally to the point of difference that attention would be
called. Defense of the faith certainly occupied an important place in
the fundamentalist program and in the- case of certain leaders may in
fact have virtually excluded other concerns, but the picture here pre-
sented by Carl Henry was far from accurate in charging that "concentra-
tion on 'the fundamentals' often displaced doctrinal responsibilities of
the church in the wider dimensions of historic creeds and confessions

of faith."16

In Henry's view the fundamentalist lack of scholarly concern with
areas outside of the fundamentals was matched by an unconcern with the
social implications of Christianity. He contrasted earlier fundamen-
talism, represented in his treatment by the authors of the famous 1909
volumes on The Fundamentals, with the fundamentalist leadership which
had arisen since the defeat of the conservatives in the denominational
struggles.17 The early breadth of concern and depth of scholarly
endeavor was succeeded by a bitter polemical stand based on slogans
inherited from an earlier day, rather than careful study. Henry then
offered his interpretation of the division within conservative evangeli-
calism which had accompanied its resurgence since the Second World War.
Me repeated what had by then become the new evangelical explanation for
their repudiation of fundamentalism.

183

The word fundamentalism had become a term of reproach branding
one as an obscurantist, and this liberal charge was given credibility
by "the reactionary spirit of some present fundamentalist groups who
seemed to align themselves against higher education, science and cul-
tural interests." Those aware of the undesirable connotations preferred
to be called "conservatives" or "evangelicals." However,' the real
offense of fundamentalism in Henry's eyes was its abrasive manner in
defense of the faith, and in matters not so much concerned with the
defense of the faith as with personal disputes. He charged:

The real bankruptcy of fundamentalism has resulted not so
much from a reactionary spirit—lamentable as this was— as from
a harsh temperament, a spirit of lovelessness and strife contri-
buted by much of its leadership in the recent past. One of the
ironies of contemporary church history is that the more fundamen-
talists stressed separation from apostasy as a theme in their
churches, the more a spirit of lovelessness seemed to prevail.
The theological conflict with liberalism deteriorated into an
attack upon organizations and personalities. This condemnation,
in turn, grew to include conservative churchmen and churches not
ready to align with separatist movements. . . . More recently,
the evangelistic ministry of Billy Graham and of other evangeli-
cal leaders, and efforts whose disapproval of liberalism and
advocacy of conservative Christianity are beyond dispute, have
become the target of bitter volubility.18

Henry then again insisted that the defects of contemporary fundamentalism
were not present in the early days of the movement, claiming, "Its
early leadership reflected balance and ballast, and less of bombast
and battle. Only later did a divisive disposition show itself, plung-
ing the evangelical movement into internal conflict." He then explained
the split which was occurring in conservatism:

' The recrudescence of fundamentalism during the Second World
War involved a diversification within the movement. On one side
• were those eager to detach the great theological affirmations
' from a recent" negative reactionary spirit and to strengthen con-
structive theological and ecclesiastical activity, on the other,

those who add to reactionary spirit by multiplying divisions and
by disowning brethren in the former category. The first group
insists that fundamentalists of the latter definition are sever-
ing themselves from the spirit of historic evangelical Chris-
tianity; the second group claims that evangelicals of the former
categoryare making a subtle retreat to a compromised fundamen-
tal ism J 3

Fundamentalists of course would reject this analysis. They would point
out that the charges of divisiveness and lovelessness, coupled with
that of reactionary obscurantism, had been the chief weapons of the
liberals in the days of the modernist-fundamentalist controversy. Cer-
tainly, few secular or liberal historians would be prepared to' accept
the pacific picture of early fundamentalist leadership painted by Henry
and other new evangelicals. The kinds of activities carried on by
Jones, Rice, and Mclntire easily are paralleled by those of the earlier
day, and it seems unlikely that the early leaders were appreciably more
"enlightened." Certainly individual fundamentalists of the early day
could be pointed out whose education was broader or deeper--the loss
of the great educational institutions to liberalism was a serious blow to
orthodoxy--but the distinction between early and later fundamentalist
leadership claimed by Henry was basically artificial. "Fighting funda-
mentalists" were so-called long before the days of Mclntire or Rice.

Henry concluded the article by calling on evangelicals to repudiate
fundamentalism and move to the new evangelical position. Citing the
searching criticism of liberalism made by Barth and Brunner, he asked
whether evangelicals would not submit their own position to the same
kind of criticism. "Should evangelical leaders as candidly admit the
excesses of fundamentalism as have neo -orthodox leaders relative to the
prevailing liberalism?" He answered, "They dare not do less." Finally

185

he declared, "If modernism stands discredited as a perversion of the

scriptual theology, certainly fundamentalism in this contemporary

,,20
expression stands discredited as a perversion of the biblical spirit.

The next installment examined neo-orthodoxy in a generally
favorable manner, stressing its divergence from liberalism though
recognizing the areas where it held back from orthodoxy.- Hailing
"the Return to Doctrine," Carl Henry stated, "No fact of recent Protes-
tant theology is more conspicuous than its emphasis that apart from the
clear recognition of the supernaturalness, nay the deity, of Christ,
only the shadows of Christianity remain." He observed, "Since 1927
Barth has championed the Virgin Birth of Jesus against almost a century
of speculative doubt and denial by liberal tradition. . . ." And later:
"While Barth assuredly does not affirm all that an evangelical doctrine
of atonement requires, he does speak of the sinless Christ who suffers
in our stead bearing the wrath of God which must fall on sinful man."
And still later: "Even with respect to Scripture as the norm of

Christian doctrine, Barth has given us many statements which, as far

21
as they go, have an evangelical ring." Assessing the contemporary

theological context, Henry asserted, "The dramatic element in this

theological reversal is simply this: in the first third of our century

theological initiative lay with those who labeled the defenders of

these doctrines as obscurantists; today, in contrast, the prominent

theological thrust defines the discard and neglect of these doctrines

as violence to Christianity." Nonetheless, he admitted, "It would be

overstatement to imply that in the recovery of these doctrinal emphases

Barth and the neo-orthodox theologians return in all essentials to an

22

historic evangelical exposition.'"" A careful discussion of the

186

weaknesses of neo- orthodoxy followed in which the strength of many of
his previous assertions is seriously, though not openly, modified. The
refusal to identify revelation with the Bible was criticized, and the
subjective element which this introduces into the neo-orthodox chris-
tology was pointed out. In the end Henry, of course, found neo-orthodoxy
to be less than biblical and stated, "Only the preservation of the
total scriptural revelation justifies a theology's claim to be biblical.1
On the whole, however, his analysis placed neo-orthodoxy very close to
the evangelical position, and carried no implication that the differ-
ences were in any sense ultimate. Henry actually suggested that the
neo-orthodox sensitivity to divine confrontation was an improvement
over the fundamentalist call to salvation. Claiming that "the Christian-
ity of the twentieth century had quite obscured the God who continually
encounters and confronts man," he charged that modernism "exchanged the
divine initiative in special revelation for the human quest for God."
But he went on:

Fundamentalism had stressed Christian experience in terms of
doctrinal assent and outward social restraints, appended of
course to an initial experience of rebirth whose vitality was
to be renewed in periodic crises of spiritual surrender. . . .
The contemporary approximation of the New Testament emphasis on
spiritual immediacy as preserved by the religion of the Mediator
is therefore a gain. We who minister to this tensed generation ■
dare not neglect the continual unveiling of God in Christ
encountering every lost soul in creation, presevation, con-
science, judgment, and the call to repentance and faith. Nor
dare we neglect the sway of the confronting Christ over our
own souls, framed by creation and refashioned by redemption
primarily for a life of personal fellowship in his service.24

In the final installment of the series, Henry described "The

evangelical Responsibility." He firs* declared:

Evangelical theology has nothing to fear, and much to gain,
from aligning itself earnestly with the current plea for a re-
turn to biblical theology. To measure this moving front of

.23

187

creative theology sympathetically, to understand its concern and
courage and to name its weaknesses without depreciating its
strength will best preserve relevant theological interaction
with the contemporary debate. "

Mow this alignment of evangelicalism with the emphases of the dialec-
tical theologians might be executed had been demonstrated in Henry's
discussion of the divine-human encounter as an improvement over the
fundamentalist call to salvation. In adopting the neo-orthodox termi-
nology, Henry had infused them with evangelical meaning. In a sense
this process reversed the habit of the neo-orthodox theologians of
using orthodox terminology but draining them of evangelical meaning.

Henry went on to suggest the direction which evangelicalism
should take. Positive preaching was urged for the pulpits of evangeli-
cal churches; the fundamentalist tendency to identify Christian living
with abstinence from "dubious social externals" was to be superseded
by a new ethic "comprehending the whole of the moral law in fuller
exposition of love for God and neighbor," and a program of Christian
social action was to be developed. Evangelical confidence in the con-
cept of design in the universe made possible new constructive approaches
to science, and a new evangelical effort in education was suggested.
Henry's instructions concerning the need to maintain the integrity of
the body of Christ and at the same time provide for the fellowship of
the believers do not make entirely clear what he was advocating. He
insisted that basic doctrinal agreement is necessary to the unity of
the church but warned that evangelicals have sometimes excluded those
who shouts not be excluded. At the same time he seemed in his con-
cluding remarks to lament the demise of heresy trials and to urge the
need for purity of the faith.

188

Henry seemed to be further laying the plans for the restoration
of orthodoxy within the established churches. In the four articles,
the position with which he most consistently expressed sympathy was
neo-orthodoxy. It was toward the "Theologians of the Word" that he
was the warmest. He was suggesting that neo-orthodoxy move closer to
orthodoxy by a fuller repudiation of liberalism, while evangelical
repudiation of fundamentalism would bring it closer to neo-orthodoxy.
That would form the basis of a new working coalition in. the churches.
Most of the tenets of the older liberalism had already been challenged
by the dialectical theologians, and the division between fundamentalists
and evangelicals seemed certain. The prospects for the new coalition
seemed bright, with the religious boom then in progress in America
promising success to whatever theology controlled the churches. In the
Billy Graham New York campaign the widest support yet given by the
established churches further stirred the hopes of the evangelicals that
orthodoxy might recover its position in the center. The churches
must be recaptured if the historic evangelical position was to be pre-
sented to their generation. But the new evangelical intention would
be severely tested in the coming New York campaign. Even the new
evangelicals most strongly committed to the assault on the mainstream
would bristle inwardly at working with some who had been outspoken in
denial of basic parts of the evangelical faith, and some evangelicals
would raise strong objection to the notion that the day of controversy
was over. The controversy over New York would lead to the final divi-
' sion between fundamentalism and evangelicalism.

NOTES
CHAPTER 10

K'hy Christianity Today?"' Christianity Today, October 15, 1956,
I, 20.

2farl E H Henry, ed., Contemporary Fvanqelical Thought
(New York: Harper & Bros . , 19571,^^0-252, 267-268, 279.

3"The Perils of Independency," Christianity Today, November 12,
1956, I, 20-23.

4Ibid., p. 22.

She Perils of Ecumenicity," Christianity Today, November 26,
1956, I, 20-22.

6Ibid., p. 22.

^Christian Life, March, 1956, p. 19.

8"Is Liberal Theology Changing?" Christian Life, April, 1956,
pp. 19-22.

9Ibid., p. 22.

10Ibid.

"■'Dare We Ren^w the Modernist-Fundamentalist Controversy?"
Christian ty Today, in four parts: "The Modernist Revisior |.» Juni MO,
Yqc7 i — 5- fiT-^Th; Fundamentalist Reduction," June 24, 1957, 1, Li Lb,
^ConteVporarJ Restorftion," duly 8 1957, I 16-13-, "The Evangeli-
cal Responsibility," duly 22, 1957, I, 23-26, 38.

12Harry Emerson Fosdick, The Living of These Years (New York:
Harper, 1957).

^Christianity Today, June 10, 1957, 6.

14Ibid.

' 15Donald Tinder, "Fundamentalist Baptists in the Northern and
Western United States" (Ph.D. dissertation, Yale University, 197,),
p. 327.

189

190

16Christianity Today, June 24, 1957, I, 26.

17A. C. Dixon, ed., The Fundamentals (Chicago: Testimony,

191;

IS

Christianity Today, June 24, 1957, I, 26.

19Ibid.
20Ibid.

21

Christianity Today, July 8, 1957, I, 15-16.

22

23

Ibid.

Ibid. , p. 18.

24

Ibid.

25

Christianity Today, July 24, 1957, I, 23.

CHAPTER 11
ECUMENICAL EVANGELISM

The final division of conservative evangelicalism came as the
preparations for the Billy Graham evangelistic campaign in New York
City revealed that Graham had fully cast his lot with the established
churches. By the time of the opening meeting on May 15, 1957, the
division had passed the point where reconciliation was possible, and
there was little evidence of desire for reconciliation on either side.
The New York crusade marked Graham's final acceptance by the Protestant
establishment and indeed by American society generally. He would be
little inclined from that time on to hesitate because of any objections
offered by the separatist fundamentalists. After New York the fundamen-
talists would consider Graham hopelessly compromised, and his program
of ecumenical evangelism would be seen as the major opportunity for
non-orthodox Protestant leadership to infect the conservative churches.
During the winter and early spring of 1956-57, the discussion would
become more and more bitter, and Rice and Jones would be moved far
toward the position which Mclntire had long held. The cooperation of
fundamentalist and evangelical, common during the forties but subjected
to increasing tension in the early years of the fifties, would finally
break down. The governing boards of countless conservative institu-
tions would be shuffled, and the institutions would begin to assume an
explicitly, "fundamentalist" or "evangelical" outlook. The great

191

192

success of the New York crusade and the popularity of Graham generally
would pull many toward the evangelical position. In comparison, the
fundamentalists would emerge as a hardly significant minority ignored
by the broader community, except when the more politically oriented
among them, such as Mclntire, would gain attention because of some
essentially secular activity. Nonetheless, the battle over separation
never really ended, even in the most "evangelical" institutions.

Most conservative evangelicals were deeply certain of the need
to oppose modernism and remained suspicious of the activities of non-
evangelical clergymen. Few were really convinced by the claims of the
new evangelicals that the liberals had deserted their former positions
and were on the verge of accepting evangelical orthodoxy in great num-
bers. Some suggested that the new pose of liberalism was even more
dangerous than the old modernism. They pointed out that nec-orthodoxy
denied most of the fundamentals over which the struggles of the early
years of the century had been fought. Many agreed with Cornelius
Van Til, of Westminister Theological Seminary, that the dialectical
theology should be labeled a new modernism rather than a new orthodoxy.
James DeForest Murch, in an editorial in United Evangelical Action,
the official organ of the National Association of Evangelicals, stated
that he generally agreed with the analysis offered by Henry in "Dare
We Renew the Controversy?" but the bulk of his comments emphasized two
things which he felt needed to be said in relation to the article:
"The day of controversy is not over"; "the new ecumenical movement is
a' threat to the Christian faith far more dangerous than that of classic
liberalism." He went on to present the fundamentalist interpretation

193

of the important place which controversy held in Christian history,
stressing that the battle of "divine truth against human error" was one
which could never be neglected. He warned, "If we think for one minute
that we have passed through something dubbed 'The Age of Controversy'
and are moving into a new era where all is to be love and light, we
are tragically mistaken." He went on, "This is still a day of moral
declension and theological apostasy." Though the setting in which error
was presented changed from generation to generation, "Satan and error
are basically the same in ewery age. Controversy will go on until the
author of lies and all his collaborators are cast into the lake of fire
and brimstone. If we ever forget or minimize this fact we are lost."
He insisted that the new ecumenical theology would attempt to synthe-
size all positions into a theology acceptable to "the coming great
church" and warned:

Too many of our evangelical theologians are being lured into,
not compromise, perhaps, but certainly compromising situations,
with promises of freedom to present their views and maintain
them within the structure of the "coming great Church." They
seem to be blinded to the ultimate objective of their seducers
and to the cleverness of their strategy. They seem to be unaware
that the apparently plausible minimal theological statements of
the ecumenists are sheer compromise of Bible truth because their
"Word of God" is not the Bible, their "Son of God" is not the
Christ of the New Testament, their "cross," their "atonement,"
their "resurrection," . . . are not the same as revealed in the •
New Testament. The ecumenical "double-talk" of today is far
more treacherous than the "double-talk" of the Modernist which
misled so many thousands of Christian ministers and leaders in
the oast generation. Furthermore, it is being devised for the
purpose of eventually delivering Protestantism into the clutches
of a new Roman hierarchy and building a church which is not the
church of the New Testament. 2

Murch had not accepted any of the basic elements in the analysis

offered by Henry but had challenged the authenticity of the modern

194

return to the Bible. Over the next years Murch would continue to issue
such warnings. Nonetheless, Murch and the National Association of
Evangelicals were enthusiastic in support of the New York crusade. This
suggests that many supporting ecumenical evangelism and Graham had little
sympathy with the rest of the new evangelical philosophy. This in-
creased the confusion and the- tragedy of the division. Had Graham not
so fully identified himself with the total new evangelical program, or
had the fundamentalists not made Graham the divider between themselves
and other evangelicals, the bitterness of the division would have been
avoided. Had new evangelicalism, rather than Billy Graham, become the
issue, the fundamentalists would have been joined by a far greater
number. Many would be the evangelicals who would continue to support
Graham--thus becoming "evangelicals" who would at the same time express
deep reservations, and even repudiation, of the new evangelical program.
Moreover, many, perhaps most, conservative Christians were not aware
of the significance of the new evangelical program and were also un-
aware of the basis for the fundamentalist attack upon Graham. In such
circumstances, most naturally fell into the evangelical camp.

Before the New York campaign, the Graham organization met the
criticisms of the sponsorship of the meetings by non-orthodox churchmen
by denials. They took the position that the policy was to secure the
backing of conservatives and that when non-evangelicals were given
positions of leadership it was simply an error. In 1951 a Graham
official had written Robert Ketcham, who had stated that Graham in-
sisted on modernist representation on crusade committees, denying that
anyone who might be termed liberal had ever served on a Graham

195

committee. During 1952 Graham had stated in a letter to John R. Rice,
"Contrary to any rumors that are constantly floating about, we have
never had a modernist on our Executive Committee and we have never been
sponsored by the Council of Churches in any city except Shreveport and
Greensboro— both small towns where the majority of ministers are
evangelical." In spring of 1955 while in Scotland it had seemed that
he and Rice reached an understanding on the matter of non-orthodox
sponsorship. Graham had indicated that his intention was to invite all
the Protestant churches to participate in the crusades, but to restrict
positions of leadership to orthodox men. He had indicated that at times,
such as in Atlanta, the committees had been set up before he arrived,
and they were not according to his wishes. He had denied any part in
bringing John S. Bonnell to Scotland and had indicated that he strongly
disapproved Bonnell 's coming. Rice reported his view of the under-
standing which had been reached ". . .He has definitely pledged that
he will not have any man in leadership in his campaigns to represent

him officially who is not true to the inspiration of the Bible, the

,.5
deity of Christ, His blood atonement and such fundamental truths.

Graham, of course, found in the preparations for New York that the non-
evangelical community would accept no such arrangement, that to gain
the widest possible support the established churches would have to be
given full representation. Looking toward the New York campaign,
Christian Century early urged that Graham be "as publicly explicit about
his ecumenicity as he is privately. . . ." The change in his position
can be seen in the difference in attitude toward Bonnell in Scotland
and in New York. In Scotland, Graham had denied inviting Bonnell and

196

had not even introduced him to the audience, leaving this for one of
his lieutenants. In New York, Bonnell was on the executive committee
of the crusade. The Graham organization would no longer deny the fact
of non-orthodox sponsorship. Instead, a campaign in the evangelical
press sought to change the thinking of conservatives on the matter of
separation. This was necessary because the Protestant Council of New
York would sponsor the crusade in that city, and no one could claim that
that group v/as generally orthodox.

In an interview reported in the June, 1956, Christian Life,
Graham opened the campaign against the fundamentalist version of separa-
tion. The line laid down here would be followed in nearly all subse-
quent discussions of the issue by supporters of ecumenical evangelism.
He first described a mellowing theological world, with "extreme liberal-
ism within the church" in full retreat. Though the emphasis on social
application of the gospel continued, he saw "a new and wonderful
emphasis on personal evangelism and a conversion experience." He
declared the first step to revival to be an end to controversy among
Christians. He charged:

The fighting, feuding and controversies among God's people, even
within evangelical circles ... is a very poor example to our
governments. . . . [He was] absolutely sick and fed up with the
controversies that rage among Christians, many times over non-
essentials. Many of our controversies revolve around personality
clashes; most, of them are of the flesh and from the Devil, they
could be avoided if all of our lives were Spirit-filled. . . .
I am determined by God's grace that I am going to stay out of
these controversies and divisions among God's people and con-
tinue to preach Christ and Him crucified to sinful men. . . .
we as Christians should love each other, even though we have
string differences.?

Thiswould be the high ground which the defenders of Graham would occupy

during most of the dispute. Because of Graham's extreme personal

197

popularity, he could assume a position above the battle, speaking out
against controversy generally, even at the time when his program of
ecumenical evangelism was generating the widest controversy the con-
servative camp had experienced in the century. He would hold all the
advantages. Despite the fact that it was he who was challenging accepted
positions, the onus of raising controversy would rest on his accusers.
By pleading for the end of controversy, he was in fact asking for the
acceptance of his position. He could attack his accusers as divisive
trouble-makers and only rarely address the issues which they raised. At
the same time, he would consistently maintain the pose of never defend-
ing himself against critics. This advantage he used fully in the follow-
ing comments:

God cannot bless us if there are divisions, fighting and strife
within the church. How many churches we hear about today that
are filled with divisions, jealousy, revenge, spite, pride. How
can God possibly bless a situation like that?

Pastors and Christians need to repent of the sins of strife,
controversy and fighting. I tell you, this is not of God.

Many people wonder why revival has not come to the evangeli-
cals of America. This is one of the primary reasons. We have
had enough name-calling and mud-slinging. Let's repent of our
sins, fall on our faces before God and spend the time in prayer
that we used to spend in controversy and see what happens. I
guarantee God will send us a revival. 8

Thus Graham could make a lofty appeal for peace in the church, accuse
his critics of name-calling and mud-slinging, ask for the acceptance of
ecumenical evangelism, and question the motives of his attackers; all
without leaving the high ground above the battle. Turning to the up-
coming New York campaign he made specific application of this pacific
principle.

He first pointed out the extreme minority position of the Protes-
tant community in New York City. He referred to "deep cleavages among

198

the Christians of New York City." The picture was one of a beseiged
minority who could not afford the divisions which existed among them.
Fundamentalists would not accept any such picture but would insist that
the minority positon of true Christians was even more extreme than that
painted by Graham. The fundamentalists would insist that their position
would be greatly harmed, rather than helped, by being joined with the
non-evangelical groups. When asked about the sponsorship of the meet-
ings, Graham replied, "What difference does it make who sponsors a
meeting?" He then suggested that Paul was sponsored at Mars Hill by
the Stoics and Epicureans and that Christ preached in a synagogue. He
declared his intention to "continue to go wherever I am invited." The
question of liberal sponsorship in ecumenical evangelistic endeavors
would become the focal point of the struggle between fundamentalism and
the new evangelicalism, and the campaign of the new evangelicals to
force the acceptance of ecumenical evangelism would eventually push the
fundamentalists into even great isolation. Donald Grey Barnhouse re-
ported in Eternity the following month a meeting with Graham and com-
mented that both he and Graham were "grieved at the attitude that has
been taken by some prominent Fundamentalist leaders against Dr. Graham."
Barnhouse thought it "extroardinary that some people would hold that
the gospel may not be preached in the greatest city of the world unless
it is under the auspices of which they approve. "9

That the position of conservative evangelicals with regard to
separation would not be easily changed was indicated by a letter to
Christian Life by Joseph T. Bayly, editor of the magazine of the
Inter-Varsity Christian Fellowship. Bayly was not convinced by Graham's

199

arguments and suggested the crux of the matter to be whether Paul turned
•the names of converts over to "non-believing synagogues." Other
evangelicals also remained "disturbed" about non-orthodox sponsorship of
evangelistic meetings, and the attack of the fundamentalists was just
beginning.

In December of 1956 the Sword of the Lord printed a sermon by
Bob Jones which had been preached in October on his seventy-third birth-
day.11 In the sermon, titled "After 58 Years of Evangelism," he warned
of the consequences which would follow wide acceptance of ecumenical
evangelism by conservative churches. Jones first declared, "I have
never knowingly conducted any revival under the sponsorship of any
pastor or pastors who deny the generally accepted fundamentals of the
faith." He placed his own ministry and that of Bob Jones University
thoroughly inside the stream of interdenominational fundamentalism.
He stated:

I learned from my experiences that all of the orthodox,
Bible-believing Christians stand together on certain fundamen-
tal doctrinal truths. These truths are the inspiration of the
Bible, the virgin birth, the incarnation, the vicarious blood
atonement, the bodily resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ, the
necessity of the new birth, and salvation by grace through
faith. All orthodox Christians consider these the essential
Christian doctrines. There are, of course, other doctrinal
positions that some of the preachers and churches held that they
considered important; but they were not ,.the fundamental essen-
tials. So I made up my mind that the school I would found would
be one built on the essentials so that any orthodox parent . . .
could send his or her son or daughter to the institution and
could go to sleep at night, knowing that his or her child would
come away strong in all the essentials of the faith.

He characterized the university as a "base for orthodoxy," sending out

preachers and teachers who would stand^ for these truths in opposition

to all other positions. He spoke of a "strange, very pious-talking

movement in America."

200

It is the neo-orthodox movement. It is deceiving the people and
is more dangerous than outspoken modernism, for it talks. very
pious. It talks about the new birth, about Jesus being the only
solution to human problems. Yet while talking about these things,
it is leading orthodox Bible believers into the camp of the
modernists, who have the tools in hand and are trying to dig
up the foundation doctrines of the Christian faith.

Recently, a certain supposedly evangelistic magazine
carried an article saying in effect that fundamentalism has
changed its emphasis from "you must contend for the faith" to
"youmust be born again." From my experience in the ministry
for sixty years, I can tell you frankly that I have never read
a more subtly dangerous statement. Paul said that if anybody
preached any Gospel except what he preached let him be anathema.
. . . Paul said he was set for the defense of the Gospel . A
man who believes the Gospel will defend the Gospel and fight any ]2
effort to dilute the Gospel or to pervert this Gospel in any way.

Jones had completely rejected the thesis of the new evangelicals that
the movement of the denominations away from liberalism to neo-orthodoxy
represented an opportunity for orthodoxy to regain its central position.
He saw instead the danger to "Bible-believing" groups which would come
from re-involvement with the still non-orthodox Protestant establish-
ment. Whatever might be said of neo-orthodox theologians, they were
still far from the orthodox position which Jones defined as the ground
of evangelical cooperation. He challenged the optimism then current
in evangelical circles, insisting that there was no substance to the
"revival of religion" in America. The great interest in the church
and religion, which was a marked feature of the decade, was to Jones
shallow and even counterfeit. He pointed out what critics from other
perspectives would also see: that the "interest in religion" made
little distinction between the kinds of religion. Martin Marty's
work criti/ing "religion in general" would point to many of the de-
ficie.ncies here noticed by Jones. Revealing the tremendous differ-
ences in viewpoint which had developed between the evangelicals and
the fundamentalists, Jones finally warned:

201

It is my honest, sincere opinion that America is in the worst
spiritual condition it has. ever been in my lifetime; and if
orthodox Christians do not stand up and fight for the fundamen-
tals of the Christian faith and arge the orthodox, Bible-
believing Christians not to go along officially and personally
in religious movements with the neo-orthodox and modernist crowd,
we are going to live to see the foundations upon which our
forefathers buiit the organized Christian churches in America
completely destroyed in a spiritual way. '4

Contrasted to the view of Jones, the evangelicals painted an

optimistic picture, indeed. James DeForest Murch, one of the most

cautious evangelical observers, felt that there had "never been a more

favorable attitude on the part of the masses to biblical Christianity."

At the same time he warned that millions of those "flocking into the

liberal churches" had little or no "concept of what it means to be a

real, born-again Christian." Murch was typical of many evangelicals

who felt the optimism of the hour and urged their fellows to take

advantage of the wider opportunities for influence, but who yet had

serious misgivings about cooperation with non-orthodox churchmen. As

an official of the National Association of Evangelicals he would

naturally reflect the pressures of institutional competition with the

National Council of Churches. Spokesmen of the NAE increasingly drew

a distinction between cooperation with non-orthodox clergymen in an

enterprise such as the Graham crusades and "structural or organiza-
tional" affiliation, which they considered dangerous. The officials
of the NAE were usually more cautious than the journal istic and
academic-oriented new evangelicals. Institutional competition had
taught the NAE men that the claim that liberalism was dead was not
entirely accurate. They were not nearly as prone to accept neo-orthodox
and neo-liberal theologians without careful examination of their exact

202

views. Murch would often warn evangelicals of the dangers which in-
discriminate fellowship posed to 'theological integrity. Nonetheless,
the NAE in most minds came to represent the new evangelical position.
The fundamentalists attacked it as such, and the new evangelicals
claimed it as such. And certainly the NAE was carried along by the
general optimism which prevailed in much of the conservative camp as
a result of being given national attention for the first time in twenty-
five years.

In January of 1957 Christianity Today printed a defense of Graham
written by W. K. Harrison, a well known evangelical, an army general,

I Q

and a contributing editor of the magazine. ' Harrison first agreed
that the sponsors of the New York campaign would be largely unsaved,
modernist church leaders. He then pictured them as desperate because
of the failure of liberalism over the years to produce the results, in
terms of better moral icy and environment, that they had sought. They
were now willing to turn to Graham for help, though they did not be-
lieve the gospel which he preached. He asked: "If these modernist
groups invite Mr. Graham to preach the Gospel to them and offer to
support it with money, effort and prayer, should he refuse?" Harrison
felt the answer to be obvious. He then considered verses which funda-
mentalists cited as prohibiting' any such association with modernists.
Several he found to be irrelevant to the situation of ecumenical
evangelism, but then he based his main discussion of the issues on
II Corinthians 6:14-17. He judged that the separation from unbelievers
demanded could not be total segregation—other Bible passages presumed
believers to be living in contact with unbelievers--and must therefore

203

be separation of ?. "special character." "Unequally" was said to be the
governing word in the paragraph, and Harrison concluded, ". . . If we
are yoked or associated with unbelievers in objectives, purposes, methods
or actions which are contrary to God's will, commanded or character, in
other words, which are sinful, the yoke is unequal and must be avoided."
By shifting the meaning of the verse from the nature of the associates
to the objectives of the association, Harrison had denied it any rele-
vance to the New York campaign, which all conservatives would agree had
a worthy purpose. Harrison's treatment of the passage was too in-
genious, however, and other evangelicals would offer explanations which
just as effectively precluded any application to ecumenical evangelism,
but which did not demand as much of the interpreter.

Other of Harrison's comments reveal an important, and rarely ad-
mitted, aspect of the evangelical approach to non-evangelicals in
ecumenical evangelism. His comments are here included in greater length
than the influence of Harrison would warrant, because they reveal a
mental device through which countless evangelicals maintained their
"theological purity" while cooperating with the most unorthodox of non-
evangel icals:

The desire of and consequent invitation by the Protestant
modernists to receive Mr. Graham's ministry is certainly to be
desired in the interest of saving men's souls. . . . The use of
unbelievers' money to pay the necessary expenses of the meetings
which they themselves seek seems logical and legitimate to me.
That modernists may be on the committee or sit on the platform
are not in themselves evil, as I see it. I believe any real
believer would welcome an invitation to preach the true Gospel
to the pastor and unsaved people in a modernist church. . . .
Yet, if one accepts such an invitation, he does so from the
pastor of the church, and that pastor will sit on the platform
and probably take part in the service.

There is in this no reco gnition of any yoke or Christian
fellowship. . . . Now, I see little difference other than in
magnitude between the preaching of the Gospel in a single

204

modernist church and in New York by Billy Graham.

... I think we must all recognize that God has saved
many, many persons and multitudes have received the true witness
through the ministry of Mr. Graham. ... I simply cannot see how
such a movement and salvation could be of Satan, which it must
be if it is not of God. ...

[Though Graham did not guide converts in the selection of
a church] I agree with him that the Sovereign God is able to
keep His own and to finish that which He has begun. Who knows
that converts who go to a modernist church may not be God's wit-
nesses In that church until such time as they leave it or are
expelled?19 [Emphasis addedj

According to Harrison, representation on the committees of the crusade,
recognition from the public platform of the revival meetings, and par-
ticipation in the services implied no recognition of Christian fellow-
ship. The acceptance of modernist sponsorship was a calculated matter
related to securing the financial and institutional backing for the
meetings. This was the attitude of many evangelicals, but rarely was it
so baldly stated. The modernists are spoken of as generally unbelievers,
and despite all appearance there was to be no real fellowship with
them. It is significant that Harrison speaks of preaching in a
modernist church to the pastor and not with the pastor. That the atti-
tude of Harrison was widespread among evangelicals can hardly be
doubted. Had it been more manifest at the upper reaches of evangeli-
cal leadership, the program of ecumenical evangelism would have ground
to a halt. Certainly, nothing which issued from the Graham organiza-
tion acknowledged the mental reservations which were here indicated.
The Fifteenth Annual Convention of the National Association of
Evangelicals was held in April of 1957 in Buffalo, New York, and
Billy Graham there identified himself fully with the new evangelicalism
and called upon the organization to repudiate fundamentalism. Without
naming any individuals, Graham first suggested his critics were not

205

enough concerned for the salvation of the lost: "Where are the tears
for the lost? Where is our concern for men that are confused, frus-
trated, lost, sinful and destined for hell? At the present, our New
York campaign has been challenged by some extremists on two points."
Graham then stated his position clearly for the first time:

First, as to its sponsorship, I would like to make myself
quite clear. I intend to go anywhere, sponsored by anybody, to
preach the Gospel of Christ, if there are no strings attached
to my message. I am sponsored by civic clubs, universities,
ministerial associations and councils of churches all over the
world. I intend to continue. Not one person in New York has
even suggested or hinted as to. what my message should be. It
will be precisely the same message that I have preached all
over the world. The central ity of my message will be Christ
and Him crucified .

Second, we have been challenged on what happens to the
converts when the crusade is over. Apparently these brethren
who make these statements have no faith in the Holy Spirit.
The work of regeneration is the work of the Holy Spirit. The
work of follow up is the work of the Holy Spirit. The same
Holy Spirit that convicted them of sin and regenerated them
is able to follow them. No group of ministers in any large city
anywhere in the world agrees on what constitutes a sound church.
We do all we can in follow up, but ultimately they're in the
hands of the Holy Spirit. 20

Graham had left no room for misunderstanding. He intended to work with
the established churches and with every theological element within them.
He had rejected the conservative evangelical notion that there were
sound, orthodox churches and unsound, non-orthodox churches, and in-
stead he asserted that there was no consensus on what constitutes a
sound church. Certainly among the group to which he was speaking
there was such a consensus. The general membership of the NAE would

have defined an orthodox positon much as Bob Jones had in his October,

?1
1956, sermon. The concept that there was difficulty in distinguish-
ing sound from unsound churches was not one which evangelicals would
serious! v consider. The comments which we have quoted from

206

Harrison assuredly reflect confidence that modernist churches could be
identified. Nonetheless, Graham's remarks would be subjected to careful,
public scrutiny only by the fundamentalists. Most agreed with Graham,
that the doctrine of separation must not be allowed to interfere with
the tremendous opportunity for preaching the gospel, and though nearly
all evangelicals were loathe to see the converts turned over to liberal
churches, they understood that without the participation of the non-
orthodox churches, the campaigns would be much less successful.

At Buffalo, Graham also presented the new evangelical interpreta-
tion of the current theological situation, coupled with the by-now-
usual new evangelical exaltation of love over orthodoxy. He stated:

The one badge of Christian discipleship is not orthodoxy,
but love. There is far more emphasis on love and unity among God's
people in the New Testament than there is on orthodoxy, as im-
portant as it is.

We evangelicals sometimes set ourselves up as judges of
another man's relationship to God. We often think that a per-
son is not a Christian unless he pronounces our shibboleths and
cliches exactly the way we do. I have found born again
Christians in the strangest places, under the oddest circum-
stances, who do not know our particular evangelical language.
But their spirit witnesses to my spirit that they are truly sons
of God. There is a great swing all over the world, within the
church, toward a more conservative theological position. The old
terms, fundamentalism and liberalism, are now passe. The
situation has radically changed, since the days of Machen, Riley
and other defenders of the faith a generation age. 22

Graham had made the new evangelical position fully his own. He had
directly challenged the remaining fundamentalist influence within
evangelicalism. The point of no return had been reached. Ecumenical
evangelism would be the issue over which the struggle would be made,
but the entire new evangelical program furnished the background. That
no standard of soundness in a church existed, that the tests of ortho-
doxy had become mere shibboleths, that love had an existence apart

207

from fidelity to Scripture, were assertions that always before had come
from the liberals. Increasingly, fundamentalists would find them-
selves arguing points they had long contested against the liberals, and
the new evangelicals would accuse the fundamentalists with charges of
which they had long been the targets. The difference was that now both
sides readily admitted the other to rightly be included in the body of
Christ. The fundamentalists had always denied that position to the
modernists. Perhaps, this only made the struggle more bitter. It had
many characteristics of a family disturbance, or of a civil war.

NOTES
CHAPTER 11

Cornelius Van Til, The New Modernism (Philadelphia:
Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1947).

2Uniied Evangelical Action, September 15, 1957, pp. 17-18.

3Jerry Beavan letter to Robert Ketchum, dated April 20, 1951.

4Graham letter to Rice, dated May 10, 1952.

5Sword, June 17, 1956, XXII, 9.

6"What's the Next Step?" Christian Life, June, 1956, pp. 20-23.

7Ibid., p. 21.

8Ibid., p. 22. .

9Eternity, July, 1956, p. 19.

I Christian Life, August, 1956, p. 4.

II Bob Jones, Sr., "After 58 Years of Evangelism," Sword, December 7,
1956, XXII, 1, 8-10.

12Ibid.

13Martin E. Marty, "The Triumph of Rel igicn-in-General ," Christian
Century, September 10, 1958, LXXV, 1016-1019.

14Jones, "After 58 Years," p. 9.

^United Evangelical Action, January 1, 1957, p. 5.

^Interview with Clyde Taylor, Washington, D.C., August, 1973.

17Williain E. Ashbrook, Evangelicalism: The New Neutralism
(Columbus, Ohio: printed privately by Calvary Bible Church, 1970 ed.),
p. 5.

18W. K. Harrison, "General Harrison Answers Graham Critics,"
Christianity Today, January 21, 1957, I, 28, 33.

208

209

19

20

21

22

Ibid. , p. 33.

Christianity Today, April 1, 1957, I, 26.

See page 199-201.

Christianity Today, April 1, 1957, I, 26.

CHAPTER 12
THE DEEPENING CONTROVERSY

The fundamentalists were not slow in responding to Graham's
Buffalo declaration. The April 19 issue of the Sword contained a
lengthy article by Rice opposing the New York crusade. The tone had
considerably hardened since his article in November announcing the
initial break with Graham. The April article directly challenged
ecumenical sponsorship of evangelistic campaigns and was titled "Billy
Graham's New York Crusade, Should Bible-Believers Yoke Up With Un-
believers in Rivival Campaigns?" For a text, Rice gave the familiar
verses, II John 7-1 1 :

For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess
not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver
and an antichrist. Look to yourselves, that we lose not those
things which we have wrought, but that we receive a full reward.
Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of
Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ,
he hath both the Father and the Son. If there come any unto
you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house,
neither bid him God speed; For he that biddeth him God speed is
partaker of his evil deeds.

Rice showed no hesitation in applying these verses to the New York

situation. He noted that the New York crusade would be "principally

under the control of the Protestant Council, which is predominately

modernistic, liberal, as its leaders openly profess." He described

Graham's position in the following words: "It is all right to be

sponsored by anybody saved or unsaved, for the Bible or. against it.

210

211

just so it gives an opportunity to preach the Gospel." Rfce charged:

. . . The argument is that very old one, that the end
justifies the means, that orthodoxy is not so important as
brotherly love, that one may get bigger crowds to preach the
Gospel to if he does not refuse to associate with modernists.

On the other hand, old-time "ible-believing fundamentalists
insist that the Bible clearly forbids yoking up with unbelievers,
even though one's motives may appear to be good and that in the
long run God's cause suffers when people disobey that plain
command no matter what their motives. On the one hand the
argument for yoking up with modernists in the New York campaign
is the argument of expediency. On the other hand the argument
is "thus saith the Lord," that to yoke up with unconverted
people and enemies of the Gospel is clearly forbidden in the
Bible.2

Rice then related the events which led to the break with Graham in
April. He stressed his long support of the evangelist and his defense
of Graham against the critics of evangelism. He urged his own con-
tinued devotion to the cause of evangelism:

As I pray daily for Dr. Billy Graham, I pray daily for many,
many other evangelists. All I did for Dr. Billy Graham I did not
for friendship's sake, but for Jesus Christ. I want to honor
the dear Lord Jesus. I know that the thing dearest to His heart
is soul winning. I know that evangelism is the primary aim of
the church, the very heart of Christianity.

I am for evangelism and for evangelists, but of course I
am for Christ and the Bible first of all. . . .To whatever
degree evangelists and evangelism fail to follow the Bible
pattern and to honor Christ and historic Christianity, to that
degree my support and endorsement of that evangelist and evangel-
ism are limited.^

His following comments revealed that in the future there would be opposi-

i;

tion to the Graham campaigns, rather than any limited support, and that
despite the expression of love for Graham personally, the breach was now
complete. He summarized his position, which was now that of fundamen-
talists generally:

The Sword of the Lord does not oppose Dr. Graham. We love him
and pray for him. However, we tliink he is wrong when he goes
against the plain commands of the Bible in yoking up with

212

unbelievers. We think that that kind of evangelism will do
great harm and in the long run will lead more people away from
God than it will get converted. Thus we cannot endorse the
New York campaign, we do not think that Bible-believing
Christians ought to support it officially or financially though
we agree that they ought to pray for Dr. Graham. 4

Rice then described the "Modernistic Backing of the New York Crusade,"
pointing out the presence on the sponsoring committee of such leading
Protestants as Dr. Henry P. Van Dusen, president of Union Theological
Seminary; Dr. Ralph Sockman, a leading Methodist spokesman; as well as
Dr. John Sutherland Bonnell ,. pastor of the Fifth Avenue Presbyterian
Church of New York City. Rice charged, "Of the 155 men and women on
the general Crusade committee, only a small minority claim to be out-
and-out Bible-believers and converted people and most are openly liberal
He warned conservative pastors that "the follow-up work of the campaign
will be largely controlled by modernists." He complained that the
National Association of Evangelicals had been "made a platform from
which Dr. Graham has labeled all of us who disagree with the viewpoint
of fellowshipping with unbelievers 'extremists.'" He warned fellow
fundamentalists to avoid reckless charges about Graham or his message,
insisting that there were no signs that what he preached would be other
than the true gospel. Though he did not expect Graham to attack the
modernists who invited him or to say anything to discredit Union
Theological Seminary or the National Council of Churches, he did expect
Graham to genuinely preach the gospel in New York. In concluding he
asked, "Should Christians support Dr. Billy Graham's New York Crusade
and his radio broadcast?" He answered that the modernists Van Dusen,
Sockman, and Bonnell should indeed support the effort. "They invited
Dr. Graham, they control the campaign. They will get most of the

213

results." That fundamentalist opposition to Graham was just beginning
was evident, as Rice promised to trace in coming issues of the Sword
of the Lord "the gradual evolution, the breaking down of convictions by
a movement called 'the new evangelicalis.fi. "' °

The defense of ecumenical evangelism would be made in those
magazines which had already become identified with the new evangelical
movement. Barnhouse commented- in Eternity that he was grieved be-
cause "true Christian brethren ... are criticizing Billy and even
writing and circulating scandalous untruths about him." He charged:
"Billy's detractors use insidious means. They use half-truths and
insinuations to draw false conclusions. They instill doubts in the
minds of believers and stir up enmity among brethren. They cry out
with loud voices that they are the true defenders of the faith; but
the net result of their campaign proves that they are just the opposite."
And later: "... The half dozen men who have banded together to
attack Billy Graham give no evidence of being impelled by the love of
Jesus Christ or led by the Holy Spirit." Rejecting the fundamentalist
criticism that in New York, Graham would be associated with men who
were not "fundamental," Barnhouse offered the following comparison of
the two groups of believers in New York:

Both readily testify to their belief that Jesus Christ is God
and that salvation is by the death of the Lord Jesus Christ.
But one group does not adhere, for example, to the doctrine of
eternal punishment. I take my stand against their position.
The other group says, "We believe in the person and work of
Christ," but they do not practice Christian love. Here I take
my stand against their inconsistency. From all that I read in
the Bible, it may go harder with the latter group at the
judgment seat of Christ than wrth the former.6

This passage reflects Barnhouse' s somewhat naive and patronizing

approach to men of other theological positions and also indicates

214

another way in which evangelicals justified fellowship, with groups they
had previously shunned. Barnhouse always insisted that the non-
orthodox churchmen with whom he was now involved were really converted
men. He always understated the distance between their position and his
own orthodoxy and placed great reliance upon personal contact and the
"witness of their spirit with his spirit," refusing to take seriously
their published opinions. He eventually came to narrow his criterion
of fellowship to adherence to the deity of Christ, and even this was
interpreted rather loosely. His report of an interview with G. Bromley
Oxnam revealed the extent to which he was able to blind himself to the
differences of belief between himself and one whom he wished to make
the object of his expanding fellowship.

Realizing the strength of the separatist appeal to many evangeli-
cals, the Graham organization expanded its campaign for the new evangeli-
calism and issued many specific refutations of the fundamentalist
version of the doctrine of separation. One of these was a defense of
Graham which appeared in Christian Life and was written by Paul Rees,
a past president of the National Association of Evangelicals and a
close Graham supporter.8 Rees. offered a. varied defense, but the main
points followed the lines already developed. Rees' primary complaint
was directed toward the application of the slogans of the controversies
of the previous generation. Modernist and fundamentalist had both been
wrong; the' battle-lines on theological 'musts'" had been made longer
than could be biblically justified, with fine points of eschatology
serving as tests of orthodoxy. That Graham had considerably stream-
lined the test was revealed when Rees provided the information that

215

Graham demanded only that the members of the executive committee be-
lieve in the deity and the atonement of Christ. Nonetheless, in the
following veiled words, Rees hinted that Graham's cooperation with
these non-orthodox clergymen might be somewhat less than sincere.
"And don't forget that Graham may grieve as heartily as anyone over
unfortunate happenings or situations arising in connection with his
'work. Outsiders do not know how many matters he personally corrects
and brings into line." Rees offered a specific defense of Bonnell's
presence on the executive committee. The famous Bonnell article on
non-orthodox views within the Presbyterian church was implied, though
not said, to represent views to which he did not personally subscribe.
No very careful discussion of Bonnell's theological position would be
made at any time during the crusade; he had been a major figure in
securing the backing of the Protestant Council.

Rees made a direct challenge to the opposition of Rice, indicating
the pivotal position which Rice was considered to occupy among fundamen-
talists. He quoted a passage from How To Have A Revival , a book
published by Rice ten years before, which seemed to indicate approval
of modernist sponsorship in revival campaigns. He quoted Rice:

When pastors plan for a union revival campaign and ask me
if some pastor who is reputed to be rather modernistic shall be
invited to join ... I answer that if such a pastor and people
are willing to hear my kind of preaching against sin; my kind
of preaching of the infallible Word of God; on the deity of
Christ; on His atoning death . . . then by all means encourage
them to come.?
*

Rice soon published an answer to the Rees article, charging him
with taking the passage out of context and misrepresenting the situation
in New York. He declared that the fundamentalist-modernist controversy

216

was not, in the past or then, concerned with minor points of difference
on eschatology. He charged that Rees had failed to face up to the
real issue and had not informed his readers of the true nature of the
sponsorship in New York. He wrote:

It is not a difference on some "fine points regarding the
Second Coming of Christ." It is not the failure of Dr. Ralph
Sockman, Dr. Henry Van Dusen of Union Theological Seminary and
Dr. John S. Bonnell to "assent to a 'pre-tribulational rapture'"
that makes good, Bible-believing Christians take offense. It is
rather the denial of the virgin birth, the denial of the verbal
inspiration of the Bible, the denial of the blood atonement, the
denial of the historic Christian faith in its absolute essen-
tials!

The fundamentalist-modernist controversy has never been
centered on the pre-tribulation rapture or fine points of the
Second Coming. '0

His complaint about the passage from his book which Rees had quoted was
that the paragraph before specifically limited the acceptable sponsor-
ship to Bible-believing churches. He claimed that the impact of the
total discussion was that if men were wrong in certain areas but. right
on the essentials, they sould be allowed to participate, but even then
they should only be invited to participate, not given a hand in running
the campaign. That Rice had taken a consistent position on the sponsor-
ship appropriate to union revivals is evident in his published comments
on the subject over the last twenty-five years. He had defined the

"fellowship" as had Bob Jones in his sermon, "After 58 Years," which

12 . .

is discussed in the previous chapter. The only serious question in

fundamentalist circles had related to those who were pentecostal or

very strongly Arminian, and Rice had taken the generally accepted

fundamentalist position that they shoi'^d be invited if they made no

issue over their distinctive doctrinal beliefs. The qualification that

any invited would have to listen to "my kind of preaching" was also a

217

far more real limitation with Rice than it would be with Graham. Rice
pointed out that he had not merely said "Gospel preaching," but had
specifically said "my kind of preaching against sin." Strong denuncia-
tion of modernism, liberalism, neo-orthodoxy , or any other variation
from rigorous orthodoxy would make any modernist sponsorship of Rice
most unlikely, and such careful distinguishing of orthodoxy from these
"false theologies" would make up some part of Rice's preaching in every
revival effort. Rice concluded by a review of the passages to which
fundamentalists pointed as the biblical basis for separatism.

The next month Rice broadened the attack on Graham and in an
article titled "Billy Graham Openly Repudiates Fundamentalism," re-
viewed the entire background of the division.13 Rice began: "For some
time Dr. Graham's friends and associates and spokesmen have been
speaking critically of fundamentalists and fundamentalism. That has
been true of Christianity Today, of Christian Life magazine, of
Dr. Paul Rees, Dr. Carl Henry, Dr. Bernard Ramm, Dr. Vernon Grounds,
and others." He first pointed out that Graham had entered into con-
troversy against the fundamentalists, though he had always been very
careful to avoid anything that might give offense to any other group.
He reported that often Graham and the Graham organization had asked
his assistance in correcting some misunderstanding or in defending some
policy which Graham had followed. He said: "Always the general im-
pression was that he himself must never stain his hands in controversy,
' though he wanted some of the rest of us to do it, and to defend him in
the press." Rice noted that Graham had never been critical of Roman
Catholicism, that he had never spoken out against "false cults" such as

218

Christian Science, and that he avoided controversy with the modernists.
Complained Rice, "The only ones that he does not mind offending are
Bible believers." He resented Graham's statement at Buffalo that the
NAE was at the crossroads and must avoid the extremes of diluted faith
or fundamental ism. Rice then made a charge that explained the bitter-
ness and intensity of the struggle and revealed why fundamentalists were
not content to quietly withhold participation in the crusades without
entering into public controversy over ecumenical evangelism. Rice
charged:

Dr. Graham is one of the spokesmen, and perhaps the prin-
cipal spark plug of a great drift away from strict Bible funda-
mentalism and strict defense of the faith.

There is such a drift. There have been many, many evi-
dences of it. There have been many spokesmen for the movement
in the last few years J4

The optimism in the fundamentalist camp, which had been stirred
by the resurgence of evangelism in the forties and pushed higher as
a fundamentalist evangelist again captured the headlines of the
national press, had turned to bitter disappointment as they saw the
evangelist become the chief spokesman of a movement which to them seemed
determined to eliminate the distinctives for which they had contended
throughout the century. The more the new evangelicals tried to make
fundamentalist theology acceptable to the broader community by what
they considered minor concessions, the more the fundamentalists re-
sented their efforts. And Billy Graham became the symbol of their
resentment, Far from leading a new fundamentalist crusade against the
leaders of modern, heterodox religion, Graham had united with those
leaders and was making the same charges against fundamentalism which
they had long made. He was leading a crusade, not against the

219

modernists, but against the fundamentalists. The controversy over his
Buffalo address and over the New York crusade would cut the last ties
which fundamentalism had with the broader church.

Rice again reviewed many of the events which have- been discussed
in this study and added some comments concerning Graham's relationships
which further increase our understanding of the split which had developed.
In a section headed "Dr. Graham's Friendship Has Continually Tended to
Avoid Out-and-Out Fundamentalists and Favor Compromisers, " Rice candidly
discussed Graham's longstanding preference for the company of non-
fundamentalists. He began:

I do not believe that men need to drift. I think that
Dr. Billy Graham has drifted in his alignment, in his friend-
ships, because he puts himself in the company of compromisers.
He avoided the fellowship of those who stood the truest. Here
I speak with real pain, as what I must say will grieve my
friend Dr. Graham. But it should be said.

He then related Graham's friendship with Charles Templeton, the evangel-
ist who, through attendance at Princeton Theological Seminary, had
been moved from orthodoxy and eventually left the ministry. He was
critical of Graham for publicly maintaining his. friendship with
Templeton, announcing it "particularly when he was in the presence of
modernists." Rice then reported that during campaigns throughout the •
United States, in cities "where there has been a strong out-and-out
testimony, a tremendous soul winner, Dr. Graham has tended to play down
the good soul winner and particularly to run with denominational
leaders." Rice complained that in Chattanooga, where Dr. Lee Roberson
built the Highland Park Baptist Churchy Graham would from the campaign
platform often refer "to his golf game with the First Methodist pastor,
or to some fellowship with the First Baptist pastor who was a

220

denominational leader, but little was said about the far greatest

churcfi in town with about the most tremendous soul -winning" program in

the world." Rice characterized the Mid-City Baptist Church of New

Orleans as "by far the greatest soul -winning church in the, area" but

reported that during the crusade there, "the boon companion of Dr. Graham

and the one to whom he often referred from the pulpit was not the

pastor of the great soul-winning church, but the cigarette-smoking

pastor who had been president of the Southern Baptist Convention and

had the most prestige in denominational matters and matters in city

leadership." Rice related feelings which other fundamentalists must

have shared as he wrote:

I love Dr. Graham. I have prayed for him devotedly for
years. ... I have answered his enemies, his critics. I have
excused his mistakes. I have urged everybody to pray for him.
I find no pleasure in the fact that all along I have known he
preferred the fellowship of others who did not fight sin so hard
and did not take such a plain stand against modernism. '^

Finally Rice asked, "The hanl words that Dr. Billy Graham says

about fundamentalists--to whom do they apply?" He first rejected the

notion that Graham's criticisms were meant only for Mclntire and the

American Council. Even in doing so, it was clear that the dispute had

pushed all of fundamentalism closer to Mclntire. Rice declared,

"Dr. Mclntire believes exactly what all the rest of us fundamentalists

believe." Rice wanted to make it clear that this was not a battle

which Mclntire faced alone.

When Dr. Billy Graham urged the National Association of
Evangelicals that they must take a middle course, avoiding "the
extreme fundamentalists which God has bypassed," he did not mean
'that the National Association of Evangelicals was about to follow
Carl Mclntire. No, he meant that the National Association of
Evangelicals had better beware not to be strongly fundamental or
argumentative about the faith.

221

Who then does Dr. Billy Graham impugn when he says that God
has bypassed extreme fundamentalists?! 6

Rice then attempted to enlist every fundamentalist and conservative
evangelical who had not already sided with Graham, and some who had,
-in the campaign against Graham. He indicated that Graham's remarks had
the widest possible reference. Many of the institutions end individuals
which he listed as targets of Graham's criticism would come out of the
division on the side of the evangelist, and others would try with great
difficulty to remain out of the controversy. Some, such as Bob Jones
University, the General Association of Regular Baptist Churches, and
the Temple Baptist Church of Detroit, were included quite appropriately.
Others, such as Charles Fuller, of the "Old Fashioned Revival Hour" and
the founder of Fuller Theological Seminary, and Dr. Theodore Epp should
have obviously been left out, as they were strong defenders of Graham.
Several, such as Moody Bible Institute and the Bible Institute of Los
Angeles (now Biola College), would long try to remain friendly with
both sides but would eventually move closer to the new evangelicals.
Whatever position they took in the controversy, the conservative insti-
tutions Rice had listed, and many he failed to list, such as Dallas
Theological Seminary and countless bible colleges across the country,
would not escape the effects of the division. The months ahead would
see a realignment among conservative evangelicals. Many old friendships
would be broken, and some new ones formed.

At the end of May, 1957, the Sword printed a critique of the new
evangelicalism which had been written by William Ashbrook, a fundamen-
talist, pastor in Columbus, Ohio, and an American Council spokesman.
He charged that the movement represented a "new neutralism," which sought

222

to be neither fish nor fowl but wished to sit out the great theological

battle of the day. Wrote Ashbrook:

Bible-believing Christians would do well to beware of this
New Neutralism for four valid reasons. First, it is a movement
born of compromise. Second, it is a movement nurtured on pride
of intellect. Third, it is a movement growing on appeasement of
evil. And finally, it is a movement doomed by the judgment of
God's Holy Word J'

In June, Rice acknowledged that some subscriptions had been canceled be-
cause of his stand against the ecumenical evangelism practiced by

1 R
Graham, but he only renewed his attack. Another June article re-
joiced in the souls saved during the New York crusade but was largely

19
devoted to criticism of the basis of the crusade. Still another

article during that month charged, "Ecumenical Evangelism: Union, at

20
the Expense of Truth, Is Treason." The article was written by funda-
mentalist evangelist James A. Stewart, then of Asheville, North
Carolina, and warned that evangelical Christianity was being "wedded
to modernism." Stewart labeled neo-orthodoxy "a subtle device of
Satan to woo into compromise the evangelical element." He declared:

The enemy has scored a great victory in breaking down the separa-
tion barriers between liberals and evangelicals. It is astound-
ing to see an outstanding modernistic minister and an outstanding
evangelical preaching from the same platform. In this unholy
compromise, nothing is said against the modernists, who deny the
very faith of the Gospel which is being preached.

Again the difference in the experiences of the new evangelicals and

the fundamentalists was reflected as Stewart complained:

. . . This compromise is a slap in the face to every evangelical
pastor who has sacrificed all the years to maintain a pure
evangelical testimony in his city, town, or village. Some of
these blessed men were ousted out of high influential churches
'. and saw their wives and children suffer in many ways through
their uncompromising stand. Any evangelist who unites with the
present-day Philistines insults the wisdom and integrity of
these men who have poured out their life's blood for the faith
once delivered to the saints. 2'

223

In the same issue. Bob Jones, Sr., was quoted:

Any evangelist that goes into a city under a ministerial union
where the pastors do not belong to the little fundamental groups
that still believe in the virgin birth, he will be selling
evangelism down the river and will be a party to a great crime
against God's faithful, uncompromising, orthodox, evangelical
Christians who are trying to hold in these communities a base of
testimony. "

In July the Sword carried an .article by Robert Ketcham, long time leader

of the General Association of Regular Baptist Churches, which analyzed

Graham's Buffalo speech and was strongly critical of Graham.23 The

same issue carried a notice that the Carolina Baptist Fellowship, a

small group of fundamentalist churches in that area, had repudiated

ecumenical evangelism and called upon Graham to reverse his direction.

Dr. Richard Clearwaters, president of the Central Conservative

Baptist Theological Seminary, reinforced his earlier criticism of new

evangelicalism with an article which was printed in the September issue

25
of the Sword. This Minneapolis seminary would make criticism of new

evangelicalism a major part of its minitsry.

The religious controversy became more and more a bitter personal

dispute. In October, John R. Rice reported strong efforts of the new

evangelicals to discredit the fundamentalist critics, particularly

pc

Dr. Bob Jones, Sr. " Rice called these efforts a "smear scheme." He
first noted that the biography 'of Graham which had been published the
year before, written by Stanley High, had been most uncomplimentary
toward Bob Jones University. By implication at least, the work sug-
gested that the school was a place of "religious bigotry," anti-
intellectual ism, and oppressive narrowness. Moody Monthly, a magazine
very favorable toward Graham, had complained that the treatment accorded

224

this "highly respected evangelical college" was "the most unpardonable

28
item in the whole book." Rice then related the strong pressures

which had been put upon Bob Jones University to secure permission for
a rally at the university in behalf of the No York crusade. Bob Jones
had refused permission for any such rally, and it was widely, though
falsely, reported in the evangelical press that he had forbade any stu-
dent to pray for Billy Graham. Dr. L. Nelson Bell, father-in-law of
Graham and founder of Christianity Today, entered the fray, circulating
a series of letters accusing Jones of jealousy, bigotry, and a Pharisai-
cal spirit. At the same time a student of the university had been
expelled, and his disaffection from the philosophy of the school became
an issue. He had attempted to promote the Graham organization in New
York. Bell took up the defense of the student and circulated letters in
which the student attacked the administration of Bob Jones University.
Two members of the co-operating board of the school joined the Graham
camp, and Bell circulated letters written by them. One of these board
members had been a strong critic of Carl Mclntire and an enthusiastic
supporter of the National Association of Evangelicals. The effect of
the Graham issue in moving the independent fundamentalists closer to
Mclntire and further from the broader church was reflected in the defec-
tion of this board member and the subsequent ill feeling between him
and the university. The dispute was eliminating the possibility of cor-
dial relations with both the NAE and the ACC and causing many evangeli-
cals to be hesitant to associate with either group. Rice considered the
attack on Bob Jones University "an attack on all of us who stand out-
and-out without apology for the Christian faith," an "attack on all who

22!

are still willing to be called fundamentalists and to contend for the

29

faith as we are commanded to do."

The conflict over the new evangelicalism was having wide effect in
conservative circles. Numerous denominations showed signs of the
struggle. In the Conservative Baptist Association the new evangelicals
centered around the Conservative Baptist Theological Seminary in Denver.
Vernon Grounds was now its president. Opposition to the new evangelicals
and to Graham centered in the Central Conservative Baptist Theological
Seminary in Minneapolis, headed by Richard Clearwaters, and in the
activities of G. Archer Weniger and the San Francisco Conservative
Baptist Theological Seminary. At the Los Angeles convention of the
Conservative Baptists in 1957, Dr. William F. Kerr, a strong fundamen-
talist, repudiated the new evangelical criticisms of fundamentalism in
a message titled "The Dangerous Trends in Modern Evangelicalism Which

Encourage Apostasy." He directly challenged the substitution of the

30
term evangel ical for the more rigorous fundamental ist label. In all

conservative evangelical circles, Christians were being called upon to

make a difficult choice.

In the Methodist Challenge, a paper he had long edited, fundamen-
talist Robert Shuler referred to Graham's Buffalo speech and agreed that
the National Association of Evangelicals stood at the crossroads but
urged that the fundamentalist direction be taken. Shuler warned that
"friendly co-existence between a modified fundamentalism and a lovely
and loving one-world liberalism" was a sign of the apostasy that would
come in the end time.

An event of October, 1957, further revealed the tension building
in conservative circles. The Dallas Baptist Association, the local

226

Southern Baptist church affiliate, ousted two fundamentalist churches
from its membership. " The basis of the ejection was failure to use
common sense in donations to missions. Jack Hyles, pastor of the
Miller Road Baptist Church, the larger of the two churches, reported to
John R. Rice that his church supported twenty-seven foreign missionaries
and gave $200 per month to the'Southern Baptist Foreign Mission Board.
The Miller Road Church had grown to 3,200 members in the five years of
its existence and for the past two years had led the Southern Baptist
Convention in the number of converts baptized into the church fellowship.
The background of the dispute was therefore similar to that which caused
the ouster of the Highland Park Baptist Church from the Chattanooga
Baptist group.32 The independent spirit and aggressive temper of the
fundamentalist was a threat to the smooth-running denominational
machinery. Hyles's background was solidly Southern Baptist, and he
had been received in many Southern Baptist circles. Three years before,
he had been a speaker at numerous state-wide functions, but denomina-
tional leaders were increasingly considering support of the Coopera-
tive Program a criterion of membership in the denomination, and Hyles
and other fundamentalist Baptists would find less and less acceptance
in Southern Baptist circles. These controversies added bitterness to
the dispute with the new evangelicals and with Graham. In March of the
following year Rice reported that Dr. Duke K, McCall, president of
Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky, had
called for the destruction ot two kinds of religion, fundamentalism

and liberalism.

By early 1958 the division was well under way, and many conserva-
tive evangelical institutions had chosen one side or the other. Some

227

continued to resist indentification with either side in the dispute
and hoped that the controversy might yet be avoided. In the coming
months any neutral position would be increasingly difficult to maintain,
and pressure from both sides would be exerted. Many evangelicals con-
tinued, nonetheless, to support the ecumenical evangelism of Graham and
repudiated the rest of the program of the new evangelicalism. The funda-
mentalists insisted that these two issues be kept togettier and, in doing
so, accepted a serious disadvantage in the struggle against the new
evangelicals.

NOTES
CHAPTER 12

]Rice, "Billy Graham's New York Crusade," Sword, April 19, 1957,
XXIII, 2, 6-8.

2Ibid, p. 2.

3Ibid.

4 1 b i d . , p. 7.

5Ibid., p. 8.

Eternity, May, 1957, p. 7.

7Eternity, October, 1953, p. 8.

8Paul Rees, "What About the Criticism?" Christian Life, April,
1957, pp. 14-16.

Rice, How To Have A Revival (Wheaton, Illinois: Sword of the
Lord, 1946).

10Rice, "Dr. Rees Defends Billy's Unequal Yoke," Sword, April 26,
1957, XXIII, 7.

"ibid.

12See page 199-201.

13Rice, "Billy Graham Openly Repudiates Fundamentalism," Sword,
May 17, 1957, XXIII, 2, 10-12.

14Ibid., p. 2.

15Ibid., p. 11.

16Ibid., p. 12.

17William E. A:
U May 31, 1957.

18Sword, June 7, 1957, XXIII, 4

17William E. Ashbrook, "New Evangelicalism: The New Neutralism,
Sword, May 31, 1957, XXIII, 2-4.

228

229

19
Rice, "Souls Saved in Billy Graham's New York Crusade," Sword,

XXIII, 1-4.

20
James Stewart, "Ecumenical Evangelism," Sword, June 28, 1957,

XXIII, 1, 4, 8.

Ibid., p. 8.

22Sword, June 28, 1957, XXIII, 4.

23

Robert T. Ketchum, "Billy Graham Finally Admits His Position,"

Sword, July 5, 1957, XXIII, 2, 10.

24Sword, July 5, 1957, XXIII, 2.

25

Richard V. Clearwaters, "Double Divisiveness of the New

Evangelicalism" Sword, September 6, 1957, XXIII, 1, 5.

Rice, "The Smear Scheme That Failed," Sword, October II,
1957, XXIII, 1, 10-12.

27Stanley High, Billy Graham (New York: McGraw Hill, 1956).

285wqrd, October 11, 1957, XXIII, 11; citing Moody Monthly,
November', 1956, p. 23.

Rice, "Smear Scheme," pp. 10-12.

30Sword, October 25, 1957, XXIII, 4.

31 Sword, December 27, 1957, XXIII, 3.

32

" See pages 153-156.

33Sword, March 28, 1958, XXIV, 6.

CHAPTER 13
THE NEW THEOLOGICAL ALIGNMENT

The tightening lines of division were indicated early in 1958.

The significance of the New York campaign had been understood by many

in the conservative camp, and many were ready to take a position in the

struggle. A group of fundamentalist evangelists met and constructed a

document criticizing the ecumenical evangelism of Graham and pledging

themselves to refuse any mixed sponsorship. The statement read in part:

I pledge myself that I will not accept a church meeting on
the invitation of any pastor that I know does not stand for the
inspiration of the Bible, the Virgin Birth, ... I will not
accept an invitation from any group of pastors if I know there
is one in the group that does not believe in the fundamentals
outlined in the preceding paragraph. ... I further pledge my-
self not to personally support financially or encourage anyone
else to support any program of any church which I know is con-
trary to the Gospel which I believe and preach. ... I am ready,
if my schedule can be satisfactorily arranged, to enter any door
that the Lord opens where there is an opportunity to co-operate
with faithful, orthodox pastors in helping to build up the saints
and win the lost to the Lord Jesus Christ.1

Graham's assertion that there was no consensus on what constitutes a
sound church had been directly rejected. These evangelists were cer-
tain that they knew what constituted a sound church and had expressed
a determination to work only with sound churches. The first two names
on the list were Bob Jones, Sr., and Bob Jones, Jr.; the third was
John R. Rice. The pledge was signed by many other fundamentalists
including Monroe Parker, Jack Shuler, Torn Malone, Oliver B. Greene, and
Joe Henry Hankins. Over 100 evangelists initially signed the list,

230

231

and others who had not been present added their names at later times.

The following month Rice printed letters from conservative leaders
who had been asked to comment on a Sword article. The article was one
which challenged Donald Grey Barnhouse's encouragement of evangelicals
to become more involved in broader church affairs. Rice obviously saw
the comments as commitments in the struggle with new evangelicalism.
The list of respondents indicates somewhat the fundamentalist leader-
ship in the controversy against the new evangelicals. Those who wrote
endorsing the Sword's separatist position included: Richard Clearwarters;
David Otis Fuller, pastor of the Wealthy Street Baptist Church of Grand
Rapids, Michigan; John Walvoord, president of Dallas Theological
Seminary; Bob Jones, Jr.; Tom Malone; Robert Rayburn, president of
Cedarville College; Ernest Pickering, a leader of the Independent
Fundamental Churches of America; Chester Tulga; Monroe Parker, presi-
dent of Pillsbury Conservative Baptist Bible College in Owatonna,

Minnesota; William Ashbrook, pastor of Calvary Baptist Church in

o
Colombus, Ohio; and Carl Mclntire. Nearly all of these were solidly

on the fundamentalist side and represented the extreme separatist

position. Dallas Theological Seminary would eventually move to a much

softer position than the other institutions represented, and would be

strongly influenced by the new evangelicalism.

In May, Rice suggested the struggle that was then going on in

conservative institutions in the Chicago area as plans for a Graham

crusade in that area were discussed, though the crusade did not come

about until four years later. The Moody Memorial Church of Chicago,

now pastored by the Englishman Alan Redpath, would enthusiastically

232

support a crusade, as Redpath was personally committed to the new
evangelicalism. Rice hoped that Moody Bible Institute would not offi-
cially participate and urged its president, Dr. William Culbertson, to
resist the tremendous pressures which would be applied. Wheaton
College, twenty-five miles west of Chicago, would of course be deeply
involved. Though Wheaton was "long the leading fundamental Christian
college in America," it had become "largely the center of the so-called
'new evangelicalism.'" Rice also expected the National Association
of Evangelicals to endorse the crusade. Though the NAE had been
founded as a "protest against the National Council of Churches," the
influence of Dr. Ockenga and of Billy Graham on its leadership was
strong and would bring it in.3 The fundamentalist attitude toward the
National Association of Evangelicals demonstrates the strategic weak-
ness of the fundamentalist position. Large elements of the NAE member-
ship, perhaps the majority, would repudiate most of the elements of
the new evangelicalism. They would have little sympathy with the con-
cessions which were made to science; they would continue to look on
all non-evangelical spokesmen with deep suspicion and would ignore the
efforts of the new evangelicals to construct a new social ethic, but
they would not repudiate Billy Graham. Had Graham not been the symbol
of the new evangelicalism, there would hardly have been an issue. As
it was, an issue was created which could not be avoided.

An editorial in HIS, the magazine of "the Inter-Varsity Christian
Fellowship, reflected the extreme sensitivity of evangelicals to the
question of separation. Enthusiastic supporters of Graham, the leaders
of the organization nonetheless felt it necessary to offer some

233

justification for disregarding the biblical injuctions concerning asso-
ciation with false teachers. Hi^ admitted that "the Bible does teach,
by precept and example, that Christians are to do the work of the Lord
without seeking the support or sponsorship of non-Christians." The
magazine declared that Graham's efforts might well be exceptions allowed
by God and that as God uses the wrath of men to praise Him, God may
have raised up "non-evangelical ■ ministers to sponsor the preaching of
the Gospel, to encourage their people to attend and be saved."4 That
the leaders of Inter-Varsity Christian Fellowship felt it necessary to
offer such a defense indicates the continued strength of separatist
thinking among their constituency.

The posture of the National Association of Evangelicals most fully
reflected this tension between the demands for more influence and a
wider fellowship and the desire to preserve theological integrity. At
the annual convention of the NAE in April of 1958, Dr. Paul Petticord,
president of the organization, attempted to set forth the basis of the
spiritual unity of evangelicals in a message titled "True Ecumenicity."5
Petticord first made the usual evangelical pledge to orthodoxy, adding
some words to suggest an evangelical social concern, then addressed the
question of theological controversy. He referred to the fundamentalist-
modernist controversy of the first half of the century, thanking God
"that there was sufficient strength among the Fundamentalists ... to
stand up to the challenge of the onslaughts of liberal theology." He
noted the tendency of some evangelicals to declare that "that day is
over" and declared:

... to assume that the day of controversy is over is only wishful
thinking. The devil is very astute and if he cannot win by one

234

method he will use another. The negative approach of liberalism
is past, hut a more sinister movement is on foot today and I
would say in the language of several writers that "we dare to
open the controversy again." Too many Evangelicals are interested
in living in a world without controversy and of course all of us
could hope that to be possible. The new controversy today is
over the same basic principles of faith as have always concerned
the simple relationships of God to man and man to God, but it is
dressed up in new garments and the new nomenclature is broad
enough to be either meaningful or meaningless. The new attack is
again against the Word of God, the Bible as the final authority.5

Petticord went on to warn of the dangers of ecumenical theology to

evangelicals because of its deceptive terminol- ;••>•/. He warned that the

ecumenical policy of inclusivism was designed to smother evangelical

testimony. He described the inclusivist program:

This is the new approach to include the Evangelical as part of
the whole without limiting him in his expression of a personal
witness, but at the same time careful ly guarding this liberty lest
it should begin to dominate the trend or the theological direc-
tion of the body as a whole. Theological liberalism attempted
to destroy evangelicalism; now neo-orthodoxy wants to contain
evangelism. 7

He cited a book published in 1949 by Walter Marshal Horton, Toward
A Reborn Church, as evidence of the ecumenical plan. Horton charted a
program to coax the conservatives back into fellowship with the ecumeni-
cal church through gradual nurture of contacts with evangelical spokes-
men. His program called for the cultivation of personal contacts with
evangelical leaders, the conduct of evangelistic campaigns by ecumeni-
cists "with an earnestness which their rivals , cannot fail to respect
and a constant willingness to collaborate on particular evangelistic
projects." He quoted Horton, "A generation of such tolerant, respectful
relations might actually lead to unity, since there is an almost,

invariable historic law that evangelistic movements become less

8.
separatist in the second generation.'

235

Petticord characterized the ecumenical approach to evangelicals as being

... to ameliorate the witness of the first generation by
temporizing circumstances so that the second and third genera-
tions will be able to sufficiently temporize their convictions
by the expediency of rationalization to feel that all who name
themselves as Christians should be recognized as Christians,
regardless of their particular interpretation of the basic
principles of theological faith.

We must awaken to the fact that once again the attack is
at the very foundation principles of the evangelical faith. Pos-
sibly the most popular method of limiting and ameliorating the
evangelical witness is to place the Evangelical in compromising
positions while complimenting him on his fundamental theology.
This is happening today in denominational and interdenominational
circles. 9

Petticord had expressed strong dissent from the major contentions of
the new evangelicals. He had discounted the return to orthodoxy, which
was so much hailed in new evangelical circles. He had seen the new
approaches to non-orthodox theologians as opportunities for contamina-
tion, and he dissociated himself from any notion that "the day of con-
troversy was over." At the same time he went on to express strong
support for the ministry of Billy Graham.

Petticord recognized that differences existed as to the methods
of organization which Graham followed in his crusades but maintained
that evangelicals should support him "because he is exalting the Lord
Jesus as the only Saviour, honoring the Holy Spirit and is basing his
authority in the Bible as the Final Word of God written." Petticord
saw Graham in the following perspective: °

The fact is that Dr. Billy Graham is larger than the
National Council of Churches or the National Association of
Evangelicals. He is not dependent upon organizations as such.
However, there are certain normal channels that make an entree
possible in the church or any other area of social living and
it happens that Dr. Graham's principle of co-operation through
a central committee has proven most successful in reaching a
greater number of people who are "in the church and yet not
nesessarily in Christ nor Christ in them. ... It is distinc-
tive that as an Evangelical, Dr. Graham does not have an organi-
zational relationship that would minimize his testimony. To

236

accept the "co-operation of" is different from becoming "a part
of" an organization.'0

Again we see the serious mental reservations about fellowship with non-
evangelicals which had earlier been expressed by W. K. Harrison. The
ecumenical evangelism of Graham is here accepted for purely pragmatic
reasons having little to do with the program of the new evangelicals.
The following year Stephen Paine, an NAE spokesman, more directly addressed
the controversy.

Stephen Paine was president of Houghton College and had been a
president of the National Association of Evangelicals. He was author
of the official NAE position paper, "Separation" Is Separating
Evangelicals.11 At a regional meeting during 1959 he attempted to place
the organization in the theological spectrum in the light of the
emergence of new evangelicalism. His address was titled "The Evangelical
Position of NAE."12 Paine reiterated the adherence of the NAE to the
"historic evangelical position" built upon the doctrine of the in-
fallibility of the Bible. He traced the challenge which liberalism had
made earlier in the century, and though he recognized the distinctions
between liberalism and neo-orthodoxy, he placed neo-orthodoxy basically
with liberalism. He then turned to examine the fundamentalist-
new evangelical dispute with obvious distaste. On the whole, he was
more critical of the "neo-evangelical s." He wrote:

[The neo-evangelical label] is claimed presently by a small area
of evangelical scholarship as a sort of hallmark of intellec-
tuality, a designation which marks its bearers as somewhat better
informed and more scholarly than the great body of "Bible-
believing Christians" who are not even cognizant of many of the
problems of biblical scholarship. ...

The term "neo-evangelical" has also been picked up from
' the opposite side by certain Bible-believing Christians who from

237

their pronouncements may be said, perhaps not unfairly, to con-
sider themselves a bit more orthodox, a bit more "fundamental
than others in their adherence to the doctrine of scriptural
inerrancy. These accuse the assumers of this dubious title of
abandoning strict insistence upon the infallibility of Scripture,
of holding that this does not really matter, of moving away
from the Church's historic position, the "evangelical" position.

For this attitude they have perhaps been given some occasion
by reason of the statements of the self-styled "neo-evangelicals"
to the effect that an effort will be made to "infiltrate liberalism,
and by reason of frequent derogatory remarks about "fundamentalists
and "fundamentalism," usually with a minimum of definition of

these terms. . _ ,

Thus far then, it seems to me, the excitement is largely one
of semantics and more definitions are urgently needed. It is
perhaps fair for people to ask, "Is neo-evangelical ism different
from evangelicalism? If so, is it still evangelical? If not,
why bother with a meaningless appellation?! 3

Other spokesmen would question, as Paine did here, whether there
was in fact enough difference between evangelicalism and fundamentalism
to justify the controversy between the two groups. Paine clearly re-
flected the disire of the MAE leadership to avoid the new evangelical
label. Most NAE figures were careful to see the National Association
of Evangelicals as broader than new evangelicalism. Harold John
Ockenga was one of the few NAE leaders who saw the organization as a
vehicle for the reform movement, Ockenga was one of the founders of
the organization and was always influential in its councils. He was
also the founding president of Fuller Theological Seminary and the
"father of new evangelicalism." He is considered to have originated the
term in an address at Fuller Seminary in 1947. Ockenga considered the
National Association of Evangelicals to be representative of the new
evangelicalism and did not hesitate to fully identify the organization
with the aims of the movement.

The NAE would never be united on the issues separating fundamen-
talism and new evangelicalism, and the orgainzation would therefore

238

not take e consistent position. It would continue to oppose the
National Council of" Churches, often quite noisily, and at the same
time co-operate enthusiastically in the Graham crusades, which in-
creasingly led evangelical churches into affiliation with the NCC
rather than the NAE. As Graham became more and more a spokesman of
main-stream Protestantism, the position of the NAE became more and
more ambiguous. United Evangelical Action, the NAE magazine, sometimes
reflected the new evangelical optimism concerning the proximity of neo-
orthodoxy to the historic evangelical faith and at other times warned
that the dialectic theology was merely a more subtle form of modernism.
United Evangelical Action in December of 1962 revealed that no con-
sensus had been reached when it ran opposing articles dealing with the
question of separation and fellowship. Walter Martin, a professor
at King's College, and a man who had been associated with Donald Grey
Barnhouse, presented "The Case for Fellowship." Lowell R. Humphries,
pastor of Berean Baptist Church in Eugene, Oregon, presented "The Case
for Separatism."16 Today, within the National Association of Evangeli-
cals there are still many who have been little affected by the new
evangelicalism and who repudiate most of its emphases. Most fundamen-
talists consider the judgment of Ockenga that it is an expression of
new evangelicalism correct, but they do so largely because the organi-
zation has always been strongly supportive of the ministry of Billy
Graham. Were the ecumenical evangelism of Graham to disappear as an
issue, the fundamentalists would probably be somewhat less hostile
to the National Association of Evangelicals, and the NAE would cer-
tainly move further from the Protestant establishment.

239

That support of Graham was the point of division between evangeli-
cal and fundamentalist was not the position of the fundamentalists alone, ,
however. L. Nelson Bell, the father-in-law of Graham, had written in
the Southern Presbyterian Journal in November of 1957 that the New York
campaign was doing much to clarify the theological situation. Bell
noted that Graham was being opposed by the Roman Catholics, the modernists
under the leadership of the Christian Century, and the fundamentalists
led by the Christian Beacon and the Sword of the Lord. He was naturally
most bitter about the fundamentalist opposition. He charged, "Not even
in the writings of the Modernists have we seen the venom and distortion
and untruths indulged in by some of these 'defenders of the faith' who
are a disgrace to the Gospel they claim to affirm." He spoke of "a
s..iall group of men who indulge in hate, distortion and untruths in
attacking Christians with whom they do not agree. They forget that
Christian love is spoken of as the first fruit of the Holy Spirit in
the lives of the believers." The suggestions which had been made in
Christianity Today that a new working coalition might be formed around
those willing to endorse the ecumenical evangelism of Graham were made
explicit here by Bell. He wrote:

. . . The New York Campaign is doing much to clarify the theologi-
cal situation in America.

The Roman Catholics reject the Gospel because they have
added something else.

The Modernists reject the Gospel because they do not
believe it.

The "Fundamentalists" reject the messenger because they
do not like his methods and the company he keeps.

t This leaves a great segment within the Church who are
being drawn closer together as they see God doing a marvelous
• work and who rejoice in this demonstration of the power of
• • united prayer, the power of the simple Gospel message, and the
power of the Holy Spirit working in the hearts of men J?

240

This new working coalition, by rejecting the old naturalistic liberalism
and the separatist fundamentalism, would draw together around the proc-
lamation of the kerygma by Billy Graham. While Bell lashed out against
modernists, he referred to a much narrower group than did the fundamen-
talists. They had long used the term to cover both liberals and neo-
orthodox theologians. Bell intended to proscribe only those rigorous
modernists who continued to preach the skeptical naturalism which had
been promoted by Fosdick and which was still promoted by the Christian
Century.

The complexities of the conservative evangelical situation are
suggested by consideration of the circumstances of the Southern
Presbyterian Journal . The magazine represented the conservative element
in the Southern Presbyterian church. The journal fought, non-orthodoxy
in much the same fashion as the fundamentalists Bob Jones or John R.
Rice. Nonetheless, Graham was strongly supported, and many editorials
were bitterly critical of the fundamentalist opposition to ecumenical
evangelism. The journal carried articles very critical of the litera-
ture of the denomination as being influenced by liberalism, and when
merger between the Southern Presbyterian church and less orthodox
Presbyterian bodies seemed certain, the journal became the voice of a
group urging that conservatives withdraw from the denomination. Bell
resigned from a position on the editorial board over the withdrawal
issue and was the strongest conservative spokesman urging orthodox
churches to remain in the denomination. Bell died during the summer
of 1973, having served the last year of his life as moderator of the
denomination and having traveled widely in an effort to hold churches
in the denomination. The career of the SojuthgniJ^byterian J°JJIMJ

241

since 1957 indicates again that support of Graham did not necessarily
mean acceptance of the new evangelical program. G. Aiken Taylor be-
came the leader of the movement to withdraw from the denomination,
became editor of the journal, and was in the spring of 1973 named first
vice president of the National Association of Evangelicals. ' Taylor had
complained in an article in 1958 that the influence of neo-orthodoxy had
greatly confused the theological situation by robbing theological
language of meaning. He wrote:

Neither Christ nor Calvary can any longer be held to be the
ground or basis of Christian unity. Today you must know what
Christ and which Calvary. Neo-orthoooxy has taken the last
significant"^ back into full theological agreement with the
historic Gospel by affirming that the liberal Jesus mustbe re-
£ ced with ?he living Christ. But neo-orthodoxy says ,r i the
next breath, that it does not mean the Christ of 17th Century
orthodoxy The issue, then, is not whether Christ will be the
only answer, but whether you mean this or that when you affirm
that Christ is the only answer.

The issue is not whether the Bible will be held to be the
Word of God, for all are earnestly affirming tne modern validity
of that historic terminology. The issue is rather what is meant
when you say that the Bible is the Word of God

The problem of unity is not what to do with believers who
remain at odds over the historical Jesus, but what to do when
Unbelief proclaims the Lordship of the living Christ

No area^er time of danger has come upon the Christian
Church tha the p sent. For^ today Faith cannot be distinguished
from Doubt by the language it uses or the confession i ma es.
Unbelief once kept itself aloof from the house hold of faith .
Today it wants to come into the house, take a place at the table
and crawl into bed with the children . . . without becoming a
member of the ^nnly.^.^ ^ ^ dHven ChHstians of every

faith to a re-alignment of their loyalties. A new evange ical
ecumenism is rising to meet the vapid ecumenism of radical

the0l°Thus' instead of fading into disuse, such tests as the so-
called five points of fundamentalism may loom in increasing
importance J °
Here. Taylor was calling for a renewal of the original goal of the
National Association of Evangelicals. The alignment which he pictured

242

was that of a solid evangelical unity against non-evangelicals. That
which increasingly dominated the thinking of the new evangelicals was
different. They sought a coalition of all those who would support the
ecumenical evangelism of Billy Graham and would repudiate outright
naturalistic liberalism. They would increasingly talk of the unity of
the great center of Protestantism and more and more bitterly reject,
separatist fundamentalism.

In January of 1958 Christianity Today analyzed the confused theo-
logical situation in an editorial titled "Theology, Evangelism, Ecumen-

1 Q • •

ism.' Though the editorial pointed in no certain direction, some

outlines of the new alignments could be seen. The editorial opened:

Significant ministerial realignments during the past five
years are pointing to our present religious situation as a time
of transition, the directions and outcome of which are still un-
certain. But the index to these realignments is not exclusively
theological. It includes attitudes toward evangelism and
ecumenism as well. 20

The editors then suggested that the clear dividing-line between evangeli-
cal and liberal which had existed since the early years of the century
had been considerably blurred by the emergence of neo-orthodoxy . The
church was no longer divided on a simple liberal-evangelical basis.
Attitudes toward evangelism also demonstrated the end of the simple
division. Where before modernists championed the social gospel and the
fundamentalists spent their efforts on personal and mass evangelism,
now "the gigantic evangelistic impact spearheaded by Billy Graham has
broken this division down, and has engendered new reactions." They went
on to point out that both sides of the old theological divide had
splintered over the question of mass evangelism. Looking at the
Protestant establishment, they declared:

243

Graham's spectacular evangelistic efforts have by and large
served to shape new alignments in regular denominations through-
out contemporary Protestantism. And these rearrangements are
becoming increasingly significant (as doctrinal constraints) as
more and more of the clergy sense the inevitable dependency of
biblical evangelism upon biblical theology. 21

While this editorial did not give clear approval or disapproval to the
new alignment, the concluding sentence read: "A tragic side of the
Modernist-Fundamentalism controversy was the resultant breakdown of
reciprocal communication; here, at least, lies the most fruitful avenue
to mutual conversation about realities that matter most."

The reports of the San Francisco Graham crusade in the May issues
of Christianity Today revealed more clearly the dimensions of the new
theological alignment and indicated that the campaign of the new evan-
gelicals for acceptance by the main-line churches was having some
success. The San Francisco crusade was given the widest church support
of any Graham crusade to that time, and the record-breaking attendance
reflected that fact. Christianity Today commented:

What, makes San Francisco significant is the definite theological
shifting and realignment that is taking place. . . . The division
was not the one so familiar to America of "liberal" and "evan-
gelical." The great central segment of Protestantism was committed
to a mass evangelistic effort as never before. Twelve hundred
churches had responded, 300 more than on opening day in New York,
. . . Endorsements came in from councils of churches and denomina-
tional offices, though not from all. [Emphasis added]22

The campaign received the endorsement of the Episcopal Diocese of

California and the Presbytery of San Francisco, and many Methodist

churches participated. The San Francisco and Oakland councils of

churches passed resolutions supporting the endeavor. At the same time

the opposition to the crusade was reported as coming from the extreme

liberals and extreme fundamentalists. Reports of future campaigns

244

would follow this pattern: the "great central segment" of the church

being brought closer together, with opposition coming from the liberals

and the fundamentalists. The lack of theological unity within this

central segment was not denied, but the suggestion that the area of

agreement was sufficient as the basis of a new coalition was made ever

more explicitly. Even stronger statements came in July, after the

San Francisco crusade ended.

There was a polarization of extremes; many of those opposed at
the beginning were more so at the ending. Yet in the center,
there seems to have taken place a wonderful warming and soften-
ing of hearts, . . . One suburban pastor spoke for many when he
said, "I can't agree with his whole theology, but 1 can't get
over the fact that God is with him."

At the end of eight weeks, the theological center was more
united than it had been in the history of the West. There was
a noticeable absence of things that have tended to separate
Christians. A real secret of Billy Graham's power was manifest--
his ability to bring believers into touch with each other by
omitting the things which divide them.

Today Christian unity in San Francisco is very real, for it
is established at the cross of Christ. 23

The new evangelical desire to restore evangelical orthodoxy to a

place of respectability within the major churches seemed to be close

to satisfaction. Nonetheless, there was a difference between gaining

support for the mass meetings and gaining acceptance of orthodoxy within

the established churches. Even the passage just quoted reflects the

obvious fact that dissent from Graham's theology was still general.

Graham himself had told a group of ministers during the first week of

the crusade:

"Some of the things I say will make you cringe. Just close
your ears and eyes and wait for something you can agree with.
I cannot devise a theology that -will please all of you, for we
come from different backgrounds. "24

245

Such an attitude toward theological difference as wide as that repre-
sented among the sponsorship of these meetings was the major point of
fundamentalist criticism. Christianity Today had judged the new theologi
cal alignment with reasonable accuracy and should not have been sur-
prised at the intensity of fundamentalist resentment. Fundamentalists
saw no sufficient change in the dominant thinking within the major
denominations to justify rejoicing over the unity of the theological
center. They considered liberal and neo-orthodox participation in the
crusades as a calculated move to fill their churches. They rejected
any suggestion that support of mass evangelism indicated any meaningful
warming of the theological temperature of the established church. The
non-orthodox acceptance of Graham was a reflection of their desperation
and the bankruptcy of their position, but it was not evidence that they
recognized their bankruptcy. The great theological center which the
new evangelicals now hailed was to the fundamentalists hopelessly com-
promised, if not actually apostate. Admittance to the mainstream to
the new evangelicals seemed the path to respectability, to the fundamen-
talists it seemed the reverse.

In the coming years the theological alignment described by
Christianity Today would influence the religious situation in America ■
more and more. The conservative evangelicals were divided between
those who had joined in the "great central segment" and those who reso-
lutely refused any alliance with the established churches. By far the
greatest number of evangelicals followed the direction urged by
Christianity Today. Communication between the fundamentalists and the
majority of evangelicals virtually ceased, and the fundamentalists

246

moved into greater isolation than they had before experienced. Though,
as we have seen, many conservatives who supported the ecumenical evan-
gelism of Graham expressed serious reservations concerning the rest of
the new evangelical program, most conservative institutions moved in
time in the direction which the new evangelicals urged. The strategy
of the fundamentalists and the extreme popularity of Graham made it
likely that institutions which tried to remain neutral would actually
shift slowly toward the new evangelical position. Generally, only those
institutions which adopted a stance of outright hostility toward ecumeni-
cal evangelism remained within the fundamentalist orbit. Those such as
Moody Bible Institute, Dallas Theological Seminary and Biola College,
which attempted to remain neutral in the dispute tended to adopt much
or the new evangelical philosophy. Fundamentalists came to look upon
all conservative institutions which were not explicitly fundamentalist
as identified with new evangelicalism. The new evangelicals of course
encouraged this view and ofte-n used the term evangelicalism to refer
to their position. Fundamentalists also distinguished their position
from "evangelicalism" and were content to use the broader label and
forfeit their claim on any but fundamentalist institutions. As early
as 1958 fundamentalist William Ashbrook wrote an important pamphlet
attacking the new movement under the title "Evangelicalism: The New
Neutralism." By the end of the decade one could speak of conserva-
tive evangelicalism as a theological position, but in terms of institu-
tions anc* personalities the term no longer could be used to describe a
group of Christians who recognized the credentials of one another.
Fundamentalists no longer had any dealings with evangelicals, and most

247

evangelicals took every opportunity to dissociate themselves from
fundamentalists.

NOTES
CHARTER 13

1 Sword, January 24, 1958, XXIV, 4, 8.

2Sword, Eebruary 21, 1958, XXIV, 1, 5, 7, 9.

3Rice, "If We Compromise, What Happens?" Sword , May 9, 1958,
XXIV, 2, 11-12.

4Sword, May 16, 1958, XXIV, 2, 5, quoting "With Billy Graham at
Yale," iinTTmagazine of the Inter-Varsity Christian Fellowship),
October, 1957.

5Paul Petti cord, "True Ecumenicity," United Evangelical Action,
May 15, 1958, pp. 142-147, 163.

6Ibid., p. 143.

7Ibid., p. 143.

8Walter Marshal Horton, Toward a Reborn Church (New York: Harper
&Bros., 1949), pp. 30-31.

9Petticord, "True Ecumenicity," p. 144.

10Ibid., p. 146.

^See pages 25-26.

12Stephen Paine, "The Evangelical Position of NAE," United
Evangelical Action, August, 1959, pp. 184-185.

"13Ibid.

14Interview with Clyde Taylor, Washington, D.C. , August, 1973.

15Harold John Ockenga, "The New Evangelicalism," Park Street
Spire, February, 1958.

16Walty;r Martin, "The Case for Fellowship," Lowell R. Humphries,
"The Case For Separatism," United Evangelical Action, December, 1962,
pp. 293-294, 304-303.

17L. Nelson Bell, "The New York Campaign—Sifting the Wheat,"
Southern Presbyterian Journal , July 3, 1957, pp. 2-4.

248

249

6. Aiken laylor, "Issues That Unite and Divide," Christianit
Today_, January 6, 19585 II, 16-17.

"Theology, Evangelism, Ecumenism," Christianity Today,
January 20, 1953, II, 20-23.

20

21

Ibid., p. 20,
Ibid.

22

23

24

Christianity Today, May 12, 1958, II, 28, 37.
Christianity Today, July. 7, 1958, II, 28, 29.
Christianity Today, May 26, 1958, II, 29.

25Wiliiam E. Ashbrook, Evangelicalism: The New Neutralism
(Columbus, Ohio: printed privately~"by Calvary Bible Church, 1970 ed.)

CHAPTER 14
WHY THE DIVISION?

This study has consistently attempted to give first place to
what the disputants themselves considered the issues. In tracing the
division which occurred within conservative evangelicalism between
1940 and 1960, the greatest emphasis has been placed upon explicitly
religious factors. Any view which fails to see the struggle primarily
in religious terms will be essentially faulty. Historians such as
G. K. Clark have pointed out that studies treating the history of the
nineteenth century often ignore the influence of religion in the lives
of many people. He further pointed out that social and -intellectual
historians have tended to concern themselves almost exclusively with
the "enlightened" religious figures with whom they were in sympathy
rather than with conservative figures such as Dwight L. Moody.
Studies which did examine the revivalists generally imposed upon the
subject a basically secular framework, dealing at length with the social
or political significance and ignoring the religious questions involved.
The men who have been the subjects of this study, especially the
fundamentalists, were in many cases hardly more secularized than the
revivalists of Moody's day. Many have offered explanations of
fundamentalism which ignore its essentially religious nature and the
pervasive influence of religion in the life of most fundamentalists.

250

251

It is obvious to most historians today that approaches to histori-
cal investigation which insist that all the data must be examined within
a single frame produced distorted pictures. Some have worked upon
theological fundamentalism using a psychological frame, and others have
insisted upon a socio-economic perspective. Few American historians
would today accept the analysis of denominational growth offered by
Richard Niebuhr without serious qualification. His one-dimensional
explanation of denomination origin as a function of economic stratifica-
tion would be deemed inadequate by most contemporary church historians.
One need only see the continued stability of the giant Southern Baptist
Convention to convince oneself that economic heterogeneity does not
automatically result in denominational division. At the same time,
examination of the split-ridden career of those who withdrew from the
Presbyterian church with Gresham Machen demonstrates that division may
be independent of social or economic considerations. Nonetheless, the
division of conservative evangelicalism was undoubtedly influenced
measurably by social considerations.

The image of the social context of the division which first comes
to mind is likely based upon the presumption of the higher socio-
economic standing of the new evangelicals, in contrast to the down-
and-out image of the fundamentalist. Evidence for such an image is
not lacking. Many fundamentalists churches are made up of working
class people. Fundamentalism as a form of popular religion has always
had considerable attraction for those in the lower economic and
social levels. Many fundamentalist pastors are poorly educated, and
many must hold secular employment to maintain their families. Often

252

fundamentalist churches begin in storefronts and private homes. Certain
fundamentalist denominations, such as the Baptist Bible group, have a
strong lower middle class orientation. It is also easy to emphasize
the more genuinely middle-class nature of evangelicalism. Most evan-
gelical leadership is adequately educated. It seems obvious that evan-
gelicalism has a strong middle class appeal. The evangelicals reach
for respectability, while the fundamentalists often seem to go out of
their way to generate an unfavorable impression. Fundamentalists con-
tinue to start Bible institutes, while evangelicals have been engaged
in an all-out drive to achieve accreditation for their colleges.
Numerous studies have pointed out that denominations with membership in

the lower income categories tend to be more conservative than more

3

affluent groups. Some have offered social and economic deprivation as

the basic explanation for the existence of fundamentalism. One writer
who was an associate of Vernon Grounds at the Conservative Baptist
Theological Seminary in Denver, but who later shifted to a more liberal
theological outlook, came to see fundamentalism in this context. In
1958 Sherman Roddy authored a bitter article for Christian Century in
which he described fundamentalism as the result of deprivation and

pointed to amelioration of the condition as the reason for the emergence

a.
of new evangelicalism.

Roddy had been through a deep personal struggle, and the picture
he presented reflected the intensity of that struggle. He first ex-
plained that there were many theological conservatives who subscribed
to the same theology as the fundamentalists, but who could not be
classed with the fundamentalists. He found the difference to lie in

253

the reason for the fundamentalists adherence to his theological symbols.

Viewing the fundamentalist, Roddy judged:

His defense depends upon a particular socio-psychological outlook.

He is compelled to defend tenaciously a cultural pattern which

seems to make life endurable for him. ... He is at heart a
victim of fear.

. . .this sort of person is a religious have-not because quite
often he is a psychological, social or economic have-not also.
Thus his theological structures are intended as external props
to his personality. . . . They 60 not give meaning to life; they
provide a way of enduring this life.^

After elaborating further this picture of fundamentalist deprivation,

Roddy suggested that the church need not give up on the fundamentalists,

however, because

. . . in fact fundamentalists live in this present age and thus
are not as static as they appear. In many ways they tacitly
accept the data of knowledge; they buy modern automobiles, tele-
vision sets and cosmetics, avail themselves of modern medicine
and surgery. They are benefitting from higher wages. Their
children are increasingly exposed to modern education beyond high
school. So it is not surprising that there is among them a
group of younger men who are impatient with fundamentalism as
they find it. They call themselves the new evangelicals.

The new evangelicals are often well trained scholars who
in consequence of their learning have shed much of the fear
implicit to fundamental ism. 6

In Roddy's view the upwardly mobile new evangelicals would naturally
be expected to shed the distinctives of fundamentalism, because these
unpleasant distinctives were the result of deprivation.

William G. McLoughlin described the view of fundamentalism pre-
sented in 1946 by Willard L. Sperry, the dean of the Harvard Divinity
School. Sperry 's attitude was typical of liberal churchmen of the
time. According to McLoughlin, "Sperry spoke patronizingly of the
'backward' and 'ecstatic' churches as though they were the last linger-
ing remnants of American illiteracy and underpriviledge, which would
soon be raised to the level of 'modern liberal Protestantism.'"

254

McLoughl in further noted:

Most liberal Protestants and most social scientists, noting
that the pietistic sects were popular among the poorer and more
socially backward segments of the population, assumed that
pietism was simply an immature form of liberal Protestantism.
Increased educational facilities, social welfare legislation,
and a higher standard of living, they contended would elevate
these benighted people to the point where they would join the
mainstream of American life and thought, and leave their primi-
tive religious notions behind. 7

Though McLoughl in saw that this view seriously underestimated the
religious base of fundamentalism and exaggerated the effect which
higher standards of living would have in conforming the fundamentalists
to the national pattern, he agreed that most fundamentalists did be-
long to this marginal group. He wrote:

On the whole the heart of this form of evangelical pietism lay
in that group of upper-lower class and lower-middle class people
in the nation's metropolitan centers whom sociologists and
social workers referred to as "the marginal group." Although
fundamentalism had its paupers and its millionaires, the majority
of its members lived on the fringe between the middle and lower
classes and constituted what might be called "the unsuccessful
middle class." Insecure, frustrated, feeling inferior and
different, most of them were struggling not so much to get into
a higher social bracket as to keep from sinking into a lower
one. . . . For solace and a sense of belonging they sought to
recreate in various store-front churches and gospel tabernacles
in the cities the simple, enthusiastic, friendly religion which
had been part of their community life in the country. As such
it constituted not a halfway house to the more liberal churches
but the focal point of a culture within a culture. ^

Thus McLoughl in presented the "classic",;liberal analysis of the
basis and appeal of fundamentalism. Fundamentalism was the natural
religion of a group which failed to operate successfully in the modern
world; it was a manifestation of insecurity and resentment of an in-
ferior status. Though the demise of liberalism and the conservative
drift of the churches since the Second World War has much softened

255

non-orthodox criticism of fundamentalism in many areas, many observers
.continue to assume that fundamentalism is essentially a result of
economic and social deprivation.

As Sherman Roddy suggested, those who gathered to the new evan-
gelical banner seemed to be situated higher in the socio-economic scale.
Most of the leaders of the movement received at least some of their
education at secular or "liberal" institutions. Despite the lack of
any real statistical evidence, most observers have concluded that
economic betterment was an important factor in the new evangelical move
away from the isolation of fundamentalism.

Nonetheless, important qualifications must be offered. The major
academic institution of fundamentalism, Bob Jones University, is solidly
middle-class in orientation. The world outlook taught by that institu-
tion reflects continued adherence to the traditional bourgeois values.
Discipline, hard work, the ability of the individual to succeed through
honesty and self-exertion, and those values which have been labeled the
"Protestant ethic" receive strong emphasis. In contrast to lower
middle-class resentment of authority-figures, Bob Jones University
carefully develops in its students an identification with the sym-
bols of societal authority. It is doubtful if anywhere in America
would a stronger endorsement of the traditional, and essentially middle-
class Protestant ethic be made than in the chapel of Bob Jones Univer-
sity. At the same time, Bob Jones University is completely within the
fundamental ,~t heritage and indeed most fully represents the inde-
pendent interdenominational fundamentalist tradition.

256

Also strongly challenging the assumption of deprivation as the
determinative factor in fundamentalism are the results of recent
sociological surveys. The most forthright denial of the traditional
view came from a survey done by Rodney Stark and Charles Clock. They
concluded: "In contrast with the general public, church members are
an extraordinarily affluent group; the poor are conspicuously absent
from the church rolls. Even in the fundamentalist sects, traditionally
thought to be the special havens of the poor, the majority of members
are financially comfortable."9 Though the effort which has come in
the last ten years to reach poorer groups through bus evangelism
promises to bring the less affluent groups into fundamentalist churches
in greater numbers, it seems to this writer that the "down-and-out"
image of fundamentalism has been exaggerated. While the broader
Protestant church has largely become upper-middle class and middle-
class, evangelistic fundamental churches continue to enlist lower
income groups. It is only in contrast to the totally bourgeois
Protestant establishment that fundamentalism appears to appeal only
to the economically deprived. Though no adequate study has been made
of separatist fundamentalism as a whole, using modern statistical
tools, the opinion of this writer is that such a study would reveal
the movement to include economic groups in rough approximation to
their proportion in the total population, with a measurable, but by
no means determinative, weighting toward the lower middle class. Some
segments of fundamentalism are almost totally working class, and
many fundamentalists churches are thoroughly middle class, but the
evangelistic thrust of fundamentalism produces a far more heterogeneous
pattern than that found in denominational Protestantism.

?57

Though the narrow economic perspective is essentially distort! ve,
social influences in a broader sense perhaps have been determinative in
the struggle. The most significant single difference between the new
evangelicals and the fundamentalists is that the former group rejects
the alienation that the latter group accepts. Some evangelicals have
made a distinction between "theological separatism" and "sociological
separatism," but generally the new evangelicals have challenged any
separatist exclusiveness. They have sought to find a bridge to the
broader theological -community, and they have sought to soften the funda-
mentalist injunctions against "worldliness" which would make them con-
spicuously different in a world given over to fleshly indulgence.
Probably the most helpful perspective is that used by Daniel Stevick,
once a fundamentalist, who has moved some distance from orthodoxy, in
his book, Beyond Fundamentalism.

Stevick saw the original fundamentalists as revolutionaries and
the softening of the new evangelicals as the natural tendency of a
revolutionary movement to lose its extremism over the years. He de-
scribed the first generation, which led fundamentalism from 1900 to
1930:

The earliest leaders of Fundamentalism were, for the most part,
active members of one of the larger established denominations.
... In many cases they were pastors of influential churches or
teachers in seminaries. They felt the threat of "Modernism" in
terms of loyalty to their churches, so this became a period of
intradenominational discord. The Fundamentalist program then was
to resist what seemed to be the calculated infiltration of
seminary faculties, mission boards, or denominational offices by
persons with dangerous leanings.

It was a time of freewheeling crusades and grandiose
claims. 11

He then quoted Furniss:

258

The leaders of the movement often used martial symbols to describe
the controversy, but in their minds it 'was not a skirmish on the
periphery of theology, a duel between a crusader and an infidal.
Rather it was a momentous engagement between two great armies for
a victory of eternal significance. 12

The fundamentalists lost the battles over the denominations, and the
most vigorous of them withdrew into independent organizations or set up
new denominations. Fundamentalism then developed in virtual isolation
after 1930. "Thus the center of gravity in Fundamentalism shifted to
its own institutions and into isolation from the affairs of the church
at large."

The second generation of fundamentalist leadership, which
developed between 1930 and 1960, grew in an environment much differ-
ent from that of their elders. Stevick described the new situation
facing these leaders:

Their problem is no longer that of crusading for the establish-
ment of a church or a school in which biblical inerrancy can be
freely taught. Rather, they work within institutions where "the
fundamentals" have been the accepted standards for as long as
they can remember. Their problem is one not of "coming out" and
impressing others with the need for doing so but of conserving
the convictions preserved by earlier separations. Their concern
is not to establish a position over against its opposite; it is
to nurture the people who have only known religious life within
a Fundamentalist context. . . .

. . . The present goal is not to separate but to attract
and to hold.

Another aspect of the second-generation problem is the
new search for status. The first generation scorned academic
standards and "worldly" Insignia of status. The anti-intellec-
tual ism of the movement was aggressive and unashamed. Much
learning was thought to lead to skepticism and atheism. The
Fundamentalists of the first generation were content with the
most unadorned worship and the starkest, prosiest publications.
They seemed to hold that culture was a subtle evil. But the new
generation is not content with this austere standard. [An
atmosphere of "perpetual revolution" is impossible to sustain.]
It wants what the first generation could only have regarded as
compromises. The first generation saw itself over against the
world; the second generation wants more acceptance by the world
than the first generation would have thought healthy for the life
of the spirit. 13

259

Thus the revolutionary enthusiasm of the first generation is seen to
mellow in the second. The issues which stirred the first generation,
and continue to be of concern to separatist fundamentalists, seem less
urgent to the second. Other concerns crowd their way into the life of
the new evangelicals. As revolutionaries, the fundamentalists con-
centrated their energies; as heirs of the revolution, the new evangelicals
want time for the broader activities of life. It is significant that
Rice, Jones, and Mclntire are men of the first generation, while the
new evangelicals are generally younger. Many of the differences between
the views of the fundamentalists and the new evangelicals can be ac-
counted for by this fact, though it would be inadequate to consider the
dispute between them merely in terms of a conflict between generations.
There are many fundamentalist leaders who, like the new evangelicals,
developed in the years after the great denominational struggles, and
many of those who came to champion the new evangelicalism had lived
through those years. The career of Donald Grey Barnhouse indicates the
inadequacy of a too simple generation-conflict analysis. The essen-
tial difference is not one of age but of experience. Fundamentalists
remain reactionary and radical, while new evangelicals have moved
into a position of considerable accommodation with the world around
them. "

Chester Tulga, a fundamentalist Baptist, offered in 1957 an
analysis of new evangelicalism which emphasized its second-generation
aspects. He observed that the knowledge of early fundamentalism
possessed by these younger theologians was "second-hand and derived
mostly from liberal histories of fundamentalism." When he turned to an

260

examination of the factors which led fundamentalism to become evangeli-
calism, he first spoke of "the wear and tear of time." He seemed to
posit as an inevitable process the decline of religious movements and
organizations from their original faithfulness. He wrote:

Church history records that every movement eventually
diminishes in vigor and strength of conviction; that the truths
held dynamically in the beginning eventually come to be held
formally. They cling to the forms and confessions and even sign
them every year, but the. spirit of the forms is no longer there.
. . . They speak the language of Canaan, but more and more the
words have a hollow sound. Just so, fundamentalism has become
evangelical ism.

No movement entirely escapes the deterioration which comes
with the passing of time, the emergence of new leadership which
has paid no price of suffering, and the coming of a new genera-
tion which takes for granted the truths which the fathers had to
fight for. Thus, fundamentalism became evangelicalism J 5

Tulga next suggested that the very success of fundamentalism in erect-
ing independent institutions and organizations, and their recent
prosperity and expansion, increased the danger of compromise. He cen-
tered on one of the most important forces upon the practitioners of
ecumenical evangelism when he wrote, "Societies and institutions get
larger and financially prosper; but as their money needs increase and
as their ambitions expand, they are more and more inclined to compro-
mise with the sources of their income."^ As evangelical enterprises
came to get a hearing from an ever-widening audience, the pressure upon
evangelical spokesmen to present their cause in a way to even further
enlarge that audience grew. The closer acceptance by the established
churches seemed to get, the stronger became the pressure to soften the
proclamation of those elements which tended to hinder that acceptance.
Organizations and individuals which had before depended on explicitly
orthodox support developed constituencies which included many who were

261

far from orthodox. This was most transparently true in the ecumenical
evangelism of Graham, .which came more and more to depend on the support
of the churches of the major denominations. We have mentioned that the
San Francisco crusade of 1957 gained much wider support than had the
campaign in New York. The extended campaign held in Australia during
1959 marked the beginning of near unanimous support by the major reli-
gious organizations. Sherwood E. Wirt commented in a report published
in Christianity Todax that the crusade there "had the church people of
Australia and New Zealand working and talking together and recognizing
each other as they had never done before."17 By the time of the
Australia crusade, Billy Graham's supporting constituency included all
of Protestantism and indeed much of secular society. The softening of
the distinctives of conservative evangelicalism by the new evangelicals
in the attempt to gain wider acceptance and the wider acceptance which
came as a result of the conservative swing in American Protestantism
following World War II reinforced one another, and both led the evangeli-
cals away from the increasingly isolated fundamentalists.

Any attempt to evaluate accurately the split which developed be-
tween 1940 and 1960 within conservative evangelicalism must give a
central place to the new evangelical desire for de-alienation from the
broader American culture, and to -fundamentalist emphasis upon separa-
tion. Many issues were involved in the controversy over the years. The
seeming weakening of certain evangelicals on the inspiration of scripture
and their openness on questions concerning the Bible and science were
examples of such issues. Nonetheless, the most bitter discussions,
and the circumstances which finally brought division, involved

262

the attitude which was to be taken toward individuals, organizations,
and the ethic of those outside the evangelical camp. Separation had
become a basic element in the fundamentalist mentality. Fundamentalists
considered neglect of the doctrine of separation the central reason for
the defeat of the conservative forces in the denominational struggles
of the early years of the movement. The new evangelicals,. on the other
hand, had come to consider the practice of separation the chief hin-
'drance to the restoration of orthodox theology to a place of respon-
sibility and influence within American Protestantism. Fundamentalists
felt the alienation from their society which genuine revolutionaries
always feel. The new evangelicals increasingly resented their aliena-
tion from the common tables of theological discussion. Edward John
Canell wrote explicitly that orthodoxy should be invited to join in the
theological discussions of the broader church, because it had disavowed
the separatism of fundamentalism.

During 1960 both Billy Graham and Edward John Carnell contributed
articles to the series published in Christian Century., "How My Mind Has
Changed." Graham as the leading mass spokesman of the position which
had come to be called evangelicalism and Carnell as one of the leading
scholarly spokesmen of the same movement, both reflected the deep
changes which had taken place during the previous decade. Graham's big
meeting in Los Angeles had come in the winter of 1949, and Carnell had
finished graduate school during the same year. Though Graham was careful
as always,, to leave room in many of his statements for varieties of

interpretation, the general tone of his article identified him with the

19
opinions more forcefully and bitterly stated by Carnell.

263

Graham's article manifested the humility which had long been his
trademark and disclaimed any pose as an expert on church affairs. His
unprepa redness for national exposure in 1949, and the consequent imma-
turity of some of his earliest statements, received considerable em-
phasis. Several times he expressed the wish that he could retract state-
ments he had made in those early years, though typically he did not
specify which statements. His broadened contact with the church at
large was reflected by the sources which he quoted favorably. A com-
mission appointed by the Archbishop of Canterbury and a statement of
the old Federal Council of Churches were quoted as authorities on the
definition of evangelism, though as usual the particular statement
quoted was a quite ordinary and orthodox one which could not fail to be
accepted by the broad middle segment of the church which had become the
basis of his ministry. A 1928 conference of the International
Missionary Council and Dr. Jesse Bader were quoted as authorities on the
Gospel. Graham addressed the criticism that a majority of his converts
were already members of some church, and his answer bears comparison
with a comment on the subject made early in the decade. In June of
1952 Graham had written to John R. Rice:

One of the differences in present-day evangelism and the old-
time evangelism is that our churches are filled with unconverted
people; 65% of our decisions are by church members who have
their name on a church roll but have never been born again.
Naturally, the modernists do not like their members to be dis-
turbed. 20

In 1960 he approached the same question in a more subtle fashion:

We are often criticized because the majority of those who
'.respond to the appeal are already members of a church. This is
true. But many have not stopped to realize that nearly half of
the church members of America rarely attend church. These fringe
people need a definite conversion experience or at least a re-
commitment to Christ. 21

264

He then quoted Elton Trueblood in support of his position. The
modernists who in 1952 did not want their churches disturbed by Graham-
type evangelism had by 1960 become the chief backers of the Graham
campaigns. This was also reflected by Graham's declaration that in the
Vast ten years his concept of the church "had taken on greater dimen-
sion." Graham wrote:

Ten years ago my concept of the church tended to be narrow
and provincial, but after a decade of intimate contact with
Christians the world over I am now aware that the family of God
contains people of various ethnological, cultural, class and
denominational differences. I have learned that there can even
be minor disagreements of theology, methods and motives but that
within the true church there is a mysterious unity that overrides
all divisive factors.

In groups which in my ignorant piousness I formerly "frowned
upon" I have found men so dedicated to Christ and so in love with
the truth that I have felt unworthy to be in their presence. I
have learned that although Christians do not always agree, they
can disagree agreeably, and that what is most needed in the church
today is for us to show an unbelieving world that we love one
another. To me the church has become a great, glorious and
triumphant organism. It is the body of Christ, and the humblest
member is an important part of that body. I have also come to
believe that within every visible church there is a group of
regenerated, dedicated disciples of Christ. 22

These words must be analyzed very carefully to discern their very

deep significance. On the surface, and in terms of public activity, he

had completely abandoned the separatism of fundamentalism. He had long

since proven himself ready to welcome the support of even the most

unorthodox Protestant churchmen. In the first paragraph here quoted he

was far from candid. There was nothing in the paragraph with which even

the staunchest fundamentalist would disagree. Graham knew well that the

real question was the relationship of evangelicals to those whose

theology differed in major, rather than minor, respects. Fundamentalists

had maintained, always in principle and usually in practice, that

265

cooperation between orthodox believers with the kinds of differences
"here described by Graham was not only permitted by Scripture but was
commanded. By his every action since the New York campaign, Graham
had declared his intention to work with the entire Protestant community,
and there was nothing here that qualified that intention in any way.
The second paragraph forthrightly described an inclusivist conception of
.the church. At the same time, careful attention must be given to the
sentence which ends the paragraph. Deep significance attaches to
Graham's words: "I have also come to believe that within every visible
church there is a group of regenerated, dedicated disciples of Christ."
It is the opinion of this writer that this sentence contains the reason
for much of the bitterness which the split within conservative evan-
gelicalism engendered. Neither Graham nor the rest of the new evan-
gelical leadership considered most of the non-orthodox churchmen with
whom they worked other than unsaved, unregenerate non-Christians.
Despite all that was written and all that was said about the conserva-
tive swing in the churches, Graham and the new evangelicals could not
possibly have been ignorant of the fact that the overwhelming majority
of denominational leaders considered much of Graham's preaching to be
sheer nonsense. In article after article and book after book, they
added so many qualifications to their "return to orthodoxy" as to leave
no doubt that the faith which they professed was not the same as that
which Graham proclaimed. Even today those evangelical leaders who are
genuinely 'orthodox privately recognize that many of the men who serve
or. the Graham committees are not Christians in the sense which Graham's
theology demands. Most evangelicals seemed to assume the calculating

266

stance adopted by W. K. Harrison more than to experience the deep inner
revolution of Donald Barnhouse. Though Graham undoubtedly developed
many genuine friendships with leaders outside of evangelical orthodoxy,
he too acted more from calculation than from warmth toward non-
evangelicals. Publicly, however, he had completely committed himself
to the mainstream. No less than Edward John Carnell, Graham had re-
pudiated separatist fundamentalism.

The article by Edward John Carnell appeared in Christian Century
the month following that written by Graham and even more clearly revealed
the distance which had come to exist between evangelicalism and funda-
mentalism.22 Carnell in fact based the entire article on the difference
between the two. It was his thesis that orthodoxy existed in both
classical and cultic forms. Evangelicalism deserved to be invited to
the discussions of theology largely because it had repudiated funda-
mentalism. Carnell had developed the same theme at greater length the

23
year before in The Case for Orthodox Theology. The book had been

extremely bitter toward fundamentalism, describing it as "orthodoxy gone

cultic," and its publication can be taken as the date at which the

split between evangelicalism and fundamentalism became complete. John R.

Rice attacked the book repeatedly in the pages of the Sword , and it was

defended by Harold Lindsell, the dean of Fuller Seminary, where Carnell

was teaching, and by Charles E. Fuller, the founder of the institution.

In Christian Century Carnell observed that there were two schools

of orthcc^xy and wrote:

The first school is cultic orthodoxy. The cult lives by
■ ■ mores and symbols of its own devising; it makes no effort to
join fellowship with the church universal. The more belliger-
ent elements in orthodoxy come from this school.

267

The second school is classical orthodoxy. The followers of
this position are impatient with the small talk of the cult; they
long for authentic conversation on historic themes. Most younger
men, especially those who have taken time to get a decent educa-
tion, belong to this school. 24

He further wrote, "I know of no enlightened conservative who wants to

perpetuate the ethos of fundamentalism." Though the struggle between

fundamentalism and modernism may have been "unavoidable" in the early

years, he saw "no reason why elements in the modern church should be

locked in prejudice." He judged the doctrine of separation to be the

dividing "line between evangelical ism. and fundamentalism and judged

fundamentalism in the following sentences:

... I concluded that fundamentalism had formulated its view of
the church with an eye to the interests of the cult. Fundamen-
talists believe they are superior because they have withdrawn
from the historic denominations; they imagine that they alone
glorify the gospel. Since the fundamentalist is deprived of the
happy security that comes from communion with the church univer-
sal, he must devise securities all his own. And the handiest
substitute—the one calling for the least energy and skill— is
to appear better by making others appear v/orse. . . .

. . . Ever occupied with the work of negative status, the
fundamentalist must blame others for evil; he must find a
scapegoat. ...

The fundamentalist continues to go it alone because he
fears that friendly conversations will lead to theological com-
promise. His fears trace to an imperfect grasp of the Word of
God. When we communicate with the church we do not communicate
with the errors of individual members. We communicate only in
the truth, the truth bequeathed by Christ and the Apostles.

Perhaps the day wil-1 come when the fundamentalist will
temper his separatism by the wisdom of the ages. Perhaps not.
But in the meantime let us not be too disturbed by his vanity.
The fundamentalist means well. He wants status in the church,
but he errs in the way he goes about getting it. Having missed
the way, he needs our pity, not our scorn. "

Camel! was writing for the liberal Christian Century. When this is

remembered and the last paragraph. in the preceding passage is carefully

read, the severity of the split between fundamentalism and evangelicalism

begins to be understood.

NOTES
CHAPTER 14

Goerge Kitson Clark, The Making of Victorian England (Cambridge:
Harvard University Press, 1962).

2

Richard Niebuhr, I he Social Sources of Denominational ism
(Hamden, Conn.: The Shoe String Press, "1929).

3
Lowell Streiker and Gerald Strober, Religion and the New
Majority (New York: Association Press, 197277"*^

Sherman Roddy, "Fundamentalists and Ecumenicity," Christian
Century, October 1, 1958, LXXV, 1109-1110.

Ibid.

6Ibid., p. 1110.

William McLoughlin, Modern Revivalism (New York: Ronald Press,
1959), pp. 464-465. ""

8Ibid.

g
Rodney Stark and Charles Glock, Patterns of Religious Commi t-
ment (Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press, 19687".

Daniel Stevick, Beyond Fundamentalism (Richmond, Va.: John
Knox Press, 1964).

1]Ibid., p. 21.

12

Norman Furniss, The Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy (New Haven.

Conn.: Yale University Press, 19~54), p. 37, quoted in Stevick,
Beyond Fundamentalism, p. 21.

13

Stevick, Beyond Fundamentalism, pp. 22-23.

14
Chester E. Tulga, "Fundamentalism: Past and Future," Sword,

October 4, 1957, XXIII, 1, 11-12.
15Ibid., p. 11.
16Ibid.
1 Christianity Today, May 25, 1959, III, p. 31.

268

269

1 R
Edward John Carnell , "Orthodoxy: Cultic vs. Classical,"

Christian Century, March 30, 1960, LXXVII, 377-379.

19.

try

20

'Graham, "What Ten Years Have Taught Me," Christian Century,
February 17, 1960, LXXVII, 186-189.

21

22

Sword, June 6, 1952, XIV, 9.
Graham, "Ten Years," p. 187.

Carnell, "Orthodoxy," pp. 377-379.

23Carnell, The Case for Orthodox Theology (Philadelphia:
Westminster Press, 1959) .

24,

25

Carnell, "Orthodoxy," p. 377.
Ibid., p. 379.

CHAPTER 15
THE LESSENING OF CONSERVATIVE ALIENATION

In the fall of 1957, Martin E. Marty, reviewing a book by Gabriel
Hebert, wrote in Christian Century: "Had a book titled 'Fundamentalism
and the Church' appeared a decade ago it would have dealt with a
virtually dead issue. . . . Most historical surveys suggest that by
1931 it had lost its political potency, having failed to capture any
major church body. But it persisted in newly organized churches and
in interdenominational agencies, and as an attitude toward the faith
of many Christians. ..." Marty went on to observe: "A transformed
fundamentalism has, in very recent years, presented itself as a potent
position. . . .' By the later years of the decade, the signs of
the continued strength of conservative opinion within the churches
were too strong to be ignored any longer. A survey of Protestant
ministers conducted by the Opinion Research Corporation for Christianity
Today during 1958 revealed that, when given the four labels, conservative,
fundamentalist, liberal, and neo-orthodox from which to choose,

seventy-four percent of respondents adopted one of the first two. Over

2
one-third continued to label themselves as fundamentalists. Even

after discounting the results of the survey in deference to the ten-
dency of pollsters to weight their findings in favor of those who com-
missioned the poll, it remains true that conservative thought in the
churches deserved far more attention than it ordinarily received from

270

271

secular or non-orthodox observers. The resurgence of evangelicalism
during the fifties forced reconsideration of the relationahip of "Bible-
believing Christians" to the rest of the church.

New evangelicals had made their greatest dissent from tradi-
tional fundamentalism in the approach which they made to those out-
side the evangelical circle. While the new evangelicals dismissed
the isolationism of fundamentalism, they did not set forth any con-
sistent position of their own. Few followed Donald Barnhouse in
urging that evangelicals become enthusiastic participants in the
activities of the National and World Councils of Churches. Host new
evangelical discussion of the question ended in a warning of the
dangers to theological integrity involved in organizational affilia-
tion with groups which were not explicitly evangelical and insisted
that the desired unity of the universal church was spiritual rather

than visible.

An article in Christianity Today in April, 1957 discussed the
ecumenical drive for organic church union in a typical evangelical
fashion. The article was titled, "Do We Want a Giant Church?" and the
first line declared: "I have come to the firm belief that ecumenicity
of spirit and purpose is more to be desired than organic union of our
American churches." The article ended: "The ecumenical movement,
.will serve both God and man best if it develops as a fellow-
ship of the spirit. A centralization of religious organization and
thought is as dangerous to Protestantism as similar trends are to
' democracy in the realm of civil government."3 Rarely did evangelicals
come to any other conclusions when examining the efforts of the

272

ecumenical movement. Openness toward dialogue with non-evangelical

theologians was a major element in the new evangelical revision of

fundamentalism, but this did not mean they wanted evangelicals to join

the organizations of the mainstream. Though their criticisms of the

ecumenical movement were usually less vitriolic than those of the

fundamentalists, the substance of the criticisms were usually little

different. No fundamentalist was a stronger critic of the ecumenical

movement than James DcForest Murch of the National Association of

Evangelicals, and his attacks on the "Coming Great Church" won general

approval from that group. Christianity Today reported the views of the

leadership of the NAE in 1957:

Spiritual unity is cited as evidence of genuine ecumenical
approach founded on the creedal statements given, rather than
on the basis of mere organization. In criticism from both the
fundamentalist right and the liberal left, NAE leaders find
evidence that they have followed a balanced course, freeing the
evangelical movement from the stigma of extreme fundamental istic
abuses, and guarding it from liberal and neo-orthodox wanderings.

This perhaps was near to a typical statement of evangelical views on
the subject. The close involvement with non-orthodox theologians ad-
vocated by Barnhouse and practiced by such evangelicals as Edward John
Carnell was to be avoided, but the belligerent stance of the fundamen-
talists was also avoided. This had of course been the attitude of
the leaders of the organization since its founding. Most NAE men would
cooperate with the non-orthodox Protestant leadership in the Graham
meetings but remained suspicious of contacts outside that framework.
They continued to warn against institutional, or what they called
"structural," relationships with non-evangelicals.

In the fall of 1957 Christianity Today commented in a report on
the Oberlin Conference of the World Council of Churches that the

273

discussions of the conference would raise certain questions in the minds

of evangelical Christians. First among these questions was the following:

Is it proper to speak of "a common faith" and of "a common
witness" in the absence of common doctrinal beliefs? Does not
the extent of doctrinal unity define the extent of common faith and
witness? Is genuine faith really devoid of intellectual content?-^

The following month the magazine criticized the "indiscriminate ecu-
menism" which had produced the merger of the United Presbyterian Church
of North America and the Presbyterian Church, U.S.A. Rarely did the
pages of Christianity Today reflect the optimism with regard to the
strength of evangelical witness within the major Protestant organi-
zations which was common in Eternity.

Paul Rees reviewed one of the major works by a new evangelical on
the subject of the unity of the church in March, 1958. The review of
Ecumenism and the Evangelical by Marcel! us Kik appeared in Christianity
Todaj/. The position of Kik was reported by Rees in the following words:

The Holy Spirit is the great unifier, and his ministry in this
regard consists principally in bringing the church to a oneness
of witness concerning Jesus Christ: "his pre-existence, incar-
nation, earthly life and ministry, crucifixion, resurrection , _
ascension, present reign and coming again." It is the "conflict
of voices" within the visible church respecting these central
matters that constitutes more of a scandal than the existence of
denominational groups. 8

Evangelical discussions of the ecumenical question generally were held
on the assumption that genuine unity in the churches could come only
if all factions accepted the principal elements of evangelical theology.
Visible unity which obscured important theological differences was con-
stantly warned against. Christianity Today complained at the absorption
of the International Missionary Council* by the World Council of Churches
in 19b8:

274

That the ecumenical movement's leadership places a one-
sided emphasis on unity at the expense both of the theological
and of the evangelistic and missionary responsibility of the
church is not an unfamiliar charge. The present WCC-IMC merger
simply multiplies the evidence of such scrambled values and
priori ties. 9

Any fundamentalists who charged that the njw evangelicals were never
critical of the liberal and neo-orthodox clergymen, who dominated
Protestantism, were certainly in error, but the criticism was muted
by their scholarly pretension, their desire for greater influence,
and their personal associations. The ambiguity of the new evangelical
position can be seen in the complaint of Camel! that "the ecumenical
movement extends a cordial welcome to open antagonists of the resur-
rection."10 Did not Graham's ecumenical evangelism do the same?
The attitude of most new evangelicals toward non-orthodox
clergymen must be judged insincere. The extensive mental reservations
which were necessary to justify the acceptance of liberal support for
the ecumenical evangelistic crusades of Graham render suspect their
loud call for a broader basis of Christian fellowship. They wanted
the benefits of admission to the theological mainstream but did not
want tc pay the price. Most of them regularly declared that the
purpose of contact with the broader church was to extend the influ-
ence of evangelicalism and to renew for fundamentalist theology a
claim for a central position in theological discussions. Usually
they insisted that such contact with the broader church would involve
no concession of significance on their part. Carnell offers an
exampl e :

The fundamentalist continue^ to go it alone because he
fears that friendly conversations will lead to theological
compromise. His fear traces to an imperfect grasp of the Word

275

of God. When we communicate with the church, we do not communi-
cate with the errors of individual members. We communicate only
in the truth, the truth bequeathed by Christ and the apostles:11

The reformers of fundamentalism were certain that they could return
orthodoxy to a place of respectability without sacrificing distinct! ves.
They thought they could influence non-orthodox clergymen without being
influenced themselves by these -same clergymen. The reception given this
reformed fundamentalism by the non-evangelical community reflected aware-
ness of this hesitance, and at several points this awareness threatened
the new evangelical endeavor.

The non-evangelical opposition to the attempt of the new avangeli-
cals to restore orthodoxy to a central position in American Protestant-
ism was led by the Christian Century. The influence of the Christian
Century had, of course, been greatly lessened by the demise of liberalism
as the dominant force in American theology, but the journal continued
to be a major forum for the discussion of political-ecclesiastical
affairs. The editors were critical of Billy Graham from the very be-
ginning, and their criticism of the evangelist increased as he became
more prominent, especially as he began to gain support outside the
evangelical circle. This opposition to Graham reached a high point
with the New York crusade of 1957. In an editorial titled "Fundamen-
talist Revival," the journal charged:

Behind the methods and the message of Billy Graham, behind
the revival istic phenomenon which has just extended its lease
on Madison Square Garden and emerged on national television, is
a portentious development to which the nation's press and most
of its churches are curiously blind. It is the attempted revival
of fundamentalism as a major factor in Protestant life. The
narrow and divisive creed which the churches rejected a genera-
tion ago is staging a comeback. Through skillful manipulation of
means and persons, . . . fundamental istic forces are now in

276

position aggressively to exploit the churches. If their effort
succeeds it will make mincemeat of the ecumenical movement, will
divide congregations and denominations, will set back Protestant
Christianity a half-century.

The editors observed that fundamentalism had had relatively little in-
fluence within the major denominations since its defeat in the twenties,
but that "now they have apparently decided that the time has come to
break out of their isolation and to contend once more for the soul of
American Protestantism." The Century warned that though fundamentalism

suffered an ignominious defeat a generation ago, "this time it has

12
reasons for anticipating a different outcome."

The following month in a review of Contemporary Evangelical Thought,

edited by Carl Henry, the Christian Century again warned of the danger

to the church posed by the renewed fundamentalist assault on the main-

13
stream. " In "Intruders in the Crowded Center," Martin Marty wrote:

Since the dying down of partisan theological controversy
before the Second World War, theologians and preachers have been
working in a congenial climate. . . . [But] unless we misunderstand
the aggressive actions of renascent extremists, a battle has
begun for control of the crowded center of Protestant theology.
Close quarters may make the battle even more sanguinary than were
the long-range duels of a generation ago.

Marty was generally critical of the efforts of the new evangelicals,

though he grudgingly recognized some scholarly worth in the volume. His

main concern was their effort to establish evangelicalism as a position

K

occupying the center of the theological spectrum. He approved the
selective "humility" of the writers and charged that this humility did
not "go with the presumptuousness of an over-all effort to pre-empt and
monopolize the center position of historic biblical Christianity." He
warned that their chances for success ^/ere high.

277

They are well financed, have outreaches through most modern media
of mass communication. They conform easily to popularly accepted
political, so.cial and economic viewpoints. Their reiteration of
"the Bible says" easily takes in authentic but ill-informed evangeli
cals, including prominent nontheological spokesmen. So this
neo-evangelicalism stands a good chance of "bumping" from the
evangelical center many whose claims to that position have long
historic roots. 14

However accurately Marty may have judged the prospects for new evangelical

success, his remarks revealed the apprehension which was felt in certain

non-evangelical circles at the prospect of a renewal of fundamentalist

revivalism in the churches. In March of 1958 the long-time editor of

the Christian Century was bitter in denunciation of the New York crusade.

Charles Clayton Morrison saw in Graham's revivalism the means

through which fundamentalism would make a bid for respectability. He

charged that "the whole body of New York Protestantism delivered its

faith into the hands of the fundamentalist cult." He spoke of a

"truncated evangelism" which was giving "a distorted, shallow, inflated

and unbiblical conception of Christianity." Morrison declared, "A

Protestantism that is fast outgrowing its own entail of literalism as

it moves into the ecumenical dimension of the Christian faith must not

allow the world to believe that fundamentalism represents its concep-

15
tion of Christianity." Just as Carl Mclntire complained that Graham

had allowed the impression to be given that he and Ralph Sockman pro-
claimed the same faith, Morrison complained that the Protestant estab-
lishment had identified itself with the faith of Billy Graham. It was
significant that Morrison's article was titled "The Past Foreshadows the
Future." For the genuine liberals no less than for the fundamentalists,
the modernist-fundamentalist division had become a permanent fixture of
American Protestantism, but even Christian Century would be forced

278

to recognize in the new evangelical effort important alterations in the

fundamentalist pattern. The first positive comment on the softening

within the conservative camp came in an article by Arnold Hearn in

March of 1958.16

"Fundamentalist Renasce:: cj" was a major statement on the new

evangelicalism and reflected the success which the spokesmen for the

movement had had in forcing non-evangelicals to take notice of their

efforts. Hearn first listed some of the signs of the renewed energy

of orthodoxy:

Away from the centers of ecclesiastical power and theological
education in the major denominations, there has been a remarkable
renascence of intellectual activity among fundamentalist scholars,
several of whom have studied in centers like Basel and Zurich and
hold doctorates from such places as Harvard and Boston. The
periodical Christianity Today has made its appearance, counting
President Eisenhower's pastor among its contributing editors. The
latest volume on apologetics from the pen of the president of
Fuller Theological Seminary has been put before 'the public by a
front-rank publisher. And Billy Graham storms city after city
under the auspices of the "respectable" churches. 17

Hearn offered the following evaluation of the young theologians:

A new generation of earnest intellectuals is appearing within the
ranks of avowedly fundamentalist groups and educational insti-
tutions. These thinkers do not personally bear the battle scars
which marked the leaders who engaged in the earlier and futile
fight to halt "modernism," and they are not themselves at present
embroiled in major struggles of ecclesiastical politics. A
strand of irenicism runs through their thought. They are able to
view other kinds of theology more objectively and appreciatively
than their predecessors did in the 1920s, and to deal responsibly
with these theologies from the standpoint of their own presup-
positions. A new flexibility is developing in their restatement
of Protestant orthodoxy and with it a capacity to make their case
in terms more sensitive to the integrity of the modern mind.
There are trends evident within contemporary fundamentalism which
may ultimately go much farther than they have yet gone, and which
are already beginning to render seriously inappropriate the
usually contemptuous attitude of non-fundamentalists.

Indeed, some will even object to calling these men fundamen-
talists, on the ground that such an alteration in outlook warrants

279

their classification as a different species. And if the term
refers simply to an anti -intellectual and rather venomous fanati-
cism, then these are not fundamentalists J8

He saw them as "endeavoring to disentangle the core of concern for un-
qualified theological orthodoxy from the more objectional traits which
have heretofore seemed inseparable from fundamentalism." Hearn thought,
"It would be well if the more liberal theological seminaries began to
•pay more serious attention to the fundamentalism they represent." The
article could hardly have been more satisfying to the new evangelicals
if they had written it themselves. Though Christian Century would of
course continue to be strongly critical of orthodoxy in general and con-
servative evangelicalism in particular, they had here recognized the
potency of the new evangelical effort. Hearn judged that there was a
chance that this "respectable" fundamentalism might catch on, that it
might "begin to exert a much larger influence beyond its own circles."
One sign of this extended influence was that certain new evangelicals,
such as Edward John Camel 1, began to be regular contributors to
Christian Century. Perhaps more important was the fact that Christianity
Today had become the most widely read religious magazine among Protes-
tant ministers.19 The strongest vehicle for the promotion of evangeli-
calism continued to be the ecumenical evangelism of Billy Graham and
the personal popularity of the evangelist.

More than any other single factor it was the tremendous success of
Billy Graham which thrust evangelical orthodoxy again into the national
spotlight/ While any thorough analysis of the reasons for Graham's
success lies beyond the scope of this study, several elements which
made that success possible have direct bearing upon its subject. Chief

280

among these was the conservative swing which the nation took following
the immediate post-war period. Reaction to the threat of communism
joined with normal post-war conservatism to produce a climate in which
conservative spokesmen in all areas were more often accorded a hearing.
Most evangelicals embraced a political and social philosophy which was
individualistic and conservative. The strong conservative tenor of
political life in the nation during the fifties went far toward lessening
the sense of alienation which conservatives had felt since their defeat
during the denominational struggles. Political liberalism had dominated
the national life since the depression and had strengthened the feeling
of alienation caused by the conservative's ouster from the denominations.
The stirring of nationalism involved in the war effort and general
sympathy with the conservative tone of political life after the war had
been very real solvents upon the sense of alienation. When the aware-
ness that liberalism in religion had been routed by something called
neo-orthodoxy suddenly was impressed upon the evangelical community in
the early fifties, it was easy for many to feel that the liberal direc-
tion in religion had been reversed, just as had been the liberal direc-
tion in politics, and that the churches were on the verge of a return to
full orthodoxy. The conservative swing of the nation as a whole follow-
ing the war both aided Graham in becoming a nationally recognized
religious figure and encouraged evangelicals to again feel an identifica-
tion with American culture.

Where in the thirties the fundamentalists stood largely alone in
preoccupation with religion, in the fifties there was a national reli-
gious boom. Many observers have commented upon the great popularity

231

of religion during the 1950s, but for the purpose of this study it is
most important to note that the boom worked strongly to lessen the
sense of separateness which evangelicals felt. The great expansion
in church building, in the publication of religious books, and above
all the prominence of religious spokesmen pointed to what has been
called the "revival of interest in religion." Bishop Fulton J.
Sheen, Norman Vincent Peale, and Billy Graham shared the national spot-
light throughout the decade, and many secular and liberal observers
found the three to have much in common. Most comment on the religious
boom centered upon its alleged shallowness and its easy identification
with American nationalism and "go-getter" business philosophy. Particu-
larly critical of the popular religious boom were the neo-orthodox
spokesmen. In many respects the "success-oriented" religious presenta-
tions of the fifties reversed the emphasis which neo-orthodoxy, and
fundamentalism, placed upon the distance of man from God. The dialec-
tical theologians often complained of the hint in much popular preaching
that God could be manipulated or enrolled as a supporter of human en-
deavors. Martin Marty wrote in 1958:

The theological revival of the past quarter-cent y has
found it necessary, in order to dissasociate itself fr the
packagers of deity, to re-explore the on-iginal Protest.:!
Reformation, the American realist tradition, and contemporary
Continental thought. Perhaps the renascence began with Walter
Rauschenbusch in his later thought. Reinhola Niebuhr and
Paul Tillich have had to move against the stream in asserting
the distance between man's aspirations and God's ways. The
produndity of their concern is seen in exaggerated outline
against the background of a nation whose religious symbols
remain Dr. Peale, Dr. Graham, Mr. Eisenhower or, on a lower
level, the producers of the "Man. Upstairs" kind of music. 21

One of the constant criticisms of the revival of the 1950s was that it

was a revival of "interest in religion" rather than a genuine religious

282

revival. Marty and others used the term "religion-in-general " to label
the object of this revival of religious interest, and in considering
the relation of Graham-style evangelicalism to the revival of the
fifties, he wrote in an article published in the Christian Century :

This is not the place to detail the assets and liabilities
of the phase of revival which lay on the border between religion-
in-general and churchly awakening. But several observations are
in order. First, despite its appeal to evangelical orthodoxy it
was extremely "liberal" in its high-Arminian view of man, preached
to men who could not well carry out its ethical injunctions in
nonindividual istic society. Second, despite its professed evan-
gelicalism it fit into the erosive pattern of the revival in
general by its glossing over the theological particularity to-
ward the purposive intent of securing decisions for Christ. (This
always struck me as sleight-of-hand ecumenicity which avoided the
basic issues at the heart of the ecumenical movement's problem
and potential . )

Third--and this needs no extensive elaboration—the secular
techniques of mass manipulation were employed here more obviously
than at other places in orthodox religious contexts, despite the
efforts of Graham and his followers to provide the "personal
touch." Finally, in the nature of the support given it, par-
ticularly in New York and San Francisco, was to be seen its pro-
found appeal: an attempt to deal with urban centers alienated
not simply from religion or from Christ but from evangelical
Protestantism attracts--almost pathetically—Protestants of di-
verse viewpoints. Many of them publicly disassociated themselves
from the message but supported the "crusades" on the theory that
"anything that is happening is better than nothing." What sepa-
rates this form of the revival from the others, if we take the
viewpoint of biblical religion, is this: despite the obvious
dangers of these techniques and despite its contributions to
religion-in-general, the kerygmatic center of the Christian faith
is proclaimed. Then, let the wind blow where it wi 11."

Marty was one of those neo-orthodox spokesmen who followed Reinhold

Niebuhr in criticism of ecumenical evangelism and the individualistic

message of Graham. Niebuhr had been one of the principal critics of

the New York crusade and continued to charge that Graham failed to take

t
seriously the corporate aspects of the problem of sin. The point which

is of* greatest interest here is that Niebuhr and Marty, and indeed

the Christian Century, represented a minority position. They were

283

criticizing the evangelicalism of Graham because of its identification

with national mores which they considered unacceptable, but which were

obviously held by a majority. How different from earlier liberal

criticism of fundamentalists as representatives of an insignificant,

obsolete position. In this situation the evangelicals were identified

with the national culture, and the critics represented a high-brow

minority given attention only by other high-brows.

In a Christian Century article in June, 1959, William McLoughlin,

a professional critic of evangelical revivalism, made comments which

reveal how fully the evangelicals could feel at one with the spirit of

their time. He first suggested their purpose: "Billy Graham and the

other revivalists of the 1950s seem to be leading the 'saving remnant'

of 'born-again' Christians on a crusade to combat secularism, moral

relativism, and 'liberalism' by a return to the old-time religion."

Then he wrote:

There are in any revival both social and theological impli-
cations which churchmen overlook at their peril. For example,
revivalists in the 1950s have usually related the gospel message
to the problems of the day by referring to Christianity as the
bulwark against communism, as the basis of the "American way of
life," as the cure for juvenile delinquency or as the spearhead
of an attack upon "godless" schools and colleges. They have
spoken of salvation as a way of obtaining peace of mind, peace
of soul and a sense of security "in these crisis times." On
occasion, revivalists have even given the gospel an economic or
political content—as when Billy Graham refers to the dangers of
government spending, the virtues of Chiang Kai-shek, the folly
of foreign aid, or the cross as the "only cure" for racial preju-
dice. 23

The social and political content of most, evangelical preaching was quite
in keeping with the dominant thinking of the decade and laid the basis
f or- the attempt to lessen the ecclesiastical isolation of the conser-
vative evangelicals.

284

Thus, in terms of the church boom of the decade, the widely
heralded "revival of interest in religion," and the conservative social
and political tenor of the period, conservative evangelicals began to
feel themselves a part of the dominant national culture.. Indeed, as
the prominence of Graham continued to grow, they could well imagine
that conservative evangelicalism would give direction to the renewal
of interest in religion and would again assume a position of national
leadership. Though the attitude toward the "return to orthodoxy"
professed by leading non-orthodox clergymen continued to be ambiguous
and though they carefully defended their institutional independence
through rejection of any except "spiritual" unity of the churches,
they began to feel that evangelical orthodoxy had again moved to
the center of the theological stage. Though some, such- as McLoughlin,
would complain that the new evangelicals emphasized "spiritual ecumeni-
calism" and opposed "organizational ecumenical ism," most denominational
leadership gave strong support to the Graham crusades and spoke with
respect of the efforts of the new evangelical theologians. Religious
leaders with little sympathy for their theology had, nonetheless, by
the end of the decade come to grant them serious consideration.

Writing in Church History, Dr. Sydney Ahistrom of Yale University
specifically excluded the new evangelicals from the blanket charges
which he made against fundamentalism. Ahlstrom wrote, "To my mind, a
person is not a Fundamentalist if he speaks to the issues, is aware of
the problems, is well-informed, and is in communication with those from
whom he dissents."24 By 1958, when he'wrote, most non-evangelical
spokesmen would have agreed with Ahl Strom's insistence that these

285

younger theologians must not be classed with the disreputable fundamen-
talists. Certainly, the new evangelicals were pleased with this differ-
entiation. Edward John Carnell wrote in the Christian Century of the
"anxious breed of younger men who are conservative in theology but are
less than happy when they are called 'fundamentalists. ' " Carnell went
on:

Since a goodly company of younger conservatives are trying
to restore the classical lines of orthodoxy, philosophy of reli-
gion ought to reserve the term "fundamentalist" for the person
who confuses possession of truth with possession of virtue or
who defends a separatist view of the church. Unlike fundamentalism,
orthodoxy does not effect a monopoly on truth. It rejects the
cultic quest for negative status; it is ready to entertain
friendly conversation with the church universal. 25

By 1960 the new evangelicals had largely convinced the leaders of main-
line Protestantism that they deserved to be spared the stigma of asso-
ciation with separatist fundamentalism, and it had become common for
non-orthodox spokesmen to distinguish between respectable and non-
respectable conservatives. The 1963 annual meeting of the National
Association of Evangelicals prompted even the Christian Century to
comment that that organization was "moving in a constructive direction"
and exercising "greater responsibility in citizenship and churchmanship

In 1952 Graham had held a crusade in Washington, D. C, and in 1960
he returned to that city. It was his first repeat of a crusade in a
major American city, and it prompted significant comments from Chris-
tianity Today. Many things had changed in the eight years; among them
the magazine noted:

Instead of a boyish tent-preacher who had recently been "puffed"
into a national phenomenon, he was now a mature, recognized
•national leader, the confidant of statesmen. The voice from the
""wilderness" of the Carolina coastal plain had become an inter-
preter of world events in the light of God's Word, and in the
context of his own conversations with queens and premiers.

„26

286

Eight years ago Billy Graham preached on the Capitol steps,
. . . This week he is speaking in Griffith Stadium, . .-.to per-
haps 25,000 or more. President Eisenhower had indicated he would
be among those in attendance. . . .

Eight years ago Jerry Beavan had to warn Graham and Barrows
that Washington would look askance at the brilliant ties and
gabardine suits they were accustomed to wearing. ... By con-
trast, last week several hundred Congressmen, diplomats and
government employees sat down at a banquet in the Presidential
Ballroom of the Statler Hilton Hotel, ... to hear Billy speak.
In a corner of the beveled invitation were the succinct words,
"Black Tie."

In 1952 the sponsorship of the crusade was limited to a
scattered group of churches, many of them small. This week the
evangelist was being welcomed by some 300 churches of the metro-
politan area, and unofficially by the Council of Churches of the
National Capitol Area, with solid support from its retiring
director, Dr. Frederick E. Reissig, and from its chairman of
evangelism, Dr. Clarence Cranford. Thus Graham's first return
visit to a major city to hold a crusade resulted in a significant
response from the main stream of Protestant churches. 27

NOTES
CHAPTER 15

Martin E. Marty, "Fundamentalism and the Church," Christian
Century, November 27, 1957, LXXIV, 1411-1413.

Christianity Today, March 31, 1958, II, 30.

3,1 Do We Want a Giant Church?" Christianity Today, April 29, 1957.
I, 8-9.

Christianity Today,' October 14, 1957, I, 28.

Christianity Today, November 25, 1957, II, 20.

Christianity Today, December 23, 1957, II, 21.

7Marcellus Kik, Ecumenism and the Evangelical (Philadelphia:
Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1957).

Christianity Today, March 31, 1958, II, 35.

•'Christi anity Today, June 9, 1958, II, 22.

"* Chrj s t i an i ty Today , September 1 , 1 958 , II, 18.

11 Christian Century, March 30, 1960, LXXVII, 379.

12"Fundamentalist Revival," Christian Century, June 19, 1957,
LXXIV, 749-750.

13Carl F. H. Henry, ed.: Contemporary Evangelical Thought
(Great Meek, N.Y.: Channel Press, 1957).

'^Martin E. Marty, "Intruders in the Crowded Center," Christian
Century, July 3, 1957, LXXIV, 820-821.

15CharlPs Clayton Morrison, "The Past Foreshadows the Future,"
Christian Century,, March 5, 1958, LXXV, 271-274.

16Arnold Heam, "Fundamentalist Renascence," Christian Century,
April '30, 1958, LXXV, 528-530.

17IbicL, p. 528.

287

288

18T. . .

Ibid.

19Chri5tianity Today, March 31, 1958, II, 30.

20
Martin E. Marty, "The Triumph of Religion-in-General ,"

Christian Century, September 20, 1958, LXXV, 1016-1019.

21Ibid., p. 1019.

22

Martin E. Marty, "A Revival of Interest," Christian Century,

November 12, 1958, LXXV, 1299.

23 -

William G. McLoughlin, " i he Revival of Revivalism," Christian

Century, June 24, 1959, LXXVI , 743-745.

24
Sydney Ahlstrom, "Continental Influence on American Christian

Thought Since World War I," Church History, September, 1958, pp. 257.
25Christian Century, August 26, 1959, LXXVI, 971.
26Christian Century, May 8, 1963, LXXX, 607.
27Christianity Today, June 20, 1960, IV, 23-24.

CHAPTER 16
CONCLUSION

By 1960 evangelicalism had become established as a theological-
ecclesiastical position distinct from fundamentalism. The origin of
the division between these two groups has been traced from the early
days of the National Association of Evangelicals. As has been men-
tioned, the great majority of the conservative theological community
followed Graham and the new evangelicals, though often rejecting im-
portant elements of the new evangelical program. By 1960 communication
between evangelicals and fundamentalists had generally ended. Most
institutions had definitely made a choice between the two groups, though
a few continued to attempt friendly relations with both groups. Evangeli-
calism had matured as a position in the eight years between 1952 and
1960. The next eight years would bring developments which would render
untenable many of the new evangel ical assertions. Liberalism would
again become the dominant force in the country, and the political, social,
and theological climate would be much altered from that which prevailed
during the Eisenhower years. The newly restored evangelical sense of
belonging would be seriously tested as radical views gained ever wider
acceptance in American life. As radicalism was installed as the "cutting
edge of change," evangelicals became increasingly preoccupied with the
question of their relationship to the dominant culture. In general,

289

290

they were unwilling to return to the isolation of earlier years and
found themselves strongly influenced by secular Americanism.

The return to orthodoxy widely hailed by evangelicals during the
fifties proved to be very shallow indeed. The strength of basic liberal-
ism in the American Protestant establishment had been underestimated,
and it came forth during the sixties in ever more radical forms. In
most American discussions, the contest between the Barthian and Bultman-
nian version of dialectical theology ended in a victory for tiemythologyz-
ing. Even during the fifties it should have been apparent to the new
evangelicals that the strongest American spokesmen of neo-orthodoxy,
such as Reinhold Niebuhr, felt little of the genuinely conservative
spirit which moved Barth. In time, Tillich, Christian atheism, and the
"death of God" theologians revealed the mental set of American theologi-
cal discussion. While the "death of God" was never more than a toy for
the seminarian, its patent radicalism and the extent to which it was
given serious consideration in Protestant circles challenged the new
evangelical view of the growth of conservative influence in the major
church groups. As the American theological picture became deeply blurred
in the middle of the decade, most observers despaired of predictions
concerning the direction which the theologian... would move. Few evangeli-
cals continued to feel that there was any conservative swing in the
church as a whole, though many drew solace from the fact that small
evangelical groups were being raised up within several of the denomina-
tions.

Though theological discussion revealed no clear trend during the
mid-1960s, the ecclesiastical trend was only too clear. The spokesmen

291

for the leading denominations seemed unable to move quickly enough in
placing themselves in the vanguard of political and social revolution.
The National and World Councils issued an unending series of proclama-
tions on every conceivable question, inevitably taking a non-conservative
position. The deep social division of the country was reflected in the
life of the church, where in many cases the clerical leadership found
itself opposed by the lay membership. The war in Vietnam became the
most bitter controversial question of the decade, and it often divided
evangelical from non-evangelical clerymen. Billy Graham nominally took
no position on the political questions involved, but his public state-
ments reveal consistent support of the military endeavor. Most evangeli-
cals were more vocal than he in support of the war effort. At the same
time, evangelical cooperation with non-orthodox churchmen who opposed
the war exposed the new evangelicals to charges by the fundamentalists
that they were not seriously patriotic. The evangelicals often gave
excuse for these charges in their enthusiasm for the terminology of
the revolutionaries. Many evangelicals adopted the slogans of the
protesters and especially framed their appeal to young people in a
manner calculated to resemble that of the dissident groups. Their hair
and clothing styles emphasized their desire to embrace the youth culture,
though this desire involved them in considerable ambiguity. Most
evangelicals managed to survive the stormy decade without resorting to
the isolation which the fundamentalists never left. In greater or
lesser am/ mt they were influenced by the radicalism of the period.
Many -evangelicals retreated from separatism in personal conduct to the
extent that the appearance, music, and recreational styles of the

292

secular youth culture were adopted totally. Often, only discourage-
ment of the ultimate act of physical intimacy between unmarried persons
remained of the considerable edifice which had been the fundamentalist
doctrine of personal separation from the world.

Evangelicalism continued to prosper during the decade and began
to merge with the growing charismatic movement. The relationship be-
tween these two movements is beyond the scope of this study, but the
extent to which the two actually merge will be one of the most impor-
tant religious questions of the present time. As the broad Protestant
church became more and more radical, evangelicals again examined the
possibilities for explicitly evangelical cooperation. The mammoth
Congress on Evangelism held in Berlin during 1966 suggested the direc-
tion which such examination may lead. Directed by Billy Graham and
Dr. Carl Henry, the meeting aspired to be a world conference of evangeli-
cals and to a considerable extent fulfulled that aspiration. The
Christian Century has several times expressed concern that this evangeli-
cal ecumenism might well become a serious competitor to broader ecumen-
ism. That this is a real possibility is indicated by the continued en-
thusiasm within the National Association of Evangelicals for ecumenism
among evangelicals. During 1962 there was much discussion within the NAE
of the dangers posed by indiscriminate evangelical affiliation with church
council organizations. Unsuccessful efforts from within that organiza-
tion were made to convince Billy Graham to exercise greater care in his
relations with non-evangelical institutions and individuals. Referring

293

to evangelical fellowships among those involved in missions, one NAE
source wrote: "They would be the means of promoting a positive, evangeli-
cal program among missions of like precious faith and give the nationals
something of a tangible nature to show what we mean by the differences
which 'exist between evangelicals and liberals. Such a fellowship

would also be a deterrent to further infiltration and regulatory mea-

2
.sures that might otherwise be initiated by the affiliates of the WCC.

These comments reflected the continuing suspicion with which many evan-
gelicals viewed the activities of the National and World Councils. As
traditional evangelicals and pentecostals have moved closer together,
symbolized by the much-publicized mutual admiration of Graham and
Oral Roberts, the establishment of a broad evangelical ecumenism with
some form of organizational expression has seemed ever more likely.
The wide influence of the charismatic movement in the mainline denomina-
tions introduced another factor which will affect the shape of any
evangelical alliance.

Whatever direction evangelicalism moves, it is clear today that
the hopes of the new evangelicals that orthodoxy might be restored to
a dominant position within the major churches have not been fulfilled.
Orthodoxy has become respectable again, and evangelical theologians are
treated with a grudging respect, but the major Protestant institutions
remain unmoved by the new evangelical assault. The activities of
evangelicals continue to receive their primary inspiration from inter-
denominational evangelical sources or from explicitly evangelical
organizations within denominations. The denominations continue to be
suspicious of the activities of evangelicals. At the same time

294

evangelicals have been influenced by their contacts with non-evangelical
clergymen. Fundamentalists charge that this influence has been exten-
sive. Many evangelicals deny that there has been any such influence.
A careful study is needed to examine the extent to which current evan-
gelicalism has weakened its fundamentalist theological foundations and
the changes which have come in its ethical, social, and political
^philosophy.

Evangelicalism has provided itself with very attractive packaging.
It has adopted enough social philosophy to claim to be "enlightened,"
while it continues to pay homage to values which many Americans wish
they could still observe. The movement makes a tremendous effort toward
enlisting young people, insisting that one can be a good Christian and
still not be a "square." Above all, the movement still has Billy
Graham, one of the most widely popular men in American history. Deter-
mined liberal opposition to Graham has all but ceased. Even the
Christian Century finds favorable observations to make concerning the
evangelist. The bitterness which that journal expressed toward Graham
because of his veiled endorsement of the Vietnam War ended' with the end
of American involvement in that struggle. Among secular Americans Gra-
ham is always listed as one of the most popular men in the country, and
media criticism of him is rare. Two recent authors based their discus-
sion of the 1972 national election on the symbolism of Billy Graham as a
spokesman for middle America.3 Whatever direction evangelicalism is
moving, no 'one can doubt that Billy Graham continues to be its foremost
spokesman.

In strong contrast to the record of evangelicalism, the history
of fundamentalism since 1960 has been one of deepening isolation. While

295

most new evangelical spokesmen looked, after 1960, toward their rela-
tionship with the church beyond conservatism,. fundamental ists narrowed
their concern to an ever smaller section of conservative orthodoxy. By
1960 evangelicalism had been clearly distinguished from fundamentalism,
and most evangelical authors turned to other topics. Criticism of
evangelicalism continues even today to be a major fundamentalist activity,
A considerable body of literature has been developed which explicates
the doctrine of separation from the fundamentalist perspective with the
alterations made by the naw evangelicals specifically in mind. While
fundamentalists continue to be aggressively evangelistic and most funda-
mentalist groups are growing at a rapid rate, they control only a very
small segment of American Protestantism.

The shift away from conservatism which came in America after 1960
reinforced the fundamentalist sense of alienation. The violent social
strife of the past decade greatly intensified the apocalyptic elements
in fundamentalist thinking and brought those politically oriented funda-
mentalist leaders, such as Carl Mclntire, once again into the national
spotlight. While the attention of the public was occasionally focused
upon fundamentalists who engaged in demonstrations concerning secular
issues, most fundamentalist leaders worked in obscurity. Rarely today
do the national media take any notice of the specifically religious
efforts of the separatist fundamentalists.

Though fundamentalism has ceased to command national attention,
the movement continues to demonstrate considerable strength. Espe-
cially among fundamentalist Baptists, the development in the last fifteen
years of the concept of the very large, super-aggressive local church

296

promises to bring spectacular growth during the next years. It is not
uncommon for fundamentalist churches today to have several thousand
members. Each year Christian Life magazine lists the largest 100
churches in America, and each year the great majority are fundamentalist
churches. Nine of the ten largest churches in America are independent
fundamentalist churches.4 With over 5. COO. students, Bob Jones Univer-
sity is the largest non-denominational Christian college in America,
and many new fundamentalist colleges have been started in recent years.
At the present time, fundamentalism continues to display considerable
energy and continues to experience numerical growth.

Fundamentalism also continues to resist vigorously the tendency to
soften its doctrinal and moral distinctives. The dispute with the new
evangelicals has sharpened the fundamentalist's awareness of his differ-
entness and has renewed his commitment to separation. Every exposure of
change in the position of some new evangelical leader is taken as evi-
dence of the certain deterioration which comes with failure to observe
doctrinal and moral separation. While the new evangelicals widened the
circle of fellowship to include many who were far from evangelical, the
fundamentalists narrowed it to exclude those who were evangelical but
not separatists. While many evangelicals adopted the styles of the
secular world in an attempt to escape the stigma of differentness,
fundamentalists condemned the new styles as symbolic of rebellion
against authority. Many evangelicals complained loudly about past
efforts to'construct and impose objective standards of behavior in
Christian circles, but fundamentalists generally turned to the task
feeling renewed urgency because of the sweeping changes which began

297

during the sixties. The catalogue of one fundamentalist college which
opened its doors in 1971 expressed the determination to resist con-
formity to these changes:

Lynchburg Baptist College believes that Christians should manifest
loyalty to the Lord .Jesus Christ in every area of- their lives.
Students will not engage in gambling, dancing, profanity, or
attendance at motion-picture theaters. Students will refrain
from the use of tobacco, alcohol, and drugs. Students are ex-
pected generally to avoid anything which tends to identify them
in their own, or someone else's mind, with the youth counter-
culture of modern society.

Men are not to have long hair, beards, or mustaches. This
regulation means that sideburns may not be longer than the bottom
of the earlobe, and that hair may not come down over the top of
the ear or touch the back of the collar. Students must come to
meals, classes, and chapel properly dressed. For men, shirts
and ties are worn. Modesty is the rule which governs the dress
of young women. ^

That this college enrolled over 800 students in its third year suggests
the continuing appeal of fundamentalism. That the church services of
the Thomas Road Baptist Church of Lynchburg, Virginia, are broadcast
over television throughout the United States suggests the continuing
energy of fundamentalists in evangelization. The Thomas Road Baptist
Church has grown from a beginning in 1956 to an average weekly atten-
dance of over 7,000. Elmer Towns has recorded the recent growth of many
fundamentalist churches which parallel that of Thomas Roaa. Though
fundamentalism no longer exerts measurable influence upon the dominant,
national culture, it continues to be a determinative influence in the
lives of millions of Americans. The severe social discord of the
sixties and the radicalism of the national mood reinforced the isola-
tionism of the movement and generally served to render the influence
of the movement upon its followers even more dominant.

298

From the beginnings of the National Association of Evangelicals,
there was ambiguity in the attitude which it would take toward those
outside the conservative camp. The abrasive opposition which Carl
Mclntire and the American Council of Christian Churches offered to
liberal and non-evangelical churchmen would not be copied by the men of
the NAE. At the same time the early leaders of the National Associa-
tion of evangelicals formed the- organization with the specific intent
of challenging liberal control of religious life in America. During
the decade of the forties, the attitude of the NAE, and of most con-
servative evangelicals, toward non-orthodox religious spokesmen remained
one of hostility. Fundamentalists and evangelicals cooperated within
the National Association of Evangelicals, and despite the competition
between that group and the American Council of Christian Churches, it
remained possible to describe a conservative-evangelical camp roughly
as "those who were in fellowship with Moody Bible Institute." However
much or little emphasis they might place on doctrinal or moral separa-
tion, all within this camp worked in relative isolation from the main-
line denominations and without any attention from the national media.
Toward the end of the decade, renewed interest in fundamentalist evange-
listic activity prompted hope that a conservative swing in the nation
might restore some of the influence which orthodoxy had once possessed.
The emergence of Billy Graham as a nationally recognized evangelist
and the increasing willingness of non-orthodox groups to participate
in his evangelistic activities forced upon the conservatives a re-
evaluation of their isolated position^

During the same years, voices were being raised from within con-
servatism which called for significant alterations in the traditional

299

fundamentalist stance. Carl Henry, Harold Ockenga, Bernard Ramm, Vernon
Grounds, Edward Carnell , and Donald Barnhouse were among the men press-
ing for a reformation of fundamentalism. During 1955 and 1956 the
tension became severe in the conservative-evangelical camp. These "new
evangelicals" made broad challenger, to long-accepted elements of the
fundamentalist ideology and claimed Billy Graham as a spokesman for
their position. Fundamentalist leaders such as Bob Jones and John R.
Rice condemned the new position as a betrayal of the faith and con-
tinued to see in Graham a possible champion in a renewed frontal attack
upon modernist domination of American religion. During 1956 Graham
identified himself fully with the new evangelical group, and in October
of that year Christianity Today appeared, becoming the chief spokesman
for the new position. In 1957 the New York crusade brought a final
division between Graham and new evangelicals and the fundamentalists.
For the New York campaign Graham sought and won the endorsement of
the major Protestant organizations and from that time on worked more
and more under the auspices of the established churches. Most conser-
vatives followed Graham, though expressing strong reservations about
most elements of the new evangelical program. Within the evangelical
group, emphasis was no longer placed upon separation, and the young
people under the supervision of the evangelicals entered the turbulent
sixties with the leadership of their elders often impaired by ambiv-
alence. Despite much talk concerning the need for a broader fellow-
ship, most within the evangelical group continued to work with non-
evangelicals only within the context of a Graham-type crusade.

300

The influence of evangelicals within the major denominations continues
to.be negligible. The Congress on Evangelism of 1966 probably points
toward greater ecumenism within evangelical ranks, and this will
probably drain much of the remaining enthusiasm for ecumenism with the
broader church. The element in the situation which is least predic-
table at this point is the impact which the charismatic movement will
have on evangelical Christianity. It is possible that evangelicalism
may be so influenced by its affiliation with the charismatics that it
will undergo deep alterations. While this may restore some of the
emphases of fundamentalism, institutionally it will lead evangelical-
ism even further from fundamentalism.

Fundamentalists emerged from the struggle with Graham in almost
total isolation. Resolutely conservative, they faced the decade of
the sixties with a thoroughly consistent, if extreme, viewpoint which
was rendered more extreme by the events of the decade. While most fun-
damentalists realistically abandoned any hope of influence upon national
life, some pursued political programs led by men such as Carl Mclntire.
Most fundamentalist leaders turned to explicitly religious concerns,
only occasionally becoming involved with the total community on some
matter of general local interest. Above all else, fundamentalists
turned to the task of building churches. The past fifteen years have
witnessed dramatic proof of the vitality of the fundamentalist message
in the contemporary world. Several fundamentalist denominations and
literally thousands of large fundamentalist churches have been built
since the Second World War. Bob Jones University moved to Greenville,
South Carolina in 1948 and has continued in that location to prosper,

301

today enrolling 5,000 students on a well furnished campus. .Numerous
fundamentalist colleges have been started, and several, including
Tennessee Temple in Chattanooga and Baptist Bible College in Spring-
field, Missouri, have grown to considerable size. The most spectacular
growth has been within the Baptist Bible Fellowship. Formed from a
group of churches which had their origins in the ministry of J. Frank
Morris, the fellowship began in .1950 and today reports well over one
million members. Fundamentalism has never solved the problem of
internal dispute, and probably never will, but oftentimes the ten-
dency to divide has been a promoter of growth. Whereas division has
sometimes resulted in weakness, it has at other times resulted in
purification and a renewal of energy. While no one today predicts the
imminent emergence of organized fundamentalism as an influential
element in American Protestantism, neither would anyone' predict the
imminent disappearance of fundamentalism.

NOTES
CHAPTER 16

"'christian Century, March 2, 1966, LXXXVIII, 264.

2

'Milton Baker, "Cooperation," discussion paper of National

Association of Evangelicals Mission group, distributed privately,

April, 1962.

3
Lowell Streiker and Gerald Strober, Religion and the New

Majority (New York: Association Press, 1972").

Elmer Towns, Is the Day of the Denomination Dead? (Nashville,
Tenn.: Thomas Nelson Inc., 1973T, p. 26.

Lynchburg Baptist College, Catologue 1973-74 (Lynchburg, Va.)
p. 26.

Elmer Towns, America's Fastest Growing Churches (Nashville,
Tenn.: Impact Books, 1972); The Ten Largest Sunday Schools (Grand
Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1969); Is "the Day of tne Denomina-
tion Dead?

7

'George W. Dollar, A History of Fundamentalism in America
(Greenville, S.C.: Bob Jones University Press, 1973), p. 219.

302

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
Background

Cauthen, Kenneth. The Impact of Arcs r i c an Relig ious Liberalism.
New York: Harper, 1962.

DoWolf, Harold L. The Case for Theology in Liberal Perspective.
Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1959.

Feinberg, Charles L., ed. The Fundamentals for Today. Grand Rapids,
Mich. : Kregel , 1958.

Hordern, William. The Case for a New Reformation Theology. Philadel-
phia: Westminster Press, 1959.

McLoughlin, William G. The American Evangelicals. New York: Harper,
1968.

. Modern Revivalism. New York: Ronald Press, 1959.

Marty, Martin E. The New Shape of American Religion. New York:
Harper, 1959.

Stark, Rodney, and Glock, Charles. Patterns of Religious Commitment.
Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press, 1968.

Stevick, Daniel. Beyond Fundamentalism. Richmond, Virginia:
John Knox Press, 1964.

Streiker, Lowell, and Strober, Gerald. Religion and the New Majority.
New York: Association Press, 1972.

Sweet, William Warren. Revivalism in America. New York: Scribner's,
1944.

. The Story of Religion in America. New York: Harper, 1939.

Weisberger, Bernard A. They Gathered at the River. Boston: Little
Brown, 1958.

303

304

Fundamenta 1 ism

Bartlett, Billy Vick. A History of Baptist Separatism. Springfield,
Mo.: Roark, 1972.

Cole, Stewart. A History of Fundamentalism. New York: Smith, 1931.

Dol 1 a r , George W . A History of Fundamentalism in America. Green vi lie.
S.C.: Bob Jones University Press, 1973.

Furniss, Norman. The Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy. New Haven,
Conn.: Yale University Press, 1954.

Gasper, Louis. The Fundamentalist Movement. Paris: Mouton, 1963.

Gatewood, Thomas, ed. Controversy in the Twenties. Nashville, Tenn.:
Vanderbilt Press, 1969.

Harden, Margaret. A Brief History of the Bible Presbyterian Church.
Collingswood, N.J.: Christian Beacon, 1966.

Harrington, C. E. "The Fundamentalist Movement in America." Ph.D.
dissertation, University of California, 1959.

Harris, R. Laird. "Barthian Theology Today," Sword of the Lord,
February 18, 1955, XXI, 1, 5-7.

King, Larry L. "Bob Jones University: The Buckle on the Bible Belt,"
Harper's, June, 1966, pp. 51-58.

McBirnie, R. S. "Basic Issues in the Fundamentalism of W. B. Riley."
Ph.D. dissertation, University of Iowa, 1952.

Machen, J. Gresham. Christianity and Liberalism. New York: Macmillan,
1926.

Mclntire, Carl. Twentieth Century Reformation. Collingswood, M.J.:
Christian Beacon, 1950.

Mattson, Vernon Eugene. "The Fundamentalist f';id: An Intellectual
History of Religious Fundamentalism in tns United States."
Ph.D. "dissertation, University of Kansas, 1971.

Nelson, Roland. "Fundamentalism and the Northern Baptist Convention."
Ph.D. dissertation, University of Chicago, 1964.

Pentecost, J. Dwight. Things To Come. Findlay, Ohio: Dunham, 1958.

Perry, Everett L. "The Role of Socio-Economic Factors in the Rise

of American Fundamentalism." PhTD. dissertation, University of
Chicago, 1959.

305

Peterson. Walter Ross. "John Roach Straton: Portrait of a Fundamen-
talist Preacher." Ph.D. dissertation, Boston University,- 1965.

Rice, John R. Our God-Breathed Book--The Bible. Murfreesboro, Tenn.:
Sword of the Lord, 1969. " """

Sandeen, Ernest R. "Fundamentalism and American Identity," Annals of
American Academy of Political and Social Science, LVr (January,
1970), 387.

. The Roots of Fundamental^ s in: British and American Mil-

1 enarj an"i srn, 1 800-1 930 . Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
1970.

Tinder, Donald. "Fundamentalist Baptists in the Northern and Western
United States." Ph.D. dissertation, Yale University, 1972.

Van Til, Cornelius. The New Modernism. Philadelphia: Presbyterian
and Reformed Publishing Company, 1947.

Young, Edward J. Thy Word Is Truth. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdrnans,
1957.

New Evangel icalism vs. Fundamentalism

Ashbrook, William E. Evangelicalism: The New Neutralism. Columbus,
Ohio: printed privately by Calvary Bible Church, 1970 ed.

Barnhouse, Donald Grey. "One Church," Eternity, July, 1958.

"Bibliography on New Evangelicalism," Central Conservative Baptist
Quarterly, Fall, 1960.

Camel! , Edward John. The Case for Orthodox Theology. Philadelphia:
Westminster Press, 1959.

_. "Orthodoxy: Cultic vs. Classsical," Christian Century,
March 30, 1960, LXXVII, 377-379.

Clearwaters, Richard V. "The Bible: The Unchanging Evangelical
Volume," Sword of the Lord, May 4, 1956, XX, 1-2, 5-7.

. "Double Divisiveness of the New Evangelicalism," Sword

of the Lord, September 6, 1957, XXIII, 1, 5.

"Dare We Re>.ew the Modernist-Fundamentalist Controversy?" Christianity
Today, in four parts: "The Modernist Revision," June 10, 1957,
'.I, 3-6; "The Fundamentalist Reduction," June 24, 1957, I, 23-26;
"The Contemporary Testoration ," July 8, 1957, I, 16-18; "The
Evangelical Responsibility," July 22, 1957, I, 23-26, 38.

306

Erickscn, Millard. New Evangelical Theology. Westwood, N.J.: Revel 1,

196S. "'" ~*"" ~

Ferm, Robert 0. Cooperative Evangelism. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zonder-
van, 1958. '

Grounds, Vernon G. "Fundamental ism and Evangelicalism: Legitimate

Labels or Illicit Labels?" Denver, Colo.: Conservative Baptist
Seminary (mimeographed and distributed privately), n.d.

Evangelical ism and Soc i a] Res pons i b i 1 i ty . Sco tts da 1 e , Pa . :

Herald Press, 1969,

. "The Nature of Evangelicalism." Eternity, February, 1965,

pp. 12-13, 42-43.

. "Is LOVE in the Fundamentalist Creed?" Eternity, June,

"1954,

Graham, Billy. "What Ten Years Have Taught Me," Christian Century,
February 17, 1960, LXXVII, 186-189.

Hearn, Arnold. "Fundamentalist Renascence," Christian Century,
April 30, 1958, LXXV, 528-630.

Henry, Ca-^1 F. H., ed. Contemporary Evangelical Thought. Great Neck.
N.Y.: Channel Press, 1957.

Evangelical Responsibility in Contemporary Theology.

Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1957.

• The Uneasy Conscience of Modern Fundamentalism. Grand

Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1947,

Hulse, Erroll. Billy Graham: The Pastor's Dilemma. Hounslow,
England: Maurice Allan Publishers, 1966.

"Is Evangelical Theology Changing?" Christian Life, March, 1956,
pp. 16-19.

"Is Liberal Theology Changing?" Christian Life, April, 1956, pp. 19-22.

Jones, Bob, Jr. Today--The Four Groups in Protestantism. Greenville,
S.C.: Bob Jones University Press, n.d.

Jones, Bob, Sr. "After 58 Years of Evangelism," Sword of the Lord,
December 7, 1956, XXIII, 1, 8-10.

Kik, J. Marcel 1 us. Ecumenism and the Evangelical. Philadelphia:
•Presbyterian and Reformed, 1958.

Lightner, Robert P. Neo-Evangel ical ism. Findlay, Ohio: Dunham,
1962.

307

McClain, Alva J. "Is Theology Changing in the Conservative Camp?"
Brethren Missionary Herald, February 23, 1957, pp. 123-124.

Marty , Martin E. "Fundamentalism and the Church," Christian Century,
November 27, 1957, LXXIV, 1411-1413.

__. "Intruders in the Crowded Center," Christian Century,

July 3, 1957, LXXIV, 820-821.

March, James D. Cooperation Without Compromise. Grand Rapids. Mich.:
Eerdmans, 1956.

Nash. Ronald. The New Evangelicalism. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondennan.
1963. ~" " ~ '

Ochenga, Harold John. "The New Evangelicalism," Park Street Spire,
February, 1958.

Paine, Stephen. "Separation" Is Separating Evangelicals . N . p . ,
printed privately by J. Elwin Wright, 1951.

"The Perils of Ecumenicity." Christianity Today, November 26, 1956,
I, 20-22.

"The Perils of Independency." Christianity Today, November 12, 1956,
I, 20-23. ~

Pickering, Ernest.. Should Fundamentalists Support the Billy Graham
Crusades? Minneapolis, Minn.: Central Conservative Babtist
Seminary, n.d.

Ramm, Bernard. The Christian View of Science and Scripture. Grand
Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1954.

Rice, John R. "Billy Graham Openly Repudiates Fundamentalism,"
Sword of the Lord, May 17, 1957, XXIII, 2, 10-12.

. "Our Beloved 'Intellectuals' Again," Sword of the Lord,

May 18, 1956, XX, 1, 12.

_. "Shall We Appease Unbelieving Scholars?" Sword of the Lord,
June 24, 1955, XXI, 7.

The Unequal Yoke. Murfreesboro., Tenn.r Sword of the Lord,

1944.

. "Which Way, Billy Graham?" Sword of the Lord, November 23,

1956, XXII, 2.

Stewart, James. "Ecumenical Evangelism," Sword of the Lord, June 28,

1957, XXIII, 1, 4, 8.

308

Tulga, Chester E. "Fundamentalism: Past and Future," Sword of the
Lord, October 4, 1957, XXIII, 1, 11-12.

. "More Than Evangelicals," Sword of the Lord, July 27, 1956,

XX, 1, 3-5.

Walvoord, John F. "What's Right About Fundamentalism," Eternity,
June, 1957, pp. 17-19.

Walton, Dennis M. An Identification of New Evangelicalism. Minneapolis,
Minn.: Central Press, n.d.

"Why Christianity Today?" Christianity Today, October 15, 1955, I, 20.

Woodbridge, Charles. The New Evangelicalism. Greenville, S.C.:
Bob Jones University Press, 1969.

Van Til, Cornelius. Defense of the Faith. Philadelphia: Presbyterian
and Reformed, 1955.

Interviews

Al Byers, Circulation Manager, Sword of the Lord. August, 1973, in
Murfreesboro, Tenn.

Harold Lindsell, Editor, Christianity Today. August, 19/3, in
Washington, D.C.

Gilbert Stenholm, Director of Ministerial Training, Bob Jones Univer-
sity, August, 1972, in Greenville, S.C.

Clyde Taylor, Co-Director, National Association of Evangelicals,
August, 1973, in Washington, D.C.

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Farley P. Butler, Jr., was born November 21, 1946, in Gainesville,
Florida. During childhood he lived in various parts of the United
States and in France, as his father was an officer in the Army. After
graduating from Gainesville High School in 1964, he attended Central
Florida Junior (Community) College in Ocala, enrolled in the law en-
forcement program. He received the degree of Bachelor of Arts with a
major in religion from Bob Jones University, Greenville, South Carolina,
and the degree of Master of Arts in Teaching with a major in history
from Converse College, Spartanburg, South Carolina. He completed the
course work for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at the University
of Florida in June, 1972, receiving the degree in 1976.

He is married to the former Patricia Anne Morton, and they have
one son. He taught at the secondary level at Tabernacle Christian
School, Greenville, South Carolina, and served as Registrar and
Chairman of the Division of Social Sciences at Lynchburg Baptist College
(now Liberty Baptist College) in Lynchburg, Virginia. Since October,
1973, he has been employed as a police officer tor the City of
Gainesvil le.

309

I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it
conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is
fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree
of Doctor of Philosophy.

Michael V. Gannon, Chairman
Professor of History

I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it
conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is
fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree
of Doctor of Philosophy.

(Atm<a l —

Arthur L. Funk
Professor of History

I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it
conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is
fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree
of Doctor of Philosophy.

R. Hunt Davis, Jr.

Assistant Professor of History

I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it
conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is
fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree
of Doctor of Philosophy.

GLXfe^lC *<£l

Del ton L. Scudder
Professor of Religion

I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it
conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is
fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree
of Doctor of Philosophy.

C. John Sommerville

Assistant Professor of History

This dissertation was submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the Depart-
ment of History in the College of Arts and Sciences and to the
Graduate Council, and was accepted as partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.

March, 1976

Dean, Graduate School

■pill

3 1262 08666 235 9