It might be very helpful for Evangelicals who are unfamiliar with the mid-20th century (1940-1965) conflict between Fundamentalism and New Evangelicalism to do some rdg abt the issues & divide that happened. Looks like a replay is on tap...
Only with deeper divides already in place and decades of leftward movement among many professsing evangelicals (aka post-conservatives). Those who oppose “social justice” lang are already being called Fundamentalists, but as a pejorative, not a theological stance.
So, consider rdg:
Reforming Fundamentalism (Marsden), Revive Us Again (Carpenter), Evangelicalism Divided (Murray).
If you want a Fundamentalist take on it:
Promised Unfulfilled (McCune), Tragedy of Compromise (Pickering), Kevin Bauder’s chapter in Pilgrims on the Sawdust Trail
Reforming Fundamentalism (Marsden), Revive Us Again (Carpenter), Evangelicalism Divided (Murray).
If you want a Fundamentalist take on it:
Promised Unfulfilled (McCune), Tragedy of Compromise (Pickering), Kevin Bauder’s chapter in Pilgrims on the Sawdust Trail
Here’s some of what happened then that I think is replayed: (1) new views are presented as bib views ignored by those who oppose them; (2) the motives of those opposed are being questioned; and (3) calls to marginalize/separate from those who oppose the new views are happening.
The change agents get fed up with talk eventually. Once they think they have reached the pivot point where they can succeed they drive a wedge between the two groups that forces those opposed to either get in line or get out. (Graham’s 1957 NYC Crusade served this purpose.)
MLK 50 has functioned as this. It drew a line & raised rhetoric to levels where discussion is virtually over. Many on both sides are ready to split. Here’s the diff (as I see it)—one side still wants to make a case against the other view, but the other side is done debating it.
In some ways, this shouldn’t surprise since the new position is the change position—once the change agents think they have the momentum they want change, not more debate. All that is left is to stigmatize those who oppose so that the undecided don’t want to get left with them.
A lesson for those who oppose is to be careful in your reaction to the stigmatization. Keep the debate focused on Scripture & its implications. Many Fundamentalists had the right position, but the wrong disposition. Don’t question motives, call names, toss labels out carelessly.
Sorry for the book! A divide on this issue may be coming, but watch carefully who is driving it and how it is being driven. For the sake of those who are trying to decide, make the case for your position biblically and don’t help them build a caricature.
