A VERY IMPORTANT EXPLANATION

This article is a follow-up to two posts here and here about the classism that is rampant in Modern Evangelicalism. It isn't just a coincidence that there is a deep parochialism in MEism. Pride of class is actually the reason it came into being. The object was to draw a sharp line between the New Evangelicals (I call them Modern Evangelicals) and the original Fundamentalists. Here's the story in a nutshell:

A MATTER OF DISOBEDIENCE
It all started with a sin we don't even recognize today. It's an invisible sin. No one committed adultery or murder or theft. No one ran through town drunk screaming profanities.

It was all very civilized, very buttoned downed, even erudite. Upper crust, as it were. And that was the point.

In the early 1900's the Protestant church in America was splintering. Two warring parties formed, led by opposing cadres of preachers. They hated each other. One was biblically conservative, the other was the beginning of Liberal Protestantism. American seminaries looked up to European scholars and European scholars where following a German influence which sought to wed Christianity to secular science. They were embarrassed by the miracles of Scripture in a culture that was quickly becoming philosophically materialistic. Modern scientists believed that all things can be explained in terms of natural causes and processes.

Christians--real Christians--have always been hated and derided for what they believe. That much was normal. The new thing happened when other churchmen, with whom they had broken bread, worshiped, prayed, given, and toiled, began to hate them just like the rest of the world hated them.

The clergy most influenced by German scientism, of course, were the more highly educated ones. Princeton was a solid rock of biblical commitment. That changed as the influence of philosophical materialism came. Being the anchor Presbyterian school on the eastern seaboard, the Presbyterians were among the first to have an open split. The biblically faithful came to be known as Fundamentalists, because they sought to defend what they called fundamental doctrines of the Scripture.

Soon this war split all the major denominations and associations.

Fundamentalist clergy, as I mentioned above, were often the less educated for a number of demographic, as well as religious, reasons. The stereotype was lie, though, as many who weren't formally educated, were supremely self-educated in the Bible. And very educated men like A. W. Tozer and Cornelius Van Til were counted among the Fundamentalist hord. Van Til was likely the best mind in theology since Jonathan Edwards and perhaps earelier than that. Many can't even read Van Til. The Fundamentalists insisted that the Bible was the authority by which things were to be tested. That was the theological basis for the split. The ethical basis for the split was the biblical doctrine of holiness/separation. The Fundamentalists actively obeyed the Scripture on the issue.

The Liberals plastered the Fundamentalists with two stinging stereotypes. One was (see if this sounds familiar) meanness. Separation from false teachers and false teaching was not obedience to God, the Liberals said. It was just provincialism and anger. The second smear can be summed up in the word the Liberals often used, "obscurantist".

Just as early Christians were killed, tortured, dispossessed of property, and reviled for being fools and worse, Christians in 20th century America were smeared as fools and bigots. As young people were born into Fundamentalist families, some wanted to remain Christian, maybe even Fundamental, but not be seen as stupid, small-minded, and of a lower class. Upperward mobility of some Fundamentalist families caused a bind, too. While gaining social status economically, all social gains were more than lost when neighbors and colleagues found out they were nutty Christians. Many bruised egos tempted many to semi-abandon their faith, to distance themselves from their families and churches. They wanted to feel welcome at church as well as at work or school.

They sought what was often called at the time, a "middle way".

PRIDE OF CLASS OR HUMILIATION WITH CHRIST
That was the choice back then. (Sound famailiar?) Being born in 1957, I personally remember a lot of this struggle and understand, by very personal experience, just how this all worked in families and in churches. I could be liked at school and at work or I could pray over my food and not laugh at bawdy jokes.

Liberal Protestants didn't have that problem.

I'm old enough to remember when we were actually taught that if we didn't take the hatred of the world we weren't worthy of Christ. It was a sign of an unsaved person. We were told we were supposed to be hated and shunned. We were told to expect to be considered lower class.

The New Evangelicals refused to take that lower seat. The sting of being seen as uneducated is intolerable to a man not yet dead to self. They refused to obey. They wanted to be Christians, but they simply wouldn't be associated with uneducated Fundamentalist obscurantists.

A UNIQUE NON-ACCOMPLISHMENT
In the minds of the MEists, it was good that they were both Fundamental in doctrine and liked by the world and  by Liberal Protestants. Separation became a sign of failure. Popularity showed God's blessing. It was a strategy. If folks liked us they would convert. Of course, that didn't happen, but they've only been trying for about seven decades.

This failed strategy has left us a legacy. Unlike the New Testament doctrine that we aren't to present the gospel in our own wisdom, ME's dress it up. Unlike the biblical idea that we aren't to pose as wise, but to bring the foolishness of God to men, in dependence on God for the fruit He ordains, ME's want to be regarded as successful and educated.

So, this sin isn't a simple misunderstanding. It was purposeful disobedience and it comes down to us today in three ways. First, we can't seem to imagine God working without huge, unbiblical institutions. Second, we measure spiritual stature and spiritual truth by numbers. And, third, the Modern Evangelical continues in a deep betrayal of Christ and His brethren.

It was preening, prideful, and dishonest. And that was the birth of Modern Evangelicalism.

Paul didn't start a seminary. He taught Timothy personally in the local church. Peter didn't shop for a publishing house. None of that. Just the Holy Spirit. Just the gospel. Just suffering with Christ. They were very unsuccessful measured by today's standard.

While we take pride in large institutes, Paul took pride in a body broken by the hatred of a violent world because it demonstrated his fellowship with Jesus. Philippians 3.

DOES THAT HELP?
I hope that helps some of you understand just why Modern Evangelicals are the way they are. The whole movement was born out of pride of class and disobedience to the sufferings of Christ.

So the next time you are perplexed by a "Christian" who just won't separate from a false teacher who happens to be very popular, you'll know exactly why. Don't be discouraged. They're different from you. You're a child of God. They're not.

It's a test.

...you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams; for the LORD your God is testing you to find out if you love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul. Deuteronomy 13:3.

Be holy because He is,
Phil Perkins.