When Labels Replace Definitions: Rethinking “New Evangelicalism” in Contemporary Baptist Discourse

In a recent message, I heard a preacher reference Park Street Church in Boston and trace its historical connections to various revival preachers. The discussion eventually turned to Harold John Ockenga and the rise of what became known as New Evangelicalism. The warning given was that “New Evangelicalism is infiltrating Independent Baptist churches today,” followed by an encouragement for listeners to research the concept for themselves.

What stood out was not the historical observation itself, but the lack of definition surrounding the warning. In the comments, many expressed agreement, though it was not clear what exactly they were agreeing with.

That moment raised a larger question worth considering: what happens when historical theological labels are used as present-day warnings without clear definition?

What New Evangelicalism Originally Was

Historically, New Evangelicalism was not a vague idea but a specific mid-20th century movement.

It is commonly associated with figures such as Harold John Ockenga, Carl F. H. Henry, Edward J. Carnell, and Billy Graham. It emerged in the 1940s and 1950s largely as a response to tensions within American fundamentalism.

The movement emphasized several key priorities:

• engagement with broader academic and cultural institutions

• a rejection of strict separatism from doctrinally mixed organizations

• a desire for intellectual credibility in evangelical theology

• cooperation across denominational lines for evangelistic purposes

At its core, the defining controversy was not whether doctrine mattered, but whether separation from theological error was a necessary mark of biblical faithfulness.

This created a major divide between fundamentalists and new evangelicals. Fundamentalists emphasized ecclesiastical and doctrinal separation; new evangelicals emphasized engagement and cooperation while maintaining core orthodox claims.

Whatever one’s evaluation of that movement, it was historically defined and identifiable.

Category	Historic Fundamentalism	Historic New Evangelicalism	Modern Evangelicalism
Primary Era	Early 1900s–present	1940s–1960s (originating period)	1970s–present
Response To	Theological liberalism	Fundamentalist separatism and liberalism	Diverse influences and movements
View of Biblical Authority	Strong affirmation of inspiration and inerrancy	Strong affirmation of inspiration and inerrancy	Generally affirming, though views vary widely
View of Essential Christian Doctrines	Orthodox	Orthodox	Generally orthodox, but broad spectrum
Ecclesiastical Separation	Strong emphasis	Reduced emphasis	Varies considerably
Cooperation Across Denominations	Often limited	Encouraged when doctrinal essentials are shared	Common practice
Cultural Engagement	Historically cautious	Strongly encouraged	Strongly encouraged
Academic Engagement	Historically suspicious of secular academia	Encouraged	Commonly encouraged
Evangelistic Cooperation	Generally within like-minded groups	Broad cooperation among evangelicals	Commonly practiced
Representative Figures	J. Frank Norris, John R. Rice, Bob Jones Sr.	Harold John Ockenga, Billy Graham, Carl F. H. Henry	Diverse and difficult to summarize
Primary Concern	Purity of doctrine and separation	Cultural influence and evangelical engagement	Varies by movement and denomination
Primary Criticism Received	Isolationism or excessive separation	Compromise through cooperation	Lack of theological clarity or doctrinal diversity

New Evangelicalism, Modern Evangelicalism, and Fundamentalism: Similarities and Differences

Part of the confusion surrounding discussions of New Evangelicalism today is that three distinct categories are often blended together:

1. Historic Fundamentalism

2. Historic New Evangelicalism

3. Modern Evangelicalism

While there is overlap among them, they are not identical.

Historic Fundamentalism

Historic Fundamentalism emerged in the early twentieth century as a response to theological liberalism. Fundamentalists emphasized:

• Biblical inspiration and inerrancy

• The deity of Christ

• The virgin birth

• The substitutionary atonement

• The bodily resurrection

• Separation from doctrinal error

• Ecclesiastical purity

As liberal theology gained influence within denominations and seminaries, fundamentalists increasingly concluded that faithful Christianity required separation from institutions that tolerated or promoted false doctrine.

For many fundamentalists, separation was not merely a strategy but a biblical obligation.

Historic New Evangelicalism

New Evangelicalism emerged in the 1940s as a movement that largely agreed with fundamentalists on essential doctrines but disagreed with them on strategy and separation.

New Evangelicals generally affirmed:

• Biblical authority

• The deity of Christ

• The bodily resurrection

• The necessity of conversion

• Evangelistic ministry

However, they differed from fundamentalists by emphasizing:

• Cultural engagement rather than withdrawal

• Academic participation in mainstream institutions

• Cooperation across denominational lines

• A rejection of strict separatism

Thus, the central dispute was not primarily over orthodox doctrine but over how Christians should relate to institutions and individuals holding doctrinal error.

Modern Evangelicalism

Modern evangelicalism is considerably broader and more difficult to define.

Unlike New Evangelicalism, it is not a single identifiable movement led by a small group of leaders. Instead, it encompasses a wide spectrum of churches, ministries, and theological traditions.

Within modern evangelicalism one may find:

• Conservative Baptists

• Reformed churches

• Charismatics

• Non-denominational churches

• Traditional worship churches

• Contemporary worship churches

Some groups maintain positions similar to historic New Evangelicalism regarding cooperation and engagement. Others have moved much farther from historic evangelical convictions.

As a result, modern evangelicalism cannot simply be equated with New Evangelicalism.

Why the Distinction Matters

This distinction helps explain why statements about New Evangelicalism can become confusing.

If a preacher identifies a contemporary trend and labels it “New Evangelicalism,” several questions naturally arise:

• Is the concern really about the historical New Evangelical movement?

• Is the concern about modern evangelical culture?

• Is the concern about contemporary worship styles?

• Is the concern about cooperation across denominational lines?

• Is the concern about doctrinal drift?

• Is the concern about something else entirely?

These are not identical concerns, and they should not automatically be treated as though they are.

For that reason, precision matters. A warning is most effective when listeners clearly understand exactly what is being warned against.

The Problem of Historical Labels Used as Modern Warnings

Difficulty arises when a term like “New Evangelicalism” is used in contemporary preaching without clarifying how the historical category maps onto present reality.

When a speaker says:

“New Evangelicalism is infiltrating Independent Baptist churches today,”

but does not define what qualifies as New Evangelicalism in that statement, several things happen:

1. The audience fills in the blanks

One listener may think it means:

• contemporary worship styles

Another may think:

• cooperation with other denominations

Another may think:

• Calvinism or Reformed theology

Another may think:

• general theological drift or “liberalism”

The result is agreement—but not shared understanding.

2. The term becomes elastic

Over time, historical categories can expand beyond their original meaning and become catch-all warnings for perceived compromise. When this happens, the term no longer functions as a precise descriptor but as a symbolic boundary marker.

3. The argument becomes difficult to evaluate

A claim cannot be tested if its terms are undefined. Saying “New Evangelicalism is infiltrating churches” is only meaningful if:

• we know what New Evangelicalism is

• we know which of its defining features are in view

• and we can identify those features in present-day practice

Without that, the statement functions more as alarm than analysis.

A Larger Issue Than One Movement

Another, and even deeper, issue at play here is not New Evangelicalism itself, but how theological language often functions in the minds of people.

Over time, certain theological terms can become what might be called “signal words”—words that immediately communicate approval or concern, even when listeners may understand them differently. Words like:

• compromise

• liberalism

• revival

• apostasy

• separation

These words can generate immediate agreement, even when the definitions behind them are unclear or inconsistent among listeners. In such environments, affirmation often precedes (and sometimes precludes) understanding.

The Importance of Definition Before Application

Historically, strong theological traditions have always been careful to define their terms before applying them.

This is not a modern academic concern; it is a basic requirement of sound reasoning. If a term is going to be used as a warning category, then it must be clear:

• What does it mean?

• What does it include?

• What does it exclude?

• What are its identifiable characteristics today?

Without these questions answered, we risk opposing labels rather than realities.

A Constructive Way Forward

This is not an argument against concern for doctrinal drift or compromise. Those concerns are real and should be taken seriously.

The question is not whether vigilance is needed, but whether our language is precise enough to support it.

It may be more helpful in many cases to move from broad historical labels to specific descriptive claims:

• “Here is the practice I’m concerned about.”

• “Here is the theological shift I am observing.”

• “Here is why I believe it is unbiblical.”

That approach allows for evaluation rather than assumption.

My concern after hearing the reference to New Evangelicalism is not whether the warning is correct or incorrect. Rather, it is whether the warning has been sufficiently defined to be evaluated.

When theological labels are used without definition, agreement can become effortless—but understanding becomes unclear.

Clarity does not weaken discernment; it strengthens it.

And in matters of doctrine, clarity is not optional—it is essential.