The Vocabulary of the Neo- Liberal

Dr. Clay Nuttall, IBFNA Moderator

(Used with permission. "The Review" Independent Baptist Fellowship of North America, Vol. VII, Number 1, August, 1997)

The new liberal is defined and described in the preceding issue of The REVIEW. In this follow-up article, I would like to deal with the vocabulary of this doctrinal position. Some of these terms are not new to any of us. "Isolationist," "legalist," and "secondary separation" are but a few. In each case, however, these terms are not an "observation" of the biblical separatist. They are a "confession" of the position held in new liberalism. They simply mask their evangelical ecumenism and justify disobedience to the clear teaching of the Word.

Use of these terms is a demarcation of the hermeneutic that is used by those who have forsaken biblical interpretation and the authority and sufficiency of the Bible. This denial, done in a very covert way, allows one to look and sound like something he is not. The use of "turnspeak" is borrowed from the old-line liberal so as to cloak serious departure from Bible truth. An example of this is the humorous use of "fundamentalist." While keeping a safe distance from the "mean-spirited" stripe of fundamentalism, they claim that they are fundamentalists also. They say this because they hold the "fundamentals of the faith," and anyone who does is a true fundamentalist.

Even a child knows that one is not necessarily what he claims to be. A person is what he believes. Holding the fundamentals and believing them are two different things. To hold them as a facade is hypocritical. A true fundamentalist must practice what he believes. Professing fundamentalists who are really evangelicals or neo-liberals in doctrine are not willing to let the Bible be the final authority in all matters of faith and practice. The Word is not their rule. So then, how could one be a fundamentalist but deny Scriptural authority? To add to this violation, these professing fundamentalists insist that those who hold deviant doctrine ought not to be rebuked, but loved and accepted. Tolerance has indeed replaced truth.

Another code phrase of the neo-liberal is (if you havent heard it before, you will!) "Balanced, Benevolent Fundamentalism." What this really means is "I dont intend to let the Bible rule, and you better be nice about it; and if you are not silent, those of us who are benevolent men will tear you to pieces." All this inconsistency is based on a false, unbiblical hermeneutic that allows neo-liberals to strip passages of their authority by limiting contextual considerations. It is this system of human reason that gives a green light to such ecumenical and personal violations of biblical separation. This separation is based in the holiness of God.

One of their most used phrases is "building the kingdom." Old-line liberal theology has found its way into this not-so-new vocabulary. A little knowledge of this old-line theology is needed to interpret their doctrine as it relates to the church, Israel, and the kingdom. Biblical theologians know full well that we are not "building" the kingdom. This is the work of a sovereign God. It is not hard to understand why these new liberals take such a casual view of the imminent return of Christ, and why they teach their methods must do what they seem to think God has failed to do.

The vocabulary of the neo-liberal coincides with his doctrine. While not an unbeliever, he has accepted the doctrine of the unbeliever. This position moves toward the humanizing of God and the deifying of man. Methods, ministry, and message are not all regulated by God-revealed truth or doctrine. Man becomes primary. What he wants and needs rises above what God has said. This is accomplished by relegating clear Bible truth to the preferential, peripheral, or nonessential. In simple terms some Word from God is not all that important, or the Bible doesnt speak to that. What a convenient way to ignore the authority and sufficiency of the inspired Word.

In the end, mans writings have become equal to Gods. Hymns with solid doctrinal teaching are out, and vain, shallow repetition is in. Ones appearance is not important because God loves us. The real question is do we love God? His love was settled at the cross, but the love of the neo-liberal is in question. Following the doctrinal deviates in forms of worship and participating in their ecumenism is just called "different" in this new "choice," syncretistic religion. Reverence has been replaced with ruckus. Harmony replaced with cacophony. Value has been replaced by volume, and "selah" to God replaced with applause to men and women.

All of these things are done under the banner of the great commission. This generation has forgotten that the first priority is "glory" to the sovereign Creator and that obedience to Him

includes telling others about the gospel. A misplaced priority now rules. Now being "culturally relevant" for mans sake is more important than being obedient for Gods sake.

Every word in the neo-liberals vocabulary screams of theological defection. The doctrine of this movement is straight from the dictionary of the old-line liberal. They used to sing: When we walk with the Lord in the light of His Word, what a glory He sheds on our way! While we do His good will He abides with us still, and with all who will trust and obey. Now they sing: If our methods please man, in the light of his wants, what a wonderful crowd we will have! While we cater to man, he will come to our church with all those who get what they want." Poor God, He is just a memory, a tool, but not the authority in the heart of the new liberalism.

Dr. Clay Nuttall on the staff at Piedmont Baptist College, Winston-Salem, NC.

Return to Main Page
Return to Bible Truth Home Page