'The New Evangelism' III

In our last post we saw that Henry Drummond said that a new theological climate demanded a 'New Evangelism'. Why? What was wrong with the old one?

"The view we are to take, therefore, of the old theologies is not that they are false, but simply that they are old. Those who framed them did in their time just what we want to do in ours..." (P. 10)

So far so good. But why change? Drummond lets fly with a few pointed negatives concerning the old theologies. He criticized its theology and its ethical effects. First of all, the old evangelism, in Drummond's opinion, inculcated a wrong conception of God, ignoring the incarnation. The concept of God taught by the old evangelism was "as far as it could be formed... the God of the Old Testament." (P. 13). The old evangelism practically ignored the revelation of God in Christ. Christ, to the old evangelism, was a mere "theological person," (P.15), a convenience, not a real man. "In our zeal for the doctrines of the Atonement we are really robbing God of His doctrine of the Incarnation." (P. 18).
Note that Drummond, despite his statement that the old theologies were "not... false", rapidly resorted to saying just that!
As for Justification by faith, that was ruinous: "The characteristic to notice here is that religion was not so much a question of character as of status. Man's standing in the sight of God was the great thing." (P. 20). He went on to say that this tended to antinomianism.

In our next post we shall, God willing, consider the 'positive' side of the 'New Evangelism', that is to say, what it would and would not be.