Here are a couple of excerpts I found here.

“Bible-believing Christians would do well to beware of the New Evangelicalism for four valid reasons.

• First, it is a movement born of compromise.
• Second, it is a movement nurtured in pride of intellect.
• Third, it is a movement growing on appeasement of evil; and
• Finally it is a movement doomed by the judgment of God’s Holy Word.

Strong language, this? Let us face the facts.”  William E. Ashbrook – 1958 (John E. Ashbrook’s father), The New Neutralism.

“I believe that the mainspring of new evangelicalism is found in three determinations of its founder which may be clearly traced in the state of things today.

• First, new evangelicalism determined to reject Biblical separation.
• Secondly, new evangelicalism determined to find acceptance by the world.
• Thirdly, new evangelicalism determined to add the social gospel to the Scriptural gospel….”  John E. Ashbrook – 1992, New Neutralism II

I  found the entire text of New Neutralism II online here. It’s an interesting read. In this post, I am not taking a particular stance, but am merely sharing the main points, which I find worthy of serious consideration.  The author’s conclusion reads in part:

“My grandfather, on whose farm I spent my summers, used to drill corn with a one row corn planter. One spring he had a young mare called Nellie pulling his planter. Nellie panicked and ran away with the planter. When she had finished her fling, she ended up where she began, and Grandfather finished the job. After the corn came up, we could stand on the hill overlooking the field and trace Nellie’s adventure. A great circle of corn was imposed on the orderly rows. When my father began his Evangelicalism: The New Neutralism in 1958, new evangelicalism was ten years old. As I write these lines in 1992, it is forty-four years old. After ten years it may be hard to see where a movement is going. After forty-four years it is easy to see where it has been.

Early in this book I stated that the mainspring of new evangelicalism is to be found in three determinations of its founder. First, new evangelicalism determined to reject Biblical separation. This determination removed the fences God had ordained to protect the church. From the hilltop of history it is easy to see that new evangelicalism, like Nellie, has traced a great circle back to the fellowship of apostasy The heroes of the 1930’s led their followers to separate from apostasy New evangelicalism has led back into the apostasy their forefathers left. Worse still, the reformation has been vitiated, and the Pope is ready to welcome the wanderers home. The doctrinal fence which kept the charismatic movement in another pasture has been rolled up. New evangelicalism is moving toward one flock, no matter what men believe.

…

Satan is building the one-world church of the end time.  . . . The effect of new evangelicalism has been to deliver much of this portion back to the devil’s program. Neutralism is an attack on Biblical obedience. When Biblical obedience is destroyed, it eventually destroys Biblical faith.

Secondly, new evangelicalism determined to find acceptance by the world. At first this was a craving for acceptance in scholarship and intellectual esteem. Soon that desire for acceptance moved on to culture, music and life style. The desire for acceptance has led to absorption into the world.

One of the key thoughts of new evangelicalism is toleration. That thought has led to the toleration of almost anything in the name of Christianity. Scripture does not say that God is tolerant, but it does say that God is holy. God said, “Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world.” A craving for the world’s acceptance, even in scholarship, will displace love for the Lord. “If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him” (I John 2:15).

The third determination of new evangelicalism was to add the social gospel to the scriptural gospel. … Contemporary new evangelicalism has forgotten that distinction and set the saving gospel and the social gospel side by side as equally important. Since man is a fallen creature, the social gospel will win the day. Man is always more concerned with the needs of his body than with the needs of his soul.”

I find that last statement rather compelling. It might explain, in part, today’s evangelicalism’s intense me-centeredness, including the almost exclusive use of temporal “blessings’ in much of our evangelism.