Reformed and Always Reforming (Acadia Studies in Bible and Theology)

The Postconservative Approach to Evangelical Theology

Roger E. Olson, Evans, Craig A., McDonald, Lee, Craig A. Evans, Lee McDonald

• Publisher: Baker Academic
• Year: 2007
• Print ISBN:
  9780801031694
• eBook ISBN:
  9781441201102
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Christian Theology

The community of evangelicals sometimes seems so broad as to defy definition, but theological conservatism has been one consistent marker. Now, says theologian Roger Olson, postconservatism is moving beyond conventional battles against liberalism and heresy to posit a dynamic and realistic approach. While conservatives strive to preserve tradition and protect orthodoxy, postconservatives urge openness to doctrinal reform without abandoning orthodoxy. Where differences exist between doctrine and Scripture, doctrine must be brought into conformity with the Word. Postconservatives want to free evangelical theology from its paradoxical captivity to rationalism and its obsession with "facts" so that it may recognize truth in experience and personal knowledge. Theologians, pastors, seminarians, and serious thinkers will find many depths to plumb in this exhaustive survey of critics, advocates, and fellow travelers on the evangelical journey.

1

The Postconservative Style
of Evangelical Theology

Much was already said about conservative and postconservative evangelical theology in the introduction. Here I will go further in articulating the style that marks postconservative evangelical theology. What characteristics mark it as different from conservative or conventional evangelical theology? Who are some of the leading postconservative evangelical thinkers and how have they manifested these characteristics? Is this a movement or a mood in evangelical theology? These and other issues will be addressed directly or indirectly in this chapter as I attempt to paint a portrait of postconservatism. I must first deal with some preliminary considerations, however, including the important question, Who is an evangelical theologian?

The Identity of an Evangelical Theologian

No doubt some astute readers are beginning to wonder whether the theologians whose style of theologizing I’m labeling postconservative really deserve the label “evangelical.” And does postcon-servative theology deserve to be called evangelical? Before plunging into a full-scale description of this style of theology, then, it will be helpful and even necessary to discuss how to identify an evangelical theologian and an evangelical theology. What justifies calling a theologian or a project in theology evangelical? This question naturally arises because of the conventional tendency to connect “evangelical” with “conservative.” If a theologian or theology is not conservative can he, she, or it be evangelical? How closely should these concepts be linked?

Here I will propose two controversial theses: evangelical theology is theology done by an evangelical theologian, and an evangelical theologian is someone who claims to be evangelical, is generally regarded as working within the evangelical network, and adheres to David Bebbington’s four cardinal features of evangelical faith plus one (to be explained later). First of all, evangelical theology is theology done by an evangelical theologian. What else? How else should evangelical theology be defined?

Some conservatives wish to identify and guard boundaries around evangelical theology by investing it with strong confessional content. For them, an evangelical theologian is someone who is theologically trained, who contributes critically and constructively in the field of Christian theology, and who adheres to a set of beliefs or doctrinal affirmations that constitute orthodoxy. This is clearly the thrust of the Evangelical Affirmations document as interpreted by the speakers and most respondents at the conference of the same name sponsored by the National Association of Evangelicals and Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in 1989. The movers and shakers of this conference, if not all of its participants and signers of the document it produced, clearly intended to invest the concept “evangelical” with strong and stable doctrinal content. For them, evangelical theology is first and foremost orthodox Christianity. The conveners and leaders of this conference—as several others like it before and since—were concerned that “not only on the outside, but even within our own ranks, some confusion exists as to exactly who are evangelicals.”1 They frequently expressed dismay at the rampant diversity of interpretation among evangelicals. The Affirmations document produced by the conference was intended to “represent evangelical truths that specially need to be asserted and clarified in our day.”2 An anonymously written essay in the book produced out of the conference, titled “The Evangelical Affirmations,” made clear that anyone who disagrees with any of these nine affirmations may not be authentically evangelical. The affirmations are primarily doctrinal in nature. Carl Henry, one of the leaders of the conference, asserted that “evangelical” describes those who adhere to a basic structure of cognitive content with regard to doctrine.3

This way of identifying who is an evangelical theologian and what justifies calling a theology evangelical is problematic in that it closes the door to reform of the doctrinal structure and adds extrabiblical content to the canon of divine revelation, even if that is not explicitly admitted or stated. A major principle of the Reformation was reformata et semper reformanda—reformed and always reforming. How is continuing reform of evangelical faith and life possible if being evangelical requires firm adherence to a humanly devised cognitive structure of doctrinal content? That is, if being evangelical necessarily includes being orthodox, how can orthodoxy itself be reformed by evangelicals?

Conservative evangelical theologian D. A. Carson recognizes the diversity within evangelicalism and regards it as a problem. He is not alone; I think it is safe to say that all conservative evangelicals are uncomfortable with diversity, especially the scope of diversity one finds within the evangelical movement. In The Gagging of God Carson writes, “Contemporary evangelicalism, consistent or confessional or otherwise, embraces a wide range of people (including some who would not readily apply the label to themselves), but not all of their theological opinions.”4 In other words, like many other conservative evangelicals, Carson draws a distinction between “sociological evangelicalism” and “authentic doctrinal evangelicalism” (my terms). Great diversity exists within the evangelical movement even in regard to beliefs, but authentic evangelical theology is more limited and controlled and must not be allowed to be as pluralistic as those who associate with the evangelical movement. For Carson, as for most conservative evangelicals, the doctrinal pluralism within the evangelical community raises a crucial question: “Properly speaking, the question then becomes, How much of the historic evangel can be abandoned before it is no longer evangelicalism?”5

By “historic evangel” Carson seems to mean a specific content of doctrinal belief such as the nine Evangelical Affirmations produced by the 1989 conference and spelled out in the 1990 book of the same name. (He does not specifically mention that conference or its Affirmations in this context, but he was at the conference as a presenter and his presentation is contained in the book produced by the conference.) In The Gagging of God Carson probably speaks for most, if not all, conservative evangelicals when he complains that in the pluralism of the evangelical movement the traditional theological content of evangelicalism is being reduced to the vanishing point.6 He argues that “until recently evangelicalism has tried to define itself primarily in theological categories, and that . . . emphasis seems to be changing among many who still attach themselves to that label.”7 As Carson sees it, “there are as many problems among evangelical intellectuals [theologians and biblical scholars] as in evangelical populism [folk religion], if of a slightly different sort. In both cases, the product is less and less ‘evangelical’ in any useful historic or theological sense.”8

Another conservative evangelical theologian who shares Carson’s concern and who was also prominent at the Evangelical Affirmations conference in 1989 is David Wells of Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary. His 1993 volume No Place for Truth; or, Whatever Happened to Evangelical Theology? expresses similar displeasure with doctrinal pluralism among evangelicals and especially evangelical theologians. He accuses evangelicals in general of an “unabashed desertion of the cognitive substance of faith” (i.e., orthodoxy) and evangelical theologians of fascination with novelty. Wells waxes eloquent in his jeremiad about this pluralistic situation within the evangelical theological guild:

Evangelicals who seek to work the theological craft in a way that is recognizably historical and who keep the intellectual company of Athanasius, Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Wesley, Edwards, Hodge, and the like [meaning conservatives like himself] are often quite baffled by all the other company they seem obliged to keep in contemporary evangelicalism. The new interests and appetites can be brought into relation with historical evangelical or Protestant faith only by a mighty exercise of the imagination and, not infrequently, a tactful aversion of the gaze. Must we swallow these new interests, as we had to swallow vegetables we hated when we were young, in order to preserve our place at the table? There is a yawning chasm between what evangelical faith was in the past and what it frequently is today, between the former spirituality and the contemporary emptiness and accommodation.9

It is difficult not to sympathize with such a stirring complaint, but not all evangelicals see things Carson’s and Wells’s way. What is that “way”? To summarize, these and other conservative evangelical theologians believe that “evangelical” ought to be a concept heavily invested with cognitive content; Christian orthodoxy ought to be part of its very definition and that orthodoxy should be fairly detailed. Doctrinal change is a bad thing; it detracts from the power of evangelical faith and leads toward greater declension from faithfulness if not apostasy from Christianity. The only way to rescue evangelicalism from sheer emptiness is to draw back from theological creativity and doctrinal innovation and draw firm and narrow doctrinal and theological boundaries around the movement that forbid significant change and diversity.

Wesleyan theologian Kenneth J. Collins sees things differently. Without in any way jettisoning doctrine or reducing it to irrelevance, he defends the diversity within evangelicalism and defines the concept broadly so as to encompass a wide range of theological viewpoints: “Simply put, there are many ways of being evangelical in America today, and evangelicals delight in that diversity and celebrate such richness.”10 Obviously he is not thinking of conservatives like Carson and Wells! Collins adds, “American evangelicalism is a movement that embraces distinctiveness and difference and yet has an overarching unity that is displayed in the common bonds of witness, fellowship, and purpose.”11 In concert with many postconservatives, Collins declares that “there is no evangelical metanarrative.”12 The unity of evangelicalism does not lie in a detailed orthodoxy; it is not a closed circle of people who think or believe exactly alike. Rather, evangelical unity may be found in certain shared themes. Collins explicates them in terms of “four enduring emphases” common to evangelicals throughout history. These constitute an “evangelical ethos” that pervades the movement and unifies it in spite of significant dynamism and diversity:

(1) the normative value of Scripture in the Christian life, (2) the necessity of conversion (whether or not dramatic or even remembered), (3) the cruciality of the atoning work of Christ as the sole mediator between God and humanity, and (4) the imperative of evangelism, of proclaiming the glad tidings of salvation to a lost and hurting world. Indeed, each of these four themes has repeatedly emerged in the literature, with more or less emphasis, as evangelicals have grappled with their own identity. They are, therefore, integral to any assessment of the evangelical ethos. They are broad enough to account for evangelical pluralism and yet particular enough to define evangelical self-understanding.13

Like all postconservative evangelicals, Collins expresses strong interest in and deference for traditional Christian orthodoxy in its broad outlines. The way I would put it is that every evangelical theologian worth his or her salt is deferential toward orthodox doctrine as spelled out in the Great Tradition of Christian belief, the ancient ecumenical doctrinal consensus plus the consensus of the sixteenth-century Reformers.14 But it is not a closed book or a set of commandments written in stone; orthodoxy is not revelation itself. Orthodox doctrine is the product of human reflection on God’s revelation and therefore is open to reconsideration in light of faithful and fresh readings of God’s Word. In fact, I would go so far as to add this characteristic to the four ethos-constituting evangelical themes that Collins cites and that are nearly identical to those spelled out by David Bebbington, as noted in the introduction. A fifth common theme of the evangelical ethos is: (5) deference to traditional, basic Christian orthodoxy within a higher commitment to the authority of God’s Word in Scripture as the norming norm of all Christian faith and practice. It seems to me that most postconservatives agree with my fifth theme even if they have not officially added it to the minimal account of four unifying themes or hallmarks. This is where I think the conservatives are right and wrong. Conservatives such as Carson and Wells are right that correct doctrine matters and that authentic evangelical faith includes a strong commitment to orthodox doctrine. But they are wrong insofar as they elevate traditional doctrinal orthodoxy to incorrigible status where it is functionally infallible and therefore equal with divine revelation itself.

Of course, few, if any, conservative evangelical theologians admit to doing this. But the attitude toward orthodoxy is manifest in their writings. Typically they occasionally pay lip service to Scripture’s place above doctrinal tradition, including orthodox tradition. Listen to Carson, sounding very postconservative:

Our attempt to “contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints” must never be cast as merely a conservative call to an earlier period of the evangelical movement . . . but to the Bible itself. In principle it [Carson’s program] recognizes that parts of the movement may at any time be in error, and that all things must constantly be brought back to Scripture: that is the importance, of course, of the ‘formal principle’ of evangelicalism.15

Carson sounds downright progressive when he says that the Bible and not some historical position from the past must be the touchstone for determining what is authentically evangelical. But he goes on to treat the traditional intellectual, theological content of evangelicalism (viz., orthodox doctrine) as the defining characteristic of true evangelical faith.

Clearly, then, there are at least two ways of viewing who is truly evangelical that bear on how to recognize a theologian or theology ...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• Introduction
• 1. The Postconservative Style of Evangelical Theology
• 2. Christianity’s Essence: Transformation over Information
• 3. The Word Made Fresh: Theology’s Revisioning Task
• 4. The Postmodern Impulse in Postconservative Evangelical Theology
• 5. Postconservative Revelation: Narrative before Propositions
• 6. Tradition and Orthodoxy in Postconservative Evangelical Theology
• 7. New Horizons in Evangelical Thinking about God
• Conclusion