The Future of Evangelical Theology
By Roger E. Olson
“Is
there really such a thing as evangelicalism?" I had heard the question
posed too many times. This time I heard myself responding, "There had
better be! That's my family!" My passionate response surprised both me and
my conversation partner.
Evangelical
is not just a label for many of us. It is an emotive word that evokes powerful
memories and deep-seated feelings of sawdust floors in open-sided tent
meetings, moments with God and his people around altars and bonfires,
sanctuaries and classrooms with preachers and teachers steeped in Scripture and
soaked in the Spirit, and participation in Billy Graham crusades, Youth for
Christ, Campus Crusade for Christ, and InterVarsity Christian Fellowship. This is
our story. This is our song. This is our family.
But does
it exist? Do I really have such a family, or is it merely a figment of my
imagination--like the idealized TV families of 1950s sitcoms? And even if
evangelicalism does exist, does it have a future?
I
believe that evangelicalism does indeed exist, though what holds it together is
sometimes hard to discern (much like the work of the Holy Spirit who animates
the movement). I want to argue that evangelicalism is primarily a theological
movement that has the following four minimum characteristics:
- It looks to the Bible
as the supreme norm of truth for Christian belief and practice--the
biblical message enshrined in its narratives and its interpretations of
those narratives;
- It holds a
supernatural world-view that is centered in a transcendent, personal God
who interacts with, and intervenes in creation;
- It focuses on the
forgiving and transforming grace of God through Jesus Christ in the
experience called conversion as the center of authentic Christian
experience;
- And it believes that
the primary task of Christian theology is to serve the church's mission of
bringing God's grace to the whole world through proclamation and service.
These
four characteristics form the evangelical theological consensus, the core of
authentic evangelical theology. Others would add features to this basic list,
but no self-identified evangelical theologian--conservative or
progressive--would take from it.
While I
believe this familial consensus exists, I am anxious about its future. Since at
least the mid-1970s, this glue has been gradually losing its binding power.
Debates over the exact nature of Scripture's authority, the origins of humanity
and creation itself, appropriate roles of men and women in church and society,
and divine sovereignty in nature and history have manifested rather than caused
a growing rift between evangelical theologians. The various positions in these
evangelical debates do not themselves call into question our core commitments,
but the rhetoric of the debates often imply that they do.
Powerful
leaders within evangelical theological professional societies have threatened
to leave and create rival societies unless other evangelical theologians and
scholars are expelled. Books and articles decrying either too much revision and
innovation or too little vitality and fresh rethinking of evangelical thought
have poured forth from evangelical publishing houses in recent years. The
compilation The Coming Evangelical Crisis
(Moody Press, 1996) and Millard Erickson's The
Evangelical Left? (Baker, 1997) warn of creeping liberalism in the camp
while Stanley Grenz's Revisioning
Evangelical Theology (Intervarsity, 1993) and William J. Abraham's The Coming Great Revival: Recovering the
Full Evangelical Tradition (Harper & Row, 1984) call for
reconsideration of traditional evangelical ways of thinking about matters dear
to evangelical hearts and minds.
At the
risk of gross oversimplification, I will delineate two emerging parties, or
loose coalitions, within North American evangelical theology. One party may be
described as traditionalist and the other as reformist. Their differences lie
in divergent mindsets toward a variety of fundamental issues, including
theological boundaries, the nature of doctrine, progress in theology, and
relating to nonevangelical theologies and culture in general. I would like to
emphasize, however, that both groups passionately embrace the basic evangelical
paradigm and work out of it.
Labels
all too often are perceived as libels. Jarislov Pelikan has defined
traditionalism as "the dead faith of the living" and contrasted it
with tradition as the "living faith of the dead." I do not use the
label traditionalist in any negative sense. It simply means a mindset that
values traditional interpretations and formulations as binding and normative
and looks with suspicion upon doctrinal revisions and new proposals arising out
of theological reflection.
Similarly,
reformist is a label sometimes associated with idealism and progressive social
and political agendas and activism. Here it simply describes a mindset that
values the continuing process of constructive theology seeking new light
breaking forth from God's Word. Neither label is used pejoratively.
My goal
in describing these two mindsets is for evangelical traditionalists and
evangelical reformists to begin to dialogue with each other for the greater
good of the entire evangelical community. I believe they need to understand
better one another's strengths, learn to challenge each other in love, and to
work together for the strength and vitality of future evangelical fellowship
and witness.
Church
as bounded set
Traditionalists tend to specify who is "in" and who is "out" of the community. They see evangelicalism as a "bounded set" category. The only way to avoid the slide into debilitating relativism and pluralism--a disease that has virtually destroyed "mainline" Christian denominations--is to recognize firm boundaries. It must be possible to decide, by paying close attention, which theologians and movements are within the circle or--to use a common evangelical metaphor--under the tent.
One way
of achieving the traditionalists' goal is to look to the past and acknowledge
some outstanding signposts and landmarks in the history of Christian theology
as irreversible and unquestionable achievements in interpreting Scripture.
Traditionalists enshrine certain works of the past in a way analogous to
landmark court precedents.
Evangelical
traditionalism has a decidedly confessionalist cast, the acceptance of certain
historical doctrinal confessions as absolute boundaries that put flesh on the
skeleton of the basic evangelical paradigm. What good is it to affirm Scripture
as supreme source and norm for faith and practice if one can draw all the wrong
conclusions from it? Even cultists often affirm the supremacy of Scripture and
claim to be "born again."
For at
least the last 15 years, various evangelical thinkers have warned against
"the goddess of novelty" and spurious innovation in theology, calling
evangelicals back to the sources of the faith. Thomas C. Oden of Drew University ,
who represents a moderate and irenic traditionalism within the Arminian wing of
evangelicalism, argues for a new appreciation of the early church fathers and
the Great Tradition of Christian thought that preceded the denominationalism of
Christianity. Oden likes to quote the criterion of Christian truth suggested by
early theologian Vincent of Lerins: "What has always been believed by all
Christians everywhere." Oden believes that the Great Tradition should be
held up as a norm for Christian thought without denying the need for
occasional, moderate reformulation of that tradition.
Other
evangelical traditionalists emphasize the magisterial Reformation of the
sixteenth century--Luther, Calvin, and the great Protestant confessions of
faith stemming from their reforming theologies--as the touchstone of doctrinal
truth for authentic evangelicalism. Certain evangelical thinkers have come
together as the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals (ACE) to call evangelicals
back to our roots in the magisterial Reformation. Some within this group and
its sympathizers look to Gordon-Conwell Seminary professor David Wells as the
prophetic voice crying in the wilderness of current evangelical enthusiasm for
therapeutic preaching and market-driven ecclesiology. Wells's books No Place for Truth (Eerdmans, 1993) and God in the Wasteland (Eerdmans, 1994)
are regarded by them as clarion calls back to the solid ground of tradition and
away from the precipice of evangelical decline into cultural accommodation.
Whether
they sympathize with Oden's focus on the early church or Wells's emphasis on
the magisterial Reformation and Puritan theology, all evangelical
traditionalists see the need for firm confessional boundaries around the
evangelical community. It is not enough to proclaim "The Bible only!"
and leave open its interpretation to anything and everything that can possibly
be justified by appeal to it. That would be like declaring allegiance to the
Constitution while rejecting landmark Supreme Court decisions or even the
authority of the Court itself.
Church as centered set.
Reformist evangelicals, on the other hand prefer to see evangelical Christianity as a centered-set category rather than a bounded-set one. Risking ambiguity about boundaries--who is "in" and who is "out"--they insist on keeping the boundaries open and relatively undefined. Thinkers, books, groups can be "more or less" evangelical. When it becomes necessary--as sometimes is the case--to decide whether a particular theologian or movement is truly evangelical or not, reformists look to the center--the unchanging constellation of four evangelical commitments that makes up its paradigm.
To
reformists, the traditionalists' emphasis on clear boundaries verges on
obsessiveness with order and manifests an "us/them" mentality. Their
questions to evangelical traditionalists would be "whose creeds and
confessions?" Those who hold to the Westminster Confession of Faith cannot
affirm all of Wesley's articles of religion or Pentecostal statements of faith.
To reformists, the traditionalists' respect for past affirmations is laudable,
but their tendency to treat detailed doctrinal statements--however hoary--as
virtual additions to Scripture undermines not only theological progress but
prophetic correction by Word and Spirit.
While
resisting doctrinal relativism and pluralism, reformists wish to remain open to
prophetic voices from the "fringes" that may not have been heard as
authentically evangelical before. The boundaries may remain relatively open and
undefined so long as the center remains strong.
Reformist
evangelical thinkers look to scholars such as Clark H. Pinnock and Stanley J.
Grenz as pioneers of cautious, biblically committed evangelical reformism.
Pinnock's Tracking the Maze (Harper
& Row, 1990) and Flame of rove
(Intervarsity Press, 1996) and Grenz's Revisioning
Evangelical Theology (Intervarsity, 1993) and Theology for the Community of God (Broadman & Holman, 1994) are
models of the centered-set concept of evangelicalism. While respectful of the
Great Tradition of Christian theology and especially of the Reformers' work in
the sixteenth century, they recognize the fallibility of every human tradition
and the need for ongoing reformulation of human perceptions of truth. Rather
than look to the past for unchangeable landmarks and confessional standards,
they look to the future and seek change within continuity for the sake of
continuing evangelical vitality and viability.
Prescription.
For evangelical theology to have a vibrant future it needs to have flexible boundaries with a strengthened center. Reformists are right to emphasize the center as the unifying force--the church is always strongest when it is emphasizing what it affirms--but they are wrong to emphasize inclusion without right affirmation. Reformists need to include in the center a cognitive content of core beliefs that are transcultural and translinguistic.
The
cognitive content of the evangelical core identity need not be the jots and
tittles of a full-blown systematic theology or any particular creed,
confession, or catechism hut it must use the spirit of these formulations to
point to the foundational experience of being transformed by God's spirit into
Christlikeness and a confession of Jesus as God and Savior. The core of belief
at the center will also include the unique inspiration of Scripture and
salvation by Jesus Christ alone through God's grace alone.
One of
the tasks of theology will be to make this center so strong and attractive that
many will move toward it into the "big tent" of evangelical
Christianity and out of the night of heresy and doctrinal confusion. Still, it
must be remembered that it is the experience of God's transforming Spirit
through encounter with Jesus Christ in conversion that best guarantees
authentic Christianity--including orthodox belief.
Traditionalists
need to recognize that affirmation of truth may take different forms. One is
not necessarily or automatically pronouncing heresy just because the expected
shibboleth comes out wrongly. G. K. Chesterton is supposed to have warned
against liberal distortions of Christian truth by saying that if one wishes to
draw a giraffe one can draw it many ways, but it has to have a long neck. A
moment of genuine enlightenment occurred for me when I repeated this aphorism
to a colleague who replied: "Unless one is viewing the giraffe from
above." Before condemning a Christian thinker for not drawing the giraffe
correctly, it is worthwhile to inquire into his or her perspective.
Traditionalists are right to affirm that Christianity--and especially
evangelical Christianity--cannot be made compatible with any and every
cognitive content. On the other hand, they need to recognize that viewpoints
may give equally correct affirmations diverse forms.
The
future of evangelical theology will be a "big tent" with definite but
sometimes uncertain boundaries and a strong center stage. Exactly who is under
the tent is not always easy to tell, but we should embrace and attempt to
include those whose faces are turned toward the center and invite them to come
forward. This is the positive mission of our theological leaders.
Another
reason for this unfortunate rift is difference of understanding about the
nature of, and progress in, doctrine and theology. Traditionalists stress the
close identification of formulations of core doctrines with what is directly
taught in Scripture and so see doctrine as lying at the center of
Christianity's enduring essence. For them, traditional theological formulations
are a first-order language of revelation. God revealed doctrines.
Reformists,
on the other hand, tend to emphasize the human instrumentality in articulating
doctrine, seeing as a second-order language--in other words, as a human
interpretion of divine revelation. Reformists, then, see doctrinal and
theological progress as discovering "new light" breaking forth from God's
Word.
Doctrine as revelation.
What is it that makes Christianity identifiable across time and space and from culture to culture? For traditionalists, it is not so much experience or liturgy or forms of community but belief in a set of doctrinal affirmations that can be translated without substantial loss across cultures and languages throughout the centuries and across continents.
Because
of heretical challenges to these doctrinal affirmations, the church has found
it necessary at times to enshrine them in creeds, confessions of faith, and
catechisms. They are the timeless truths that arise directly out of any correct
reading of Scripture itself and define Christianity over against all false
gospels. The affirmation that Jesus Christ is one person in two natures, for
example, is since the Council of Chalcedon (A.D. 451) as much a part of
authentic Christianity as the affirmation that "Jesus is Lord!"
In his
widely used Christian Theology,
Millard Erickson embodies this traditionalist mindset when he affirms doctrine
as the "enduring essence" of Christianity. Experience is subjective
and unable to provide the firm foundation for a community of faith. To be
"evangelical," he argues, is to affirm certain beliefs about
Scripture and God that are not open to revision or change in content. Only the
forms in which they are expressed may change from culture to culture and time
to time. In a recently published critique of The Evangelical Left, Erickson warns against what he sees as a
growing tendency among some evangelical theologians to downplay and demote
enduring, unchanging doctrinal commitments.
By
defining doctrine as a first-order language of divine revelation,
traditionalists naturally understand "progress" in evangelical
thought as digging deeper into the historic sources and translating them for
contemporary people. In other words, progress is effective spelling out of past
achievements in theology.
Some
traditionalists look back to an almost edenic period of theological reflection
from the 1740s to the 1880s, with the works of Jonathan Edwards and Charles
Hodge as its stalwart bookends, where Reformed theology clarified and
solidified its basic confessional stance within the modern world, completing
this constructive task of theology. The theologian's job today, then, is to
carry forward the same basic methodology and guiding impulses by translating
Edwards's and Hodge's doctrine of divine sovereignty, for example, within the
conceptual and linguistic world of contemporary society.
Doctrine as interpretation.
Evangelical reformists, on the other hand, tend to make a sharp distinction between doctrinal formulas and scriptural language itself. Theological constructions are the church's later interpretations of the stories and teachings of canonical Scripture and so are subject to judgment from Scripture and must constantly be held more lightly than the first-order language of the Bible and worship (e.g., "Jesus is Lord!").
For
reformist evangelicals, the enduring essence of Christianity is a work of God
in the life of the human person, variously called conversion, regeneration, or
being born again. Doctrine serves the experience, not vice versa. This
supernatural experience of conversion brings with it the conviction of the
truth of Scripture and commitment to mission and service. Doctrines, then, are
attempts to express faithfully and relevantly the implications of this
experience. As authoritative as they may be, doctrines are never as central as
the experience of meeting God.
A recent
expression of this evangelical mindset is Grenz's Revisioning Evangelical Theology. Grenz calls for a recognition of
the experience of conversion and conversional piety as the true enduring
essence of evangelicalism, with doctrine as important--even essential--but
secondary and revisable.
For
example, says Grenz, whether one is premillennial or postmillennial or
amillennial was once a major issue among evangelical Christians and divided the
family into factions. But many evangelicals who once insisted on the enduring
truth of premillennial doctrine as defining what it is to be evangelical now
recognize ambiguity in Scripture on the meaning of the millennium (Rev. 20).
Some premillennialists have even shifted toward amillennialism without in any
way defecting from authentic evangelical Christian theology. According to Grenz
and other reformist evangelical thinkers, we must remain open to such future
shifts and changes in human interpretations and formulations of the meaning of
God's inspired Word. What endures through change is commitment to the
center--Jesus Christ and loyalty to him through the work of the Spirit called
"conversion."
Reformists
see doctrinal and theological progress as discovering "new light"
breaking forth from God's Word. Through earnestly going back to the beginning
and reflecting anew on the meanings of original revelation in the light of
contemporary problems, theology can discover new solutions that may have even
seemed heretical to earlier generations steeped in philosophies and cultures
alien to the biblical thought world. Reformists want to clear away what they
see as the tangled underbrush of human traditions in order to solve theological
puzzles and conundrums.
Even
"new solutions," however, would to reformists be at best temporary
settlements--open to further reconsideration and possible revision as required
by the biblical message, illumination from the Holy Spirit, and contemporary
culture. For reformists, theology's constructive task is always incomplete this
side of the kingdom.
A recent
flash point of controversy arising out of these two distinct mindsets is the
debate over the so-called openness of God proposal. Pinnock and others have
suggested that the God of the Bible is obscured by such traditional attributes
as simplicity, impassibility, and even immutability. In The Openness of God (InterVarsity, 1994), Pinnock and four other
evangelical thinkers argued for reforming the classical doctrine of God in
light of a fresh reading of the biblical narratives of God's interaction with
people.
Many
traditionalists see this as a clear-cut case of violating established
tradition--especially when the reformists go so far as to suggest that God may
not already know every future free decision yet to be made by every person. The
Christian theological tradition, they argue, has settled that issue in favor of
God's exhaustive and certain knowledge (if not foreordination) of every event
past, present, and future.
Even
reformists who do not agree with Pinnock and his cohorts on this particular
issue, like Stanley Grenz, support reexamining assumed doctrinal formulas from
time to time. That is part of theology's task. What makes reformist theology
"evangelical" is that it is firmly committed to, and guided by, Word
and Spirit in this process and is not seeking merely to accommodate to cultural
standards of "truth" when it adjusts a part of the doctrinal heritage
of the churches.
Traditionalists
like Erickson look at their reformist counterparts within the evangelical
family and warm of the dangers of subjectivism, pluralism, and even theological
liberalism. After all, didn't the father of modern liberal Protestant theology,
Friedrich Schleiermacher, also place experience rather than doctrine at the
center and redefine doctrine as merely attempts to bring religious experience
to speech?
Reformists
look over at their traditionalist counterparts and warm of the dangers of dead
orthodoxy and theologismus--confusing doctrinal correctness with being
transformed by encounter with God. Reformists point to some traditionalists'
strange bedfellows; even some who reject such a traditional evangelical
practice as solicitation of faith (witnessing) are considered allies by some
traditionalists so long as they are theologically correct and appropriately
committed to the doctrines of the magisterial Reformation.
Traditionalists
accuse reformists of hobnobbing with liberals and postmodernists of various
kinds. Gradually, the threat of internecine warfare looms as a real and very
serious danger as these two evangelical parties--marked by their own
distinctive mindsets--pull apart and fall away from brotherly dialogue into
harsh polemics.
Prescription.
The reformist idea that doctrinal affirmation is second-order language is simply true. No doctrinal formula or theological system is identical with divine revelation itself. And yet the traditionalist idea that some doctrinal affirmations are part of the permanent and essential core of evangelical Christianity is also true. Some theological formulations are so closely tied with the church's understanding of what God has revealed that they function as being equivalent to divine revelation.
Anyone
who seriously denies the trustworthiness of Scripture or the deity of Jesus
Christ or the necessity of grace for salvation must be considered other than
truly and authentically evangelical, even though these doctrines have been
developed by humans on the basis of divine revelation rather than directly
revealed. Even if they are not "revealed truths," they are
"truths of revelation."
These
careful distinctions between core affirmations and secondary and tertiary
doctrines that mark denominational distinctives are extremely important to keep
in mind. Modern debates within the church often treat disputes over secondary
doctrines as if core doctrines were at stake. This skews the discussion.
On many
matters, there is no one "traditional" evangelical view. Take the
differing evangelical views of divine sovereignty as an example. So long as one
affirms God's ultimate ability to intervene and control nature and history
(core affirmation) it should not matter whether one affirms that God does or
does not limit himself in order to allow for free human participation and
partnership in partially determining them (secondary doctrines). It will not matter--as
a test of fellowship--whether he or she believes in God's meticulous control of
all events or opts for a broader understanding such that God is "in charge
but not always in control."
As for
the prospect of progress in doctrine, reformists' search for new light can and
must be correlated with traditionalists' strong respect for formative periods
of past theological creativity and the settlements that arose out of them. We
must remain open to the possibility that the Spirit of God may lead contemporary,
God-honoring thinkers into deeper insights into God's Word while still honoring
and learning from what the same Spirit has done in the past. Neither kneejerk
rejection nor gullible embrace is the way forward.
Finally,
these two evangelical camps have different mindsets with regard to interacting
with nonevangelical theologies and culture in general. Because traditionalists
see their doctrinal formulations as communicating the essence of the faith,
they tend to view nonevangelical theologies and belief systems as false and as
objects of critical examination and exposure. For traditionalists, then, a
major task of evangelical theology is the discovery and exposure of heresy.
Reformists
tend to look upon nonevangelical theologies and non-Christian culture as
ambiguous and flawed quests for truth. At worst, these belief systems raise
appropriate questions without providing any sound answers; at best, they can
stimulate fresh thinking on the part of evangelicals. Even such a clearly
nonevangelical thinker as Paul Tillich, for instance, can be seen by reformists
as Luther's proverbial "crooked stick" with which God can strike a
"heavy blow." Reformists live by the motto that "all truth is
God's truth--wherever it is found" and attempt to remain open to the
contributions of any and all serious thinkers who seek honestly after truth.
They emphasize dialogue, rather than polemics, as the proper approach to
nonevangelical theologians and philosophers.
To many
traditionalists, reformists' openness to influence from nonevangelical
theological sources is a further sign of doctrinal compromise. While one can
study and talk to nonevangelicals, "dialogue" implies that you are
willing to modify your positions, which traditionalists are unwilling to do. To
reformists, the traditionalists' mindset smacks of triumphalism, elitism, and
separatism, which is the hallmark of fundamentalism. Reformists also claim that
the traditionalist stance calls into question the reality of common grace--God's
sustaining power and light in the whole world that may break forth anywhere at
any time.
Postmodernism as the enemy.
One illustration of this divergence in mindset is their radically differing responses to the new cultural condition known as postmodernity. Traditionalists focus on postmodernism's sometimes subtle but definite denial of absolute truth. To them, theology's task is to expose this new philosophy in all its forms and manifestation as antithetical to belief in truth and certainty. They argue that the heart of postmodernism is deconstructionism--the philosophy that all claims to truth are but masks for will to power. Traditionalists rightly criticize this denial of meaning and truth and call for other evangelicals to condemn it.
This
traditionalist rejection of virtually everything "postmodern" is
embodied in Gene Edward Veith's volume Postmodern
Times (Crossway, 1994). According to Veith, while the Christian tradition
affirms and is based on absolute truth, postmodernism denies absolute truth in
favor of cognitive nihilism--a free-for-all, pragmatic chaos in which
"truth" is merely what works and is viable within a particular
context. The paradigm postmodern thinker in this evangelical estimation is
philosopher Richard Rorty, a relativist who rejects any absolute truth in favor
of truth defined pragmatically.
Postmodernism
as dialogue partner Reformists find postmodernity to be much broader than
deconstructionism or even relativism. These, to them, are merely manifestations
of postmodernity that evangelicals, of course, cannot endorse uncritically. But
they see postmodernity in general as a new emphasis on holism in life and
thought--a rejection of modernity's obsession with analysis and rationality as
the summit of methods of discovery. They applaud postmodernism's recognition
that something like faith is involved in all human thinking and see some
benefits to postmodernism's discarding of the rationalistic mindset of the
Enlightenment and modern secularism in favor of community-shaped perspective as
a necessary ingredient in all knowledge. The paradigm postmodern thinker in
this evangelical estimation is Notre Dame philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre,
author of After Virtue: A Study in Moral
Theory (University of Notre Dame Press, 1984, second ea.) and Whose Justice? Which Rationality?
(University of Notre Dame Press, 1988).
Reformist
evangelical thinkers who cautiously value and exploit some aspects and types of
postmodernity are Grenz, author of A
Primer on Postmodernism (Eerdmans, 1996), Fuller Seminary professor Nancey
Murphy, author of Beyond Liberalism and
Fundamentalism (Trinity Press, 1996), and Canadian evangelical theologians
Brian Walsh and Richard Middleton, who coauthored Truth Is Stranger Than It Used to Be (Intervarsity Press, 1995).
Much to the chagrin of most evangelical traditionalists, these evangelical
theologians find something of value in postmodern culture and philosophy and
interpret it as an ally of Christian thought insofar as it rejects the modern
project of elevating autonomous human reason above revelation and faith.
Prescription.
Genuine dialogue involves sharing one's commitments, not shelving them in order to achieve meaningless agreement. Evangelical theology that is strong, mature, and unified can risk dialogue with nonevangelical theologies. Merely because an evangelical thinker goes into a setting of mostly liberal theologians to engage with them in earnest discussion does not mean he or she is compromising truth. Reformists are certainly right that such dialogue can produce benefits for both and all sides. Traditionalists are right, however, to warn of the dangers of dialogue that forbids tough-minded disagreement. An element of debate will always and inevitably mark evangelical encounters with nonevangelical thinkers.
The
evangelical theology of the future will not look like a mere hybrid or
synthesis of present-day traditionalism and reformism, in spite of how the
foregoing vision may appear. Both parties must be willing to sacrifice vested
interests and move toward the other with trust and openness. Each side will be
transformed in the process as extremes are sloughed off and middle ground is
explored and cleared away for new settlement.
Some
will no doubt wonder how two such diverse mindsets can both be considered
"evangelical." Some in both parties wonder the same and question the
authenticity of the other party's evangelical credentials. This civil divide is
gradually building up to uncivil war within the household of evangelical
theology, and many civilians and a few evangelical theologians are caught in
the middle, unsure which side to join or even if one must take sides at ale No
doubt many readers of this article see themselves as "betwixt and
between"--able to side neither with the Scylla of traditionalism nor the
Charybdis of reformism.
The
future of evangelical theology lies in calming these troubled waters through a
peaceful settlement. There are genuine signs of hope for such a rapprochement.
On the traditionalist side, Oden expresses cautious approval and support for
moderate reformist theology so long as it remains faithful to the basic
contours of the Great Tradition of Christian thought. On the reformist side,
Grenz expresses respect for the Christian heritage of thought as a source and
norm for the ongoing reforming of evangelical thought in new cultural
situations. Irenic traditionalism and moderate reformism can be seen as allies
in the task of revitalizing and renewing evangelical theology for the
twenty-first century.
To close
the divide more completely, evangelical thinkers on both sides will need to
reaffirm, with clarity and resolve, their strong commitments to the four major
unifying themes of evangelical Christianity: Scripture as the highest authority
for faith and practice, the supernatural involvement of a personal God in
nature and history, the experience of conversion by God's Spirit through Jesus
Christ as the gateway into authentic Christian existence, and the proper task
of theology as serving the church in its mission and service. Without these
four pillars clearly and unambiguously affirmed, evangelical theology has no
future.
But even
more is required. For evangelical theology to rise above these current
challenges, it must also refocus on lost dimensions of Christian truth. The
main one that I propose is the person and work of the Holy Spirit. Future
evangelical theology must take its cue from the dynamic movements of God's Holy
Spirit among charismatic evangelicals of all kinds around the world and begin
to explore the unpredictable sovereignty of the third person of the triune God
and his transforming power.
Future
evangelical theology, in my view, must plumb the depths and mine the riches of
the Holy Spirit's work in Scripture (beyond past inspiration and into present
and future illumination) and in community (beyond fellowship and into signs and
wonders of God's reign). The true transformation that awaits evangelical
theology in the twenty-first century lies in following the Spirit's lead and tracing
his footsteps in the multifaceted worldwide revival that is energizing
Christians in Africa, Latin America, and Asia .
Without in any way abandoning the authority of Scripture or the centrality of
Jesus Christ, evangelical theology must find ways to open itself to the
dynamism of the Spirit who makes all things new.
A
Spirit-energized evangelical theology will be less obsessed with theological
correctness and uniformity and more focused on spiritual transformation.
Without denying past accomplishments and glories, Spirit-led theology will look
for new ways to serve the church's mission by reflecting on the liberating
aspects of ministry, worship, proclamation, and service.
What
exactly will this look like? My guess (only a guess) is as follows. Fewer systematic
theologies will flow from great evangelical intellects and more integrative and
multidisciplinary works will come forth from evangelical thinkers' pens.
Theological reflection will bring the Spirit's past transforming power and
activity to bear on present problems of spirituality, ecology, community,
wealth, and power. Fewer articles of doctrinal polemics will appear from great
evangelical minds, and more prophetic tracts and monographs will be published
and disseminated that promote the Spirit's work on behalf of marginalized
portions of God's creation. Above all, and most noticeably, future evangelical
theology will speak in new and different "tongues" as the Spirit of
God gives utterance. Voices will rise and be heard speaking out of cultures and
from a gender that have traditionally been largely silent within the
evangelical academy.
What
will evangelical theology look like in the next century? Only God knows for
sure. But there is a great and glorious future for it if two things happen
soon: first, the almost-warring parties of traditionalists and reformists must
lay down their polemical weapons and enter into constructive dialogue toward a
new, unified, and energized evangelical academy; second, evangelical theology
must throw open the stained-glass windows of the academy to let the Holy Spirit
blow in and across its dusty desks and volume-lined shelves with new life and
unexpected freshness.
Roger E. Olson is professor
of theology, Bethel College end Seminary, Saint Paul, Minnesota, editor of
Christian Scholar's Review and author of a forthcoming book tentatively titled Church Fathers and
Reformers: The Story of Christian Theology (InterVarsity
Press).
Source: Christianity Today, 02/09/98 ,
Vol. 42 Issue 2, p40, 6p.
0 comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.