Representative Evangelical Theologians: Donald Bloesch

In an earlier piece, “The Evangelical Coalition,” I outlined the formation of the new evangelical movement (or, as Roger Olson calls it, postfundamentalist evangelicalism). As that piece closed, I noted that Olson surveys five theologians as representatives of evangelical theology.

  • Carl F. H. Henry: Dean of Evangelical Theology
  • E. J. Carnell: Apologist for Evangelical Theology
  • Bernard Ramm: Moderate Evangelical Theologian
  • Donald Bloesch: Progressive Evangelical Theologian
  • Clark Pinnock: Postconservative Evangelical Theology

With Donald Bloesch, Olson moves almost to the outer fringes of evangelicalism, far removed from fundamentalism. Bloesch differs from the other theologians already discussed. As Olson explains,

Bloesch represents something of an anomaly, as he has never taught at a college, university, or seminary that is part of the evangelical coalition, nor was any of his theological education completed in an evangelical institution. In other words, unlike the other theologians under consideration here, Bloesch has never operated within the evangelical subculture except by publishing book reviews and articles in Christianity Today and Eternity. Some of his books have been published by evangelical publishers. Bloesch was raised in and has always remained a part of the Protestant mainstream; he was untouched by the fundamentalist movement and its militancy and separatism. (p. 120)

Olson sees Bloesch as representing evangelicalism because much of his voluminous writings are closely identified with postfundamentalist evangelicalism. He stands on the boundary between evangelicalism and mainline Protestantism with a strong influence among evangelicals.

Bloesch’s primary contribution to evangelical thought has been to call it out of its captivity to the old liberal-fundamentalist controversy and out of narrow sectarianism and into a greater appreciation for the historic Reformation tradition with an emphasis on spirituality. (p. 122)

The foundation of Bloesch’s theology includes Calvin, Pietists Spener and Zinzendorf, Wesley, Edwards, and notably, an assortment of more contemporary figures including Kierkegaard, Englishmen P. T. Forsyth and John Stott, and also the neoorthodox leaders, Karl Barth and Emil Brunner. In this stance, he ignores fundamentalists, very conservative postfundamentalist evangelicals, as well as liberals. (p. 122). His view of Carl Henry and others is that they were too rationalistic. He would describe himself as a “progressive evangelical” or a “catholic evangelical theologian.” (p. 122) His aim was identity with the Reformers while at the same time progressing in consequence of new knowledge and new insights into God’s word. (p. 122-123).

Bloesch would reject identity with neoorthodoxy himself, but his views seem remarkably close to it.

Against liberal Protestant theology Bloesch argues for a close relationship between the Bible and supernatural divine revelation; against Fundamentalism he argues for a distinction between them. “The Bible is not in and of itself the revelation of God but the divinely appointed means and channel of this revelation … The Word of God transcends the human witness, and yet it comes to us only in the servant form of the human words.” (p. 126 [quote from Bloesch, Holy Scripture, p.57])

One might say that the Bible is the Word of God in a formal sense — as a light bulb is related to light. The light bulb is not itself the light but its medium. The light of God’s truth is ordinarily shining in the Bible, but it is discerned only by the eyes of faith. Even Christians, however do not see the light in its full splendor. It is refracted and obscured by the form of the Bible, but it nonetheless reaches us if we have faith. (Bloesch, Holy Scripture, p. 59, cited in Olson p. 126)

One more: “Bloesch drives the nail in the coffin of a fundamentalist view of Scripture (so far as he is concerned) when he affirms that ‘our final authority [for Christian faith and practice] is not what the Bible says but what God says in the Bible.” (Bloesch, Holy Scripture, p. 60, cited in Olson p. 127)

Again, we have to note that even though further removed from fundamentalism than the theologians already discussed, Bloesch desires to distinguish himself especially from fundamentalism. Evangelicals seem obsessed with making that distinction clear.

Olson’s concluding assessment is remarkable in itself.

What Bloesch brings to Evangelicalism is a balanced perspective that is free from the distorting effects of fundamentalism and the internecine battles that have racked Evangelicalism because of its fundamentalist roots. (p. 129)

Olson considers Bloesch “relatively conservative” yet standing “outside the evangelical subculture” so he can speak to it with a needed “moderating, balanced message.” (p. 129). Olson’s assessment is remarkable, but perhaps it reveals his own views more than clearly seeing Bloesch’s position.

Next up is Clark Pinnock. Even Olson is unable to call Pinnock a postfundamentalist evangelical. Stay tuned for that one!

Representative Evangelical Theologians: Bernard Ramm

In an earlier piece, “The Evangelical Coalition,” I outlined the formation of the new evangelical movement (or, as Roger Olson calls it, postfundamentalist evangelicalism). As that piece closed, I noted that Olson surveys five theologians as representatives of evangelical theology.

  • Carl F. H. Henry: Dean of Evangelical Theology
  • E. J. Carnell: Apologist for Evangelical Theology
  • Bernard Ramm: Moderate Evangelical Theologian
  • Donald Bloesch: Progressive Evangelical Theologian
  • Clark Pinnock: Postconservative Evangelical Theology

Olson calls Bernard Ramm a “Moderate Evangelical Theologian.” In his survey of evangelical theology, we have to keep in mind Olson’s definition of an evangelical. There is a tendency among them to focus on the shibboleth’s that identify an evangelical while allowing more variety in the breadth of thought diverging from the starting point. Fundamentalism tends to have less variation in overall theology.

Bernard Ramm’s background differed from Henry and Carnell, attending Eastern Baptist Theological Seminary, and then beginning his teaching career at the Los Angeles Baptist Theological Seminary and Bible Institute of Los Angeles (now Biola University). Olson describes the California school as a “fundamentalist” institution at the time. Nevertheless, a key factor in Ramm’s theology mirrors that of Henry and Carnell:

“Like Henry and Carnell, Ramm was intent on distancing the new evangelical theology from fundamentalism, while at the same time preserving and strengthening Evangelicalism’s conservative Protestant integrity over against liberal theology.” (p. 113)

Ramm particularly objected to “obscurantism,” which Olson describes as a tendency of fundamentalists. In the attempt to find a balance, Olson notes:

“It seems that all of the first-generation postfundamentalist evangelical theologians had to publish at least one book critical of fundamentalism to prove that they had departed decisively from it.” (p. 113)

Ramm’s book of this nature was The Christian View of Science and Scripture (1954), where he took a more accommodationoist view of science than fundamentalists would. Fundamentalists reacted negatively, but up-and-coming evangelicals embraced it.

Ramm was not as conservative as Henry and Carnell in his doctrine of Scripture, although he claimed to believe in inspiration and inerrancy. However, his language in describing how inspiration works sounds like double-talk, where he where the Holy Spirit gives “certitude” to the Scriptures but not “certainty.” (p. 116). “Certainty” is a relic of the Enlightenment, too often the goal of conservative theologians. Ramm thought that the doctrine of inerrancy “served only to keep evangelical theology in its fundamentalist intellectual ghetto.” (p. 117). His view of Karl Barth contrasted with Henry’s, where Henry viewed Barth with alarm, Ramm saw him as a liberator of theology. He turned away from “rational presuppositionalism, deductive propositionalism, verbal plenary inspiration, and strict, technical inerrancy of Scripture.” (p. 117).

Needless to say, conservatives were not amused! Neither were the even more conservative fundamentalists. However, to the young “postconservative evangelicals” who followed Ramm, his views had the same “exhilarating feel” that the earlier postfundamentalist evangelicals had when liberated from “the stifling abode of fundamentalism.” (p. 119).

“The harsh criticisms of their conservative evangelical colleagues remind them of the hardening of the categories among the fundamentalists who condemned the neoevangelicals for opening their minds and methods to the larger world of ideas and education.” (p. 119)

At this point, a few summary thoughts on these first three examples seems in order. Henry seems dissatisfied with what Fundamentalism lacked (especially a social conscience). Carnell seems orthodox, but extremely agitated by the stance of Fundamentalism. He is militantly anti-militant. The irony appears lost. Ramm goes further, still defining himself by what he is not (not a fundamentalist), but unwilling to unequivocally say what he is, especially with respect to inspiration.

In these positions, we can see the drift of compromise. It is true that Fundamentalists can hold tenaciously to seemingly minor points. Should we be less tenacious? As the tenacity diminished, theological drift was the tendency of the past. Certainly we need wisdom from God to know exactly where to mark our line in the sand and take a stand.

Next up will be Donald Bloesch.

is your conscience uneasy? (part 1)

Carl F. H. Henry. The Uneasy Conscience of Modern Fundamentalism, Kindle Edition
First of a series of posts reviewing the book by Carl Henry.

An oft mentioned but possibly neglected book, Carl Henry’s The Uneasy Conscience of Modern Fundamentalism is often credited as a seminal work in the development of evangelicalism. Al Mohler calls it “a manifesto of a movement later to be known as the ‘new evangelicalism.’” (Albert F. Mohler, Jr., “Carl F. H. Henry, Theologians of the Baptist Tradition, Timothy George and David S. Dockery, eds., p. 283.)

In my opinion, every fundamentalist should read Henry’s book. Newly reprinted with a foreword by Richard Mouw, it is highly instructive of the evangelical mind that was to become the ‘new evangelicalism’ and of the evangelical mind that continues to this day. I read it in the Kindle edition, which suffers from an unfortunate limitation on copying and note-taking imposed by the publisher. (One sympathizes with the desire of publishers to prevent piracy, but this is the first Kindle book where I ran into this limitation. Other commercially published works I have purchased haven’t been so restrictive.)

In any case, as I said, I think all fundamentalists should read this book. The generation of fundamentalists who faced the challenge of new evangelicalism are passing off the scene. Those of us who follow in their footsteps need to be aware of the challenges they faced. We face very similar challenges today. The challenges to orthodoxy today are not the frontal attacks of blatantly heretical modernism as in the era of the Fundamentalist-Modernist controversy. They are much more subtle than that. The challenge is no longer called ‘new evangelicalism’ (it is hard to stay ‘new’ for long), but the essential arguments and values of those challenging fundamentalism are basically the same. So read Henry’s Uneasy Conscience. It is worth considering what it meant to the fundamentalists of its day as well as what its philosophy means for fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals today.

[Read more…]

that Martin!

I am reading an e-book translation of Martin Luther’s letter to a friend on translation. You can find it here: An Open Letter on Translating. The style is certainly Luther, in full bombast mode. To our ears, it sounds alternately crude, rude, and hilarious. Here is a paragraph I read to my wife, it should give you a flavor…

Now when the angel greets Mary, he says: “Greetings to you, Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with you.” Well up to this point, this has simply been translated from the simple Latin, but tell me is that good German? Since when does a German speak like that—being "full of grace"? One would have to think about a keg "full of" beer or a purse "full of" money. So I translated it: "You gracious one". This way a German can at last think about what the angel meant by his greeting. Yet the papists rant about me corrupting the angelic greeting—and I still have not used the most satisfactory German translation. What if I had used the most satisfactory German and translated the salutation: "God says hello, Mary dear" (for that is what the angel was intending to say and what he would have said had he even been German!). If I had, I believe that they would  have hanged themselves out of their great devotion to dear Mary and because I have destroyed the greeting.

Bro. Martin is arguing against a charge that he mistranslated Rm 3.28 by adding in the word ‘alone’ to modify ‘faith’ where it says:

For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.

Martin’s point is that in translating, getting the meaning is more important than seeking a word-for-word correspondence. (He also says something to this effect, ‘If the papists don’t like my translation, let them write one of their own.’ He says this in a characteristically Martin-esque way.)

His letter is instructive and something that all of us concerned with the Bible and its translation should bear in mind. And it is entertaining to read at certain points!

don_sig2

a summary: Worldliness edited by Mahaney

My review of Worldliness: Resisting the Seduction of a Fallen World, C. J. Mahaney, ed. turned out a little longer than I intended. I reviewed the book chapter by chapter, you can find each individual review here: Chapter One, Chapter Two, Chapter Three, Chapter Four, Chapter Five, Chapter Six.

As I think back over these reviews, each chapter review was written as a ‘first impression’. My first impressions may be  more negative than need be. It is easy to be a critic. On the whole, I think that the book has some merit, in spite of my criticisms. However, it is not a book I can recommend on the subject of worldliness because of two weaknesses.

[Read more…]

Mahaney: “Worldliness,” ch. 6

Review: Chapter 6 – “How to Love the World” by Jeff Purswell in Worldliness: Resisting the Seduction of a Fallen World, C. J. Mahaney, ed.

A friend of mine loaned me his copy of this little book for my review. Since it is a compilation of six essays by five Sovereign Grace Ministries clergymen, I thought it best to review the book section by section. Previously: Chapter One, Chapter Two, Chapter Three, Chapter Four, Chapter Five.

Jeff Purswell writes the last chapter of this book. He is dean of the Pastors College of Sovereign Grace Ministries and on the pastoral staff of Covenant Life Church in Gaithersburg, Maryland.

[Read more…]

Mahaney: “Worldliness,” ch. 5

Review: Chapter 5 – “God, My Heart, and Clothes” by C. J. Mahaney in Worldliness: Resisting the Seduction of a Fallen World, C. J. Mahaney, ed.

A friend of mine loaned me his copy of this little book for my review. Since it is a compilation of six essays by five Sovereign Grace Ministries clergymen, I thought it best to review the book section by section. Previously: Chapter One, Chapter Two, Chapter Three, Chapter Four.

[Read more…]

Mahaney: “Worldliness,” Ch. 4

Review: Chapter 4 – “God, My Heart, and Stuff” by Dave Harvey in Worldliness: Resisting the Seduction of a Fallen World, C. J. Mahaney, ed.

A friend of mine loaned me his copy of this little book for my review. Since it is a compilation of six essays by five Sovereign Grace Ministries clergymen, I thought it best to review the book section by section. Previously: Chapter One, Chapter Two, Chapter Three.

Chapter 4 comes from the pen of Dave Harvey who serves on the leadership team of Sovereign Grace Ministries. My understanding is that he is quite close to C. J. Mahaney and also serves on the board of CCEF, among other things.

[Read more…]

Mahaney: “Worldliness,” ch. 3

Review: Chapter 3 – “God, My Heart, and Music” by Bob Kauflin in Worldliness: Resisting the Seduction of a Fallen World, C. J. Mahaney, ed.

A friend of mine loaned me his copy of this little book for my review. Since it is a compilation of six essays by five Sovereign Grace Ministries clergymen, I thought it best to review the book section by section. Previously: Chapter One, Chapter Two.

The third chapter of the book is written by Bob Kauflin, director of worship development for Sovereign Grace Ministries and pastor and worship leader of Covenant Life Church in Gaithersburg, Maryland.

[Read more…]

Mahaney: “Worldliness,” ch. 2

Review: Chapter 2 – “God, My Heart, and Media” by Craig Cabaniss in Worldliness: Resisting the Seduction of a Fallen World, C. J. Mahaney, ed.

A friend of mine loaned me his copy of this little book for my review. Since it is a compilation of six essays by five Sovereign Grace Ministries clergymen, I thought it best to review the book section by section. Previously: Chapter One.

The second chapter is written by Craig Cabaniss, pastor of Grace Church in Frisco, TX at the time of publication.

[Read more…]