You are here: Home / Archives for 2019

Archives for 2019

by on 12.10.19

Representative Evangelical Theologians: Clark Pinnock

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.

I’ve held my peace on this for a couple of weeks now, so it is time to get back at it.

Roger Olson begins his chapter on Clark Pinnock with two incredible paragraphs giving his take on the current state of affairs in evangelicalism (as of 2007, that is, the date of the book). These paragraphs are so significant I reproduce them here: [Read more…]

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: , , ,
by on 11.25.19

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!

Filed Under: Book Review Tagged With:
by on 11.22.19

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.

Filed Under: Book Review Tagged With:
by on 11.8.19

Representative Evangelical Theologians: E. J. Carnell

In my last 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

Last time I discussed Carl Henry. This time we turn to E. J. Carnell. [Read more…]

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: ,
by on 11.4.19

Representative Evangelical Theologians: Carl Henry

In my last 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

In this piece I summarize Olson’s remarks on Carl F. H. Henry. ((I intended to make this brief, but alas! I decided to go ahead and post since I want to keep something newish up on oxgoad.)) [Read more…]

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: ,
by on 10.31.19

The Evangelical Coalition

My earlier discussion from Roger Olson’s Pocket History of Evangelical Theology covered the first half of the book. The subject there was the roots of evangelical theology. He listed eight roots or sources of evangelical thought:

  1. Pietism
  2. Revivalism
  3. Puritanism
  4. Wesleyanism
  5. The Great Awakenings
  6. Old Princeton Theology
  7. Holiness-Pentecostalism
  8. Fundamentalism

For discussion of each of these, see my earlier posts (you can work your way backwards from this one).

The rest of Olson’s book describes postfundamentalist evangelical theology, beginning with a brief introductory chapter then discussing five different evangelical theologians as representatives of the breadth of evangelical theology. Olson’s introduction to postfundamentalist evangelicalism (new evangelicalism) is striking in that the history I was taught by fundamentalist professors matches exactly what Olson describes. Many younger men in the “on-line discussion mosh pits” need to read this chapter. They tend to have a highly revisionist view of the period. It will not do to construct a narrative justifying your prejudices. You need to let real history inform your thinking about the current state of affairs and the way forward.

Olson opens the introductory chapter this way:

“The Evangelicalism that forms the context for this resource on evangelical theology is the postfundamentalist, new evangelical coalition that came into existence as a result of the efforts of [Harold] Ockenga and his colleagues in the 1940s. Of course, they did not create an entire new religious movement. Instead, they managed to reform the fundamentalist movement by giving it a new face, so to speak. They reorganized and refurbished it and pushed out to the periphery those militant, separatistic leaders who had captivated it throughout the 1930s. The latter continued to exist, of course, and so the two movements — later fundamentalism (militant, separatistic) and the new Evangelicalism (irenic, cooperative) — have existed alongside each other since then as the two wings of conservative Protestant Christianity.” (pp. 91-92)

Many points in this comment cry out for rebuttal, but most will have to wait another time. It is interesting and ironic that Olson can’t avoid the term “new evangelical” in this paragraph, though he earlier decried it as a fundamentalist pejorative. It is, in fact, Harold Ockenga’s term. I don’t see how it can be a pejorative if it comes from him! Interesting, however, how much evangelicals resist it.

The bottom line is that the new evangelicals split the movement of their forbears, gained influence over the majority, and succeeded in pushing those who persisted in militancy and separation to the periphery, as Olson describes.

One factor in the history is new to me. Olson says that when Ockenga et al organized the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE), Carl McIntire and company organized at roughly the same time a “more separatist” organization called the American Council of Churches. According to Olson, there was some talk of merging the two organizations, but McIntire balked at the NAE inclusion of Holiness-Pentecostal groups in their membership. Ockenga had a broader coalition in mind. “The NAE charter and vision were too broad for McIntire and most other fundamentalists, so the merger never occurred.” (p. 92). One wonders if the broadening of fellowship to the Pentecostals was a purposeful “poison pill” to keep the ACC out? Perhaps that’s just my cynicism talking. Today, Charismatics dominate the NAE.

As is well known, the evangelical coalition promoted unity through the efforts of the NAE, led by a chief spokesman, Billy Graham, with Fuller Seminary becoming its chief seminary and Christianity Today its chief publication. These four institutions (if we can call Billy Graham an institution) were the four pillars of the new evangelicalism. In their cooperative efforts they united under Graham’s “twin themes,” that is, “conversion to Christ through personal repentance and faith in his cross, and the Bible as God’s specially revealed Word, wholly inspired and completely trustworthy in all matters related to faith and practice.” (p. 94). These two ideas are the doctrinal minimums required for ecclesiastical cooperation in evangelicalism. A careful reader will note that the Bibliological “pillar” rests on a rather sandy foundation; it isn’t rooted in the rock of Biblical inerrancy. It allows room for inerrancy, but also for much softer views of inspiration as well. This may be evangelicalism’s Achilles heel.

In my first post on Olson’s book, I quoted his definition of evangelical theology:

“Evangelicalism is a loose affiliation (coalition, network, mosaic, patchwork, family) of mostly Protestant Christians of many orthodox (Trinitarian) denominations and independent churches and parachurch organizations that affirm…
· “a supernatural worldview…
· “the unsurpassable authority of the Bible…
· “Jesus Christ as unique Lord, God, and Savior…
· “the fallenness of humanity and salvation provided by Jesus Christ…
· “the necessity of personal repentance and faith…
· “the importance of a devotional life…
· “the urgency of gospel evangelism and social transformation;
· “and the return of Jesus Christ…” (14-15)

The “twin themes” discussed above encompass most of these points.

With these minimums as the basis, evangelical theology proceeds out of the NAE, Graham, Fuller, and Christianity Today coalition. A broad range of views exemplifies evangelical theology. Olson describes five men as representatives of this broad range:

  • 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

In my next piece, I plan to discuss some aspects of these views. I hope I can keep it brief! I’m not trying to reproduce Olson’s book here!

In any case, it is interesting to me that evangelicals seem satisfied with creating a coalition based on a bare minimum theological viewpoint. Fundamentalists tend to have a more insistent basis for fellowship, and tend to cooperate within denominational commonalities, with a few exceptional incidents. Fundamentalists will insist on inerrancy for cooperation, though fundamentalist forays into evangelical institutions (Evangelical Theological Society) puts pressure on that commitment.

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With:
by on 10.22.19

The Roots of Postfundamentalist Evangelicalism (and Fundamentalism) (Part 4)

I’m writing about the book, Pocket History of Evangelical Theology, published by InterVarsity Press, by Roger Olson. I listed the roots of what Olson calls postfundamentalist evangelicalism (otherwise known as “evangelicalism” today). For a more detailed definition of postfundamentalist evangelicalism, see this post. For an expansion on the first two roots of evangelical theology, see this post. For a discussion of the next three roots, see this post. Roots six and seven come next, see this post. Today we move to the last root in Olson’s list.

Once again, I’ll list Olson’s roots, and then we’ll expand on the number 6 of them. The last two will be explained in the next post.

  1. Pietism
  2. Revivalism
  3. Puritanism
  4. Wesleyanism
  5. The Great Awakenings
  6. Old Princeton Theology
  7. Holiness-Pentecostalism
  8. Fundamentalism

Pietism (see this post), Revivalism (see this post), Puritanism (see this post), Wesleyanism (see this post), The Great Awakenings (see this post), Old Princeton Theology (see this post), Holiness-Pentecostalism (see this post)

Fundamentalism

At last we come to our favourite topic, right? I have to admit that it is a favorite topic of mine. I’ve read many pages on the history of fundamentalism, its theology, and its ethos. I’ve preached about it, taught about it, written about it. It’s one of the central foci of this blog. In my mind, fundamentalism as a philosophy of ministry is exactly where the Bible is. Some fundamentalists, on the other hand… (and no doubt I’ve failed my own ethos time and time again).

Olson starts this chapter, “In the immediate background of Evangelicalism and evangelical theology lies fundamentalism or the fundamentalist movement.” (p. 83) He distinguishes fundamentalism from evangelicalism and fundamentalism from revivalism. Each of these words represent things interrelated, but distinct. They are not exactly the same as each other. I suppose that’s why Olson is thinking about each of these movements as “roots” and not as the current phenomenon of evangelicalism.

For Olson, fundamentalism, when properly used, correctly describes three “distinct but interrelated religious phenomena.”

  1. “Any and all militant religious reactions to modernity” — by modernity is meant the secularizing impulses brought on by the Enlightenment. In this sense, there can be “fundamentalist Islam.” Olson does not use the term this way in his book.
  2. “The conservative Protestant reaction to the rise of liberal Protestantism” of the late 1800s, early 1900s … “All such fundamentalists also called themselves evangelicals.” These people engaged in the conflict with liberals in the Presbyterian and Baptist denominations especially. Some evangelical groups weren’t involved in these conflicts, Olson mentions “immigrant Pietist churches and Holiness-Pentecostals.” Olson calls this meaning “historically legitimate.”
  3. “A third, more historically legitimate, definition of fundamentalism is the narrower, more militant and separatistic movement of conservative Protestants that emerged out of the disappointment and despair in the 1920s and 1930s, as the major Protestant denominations of North America were lost for conservative theology and became increasingly liberal and pluaralistic.” (All notes on these three phenomena from pp. 83-84, bold on the last point is mine)

If there is a distinction between meaning 2 and meaning 3, it is that the early fundamentalists were optimistic that they could expel liberalism, whereas the later fundamentalists realized that they had to get out or be absorbed. Consequently, the later fundamentalists looked with suspicion on anyone who would not likewise separate from liberal ties. This suspicion characterized all fundamentalists from the beginning of the GARBC on through the other “separatism events.” (This paragraph includes my views, bolstered by Olson’s writing.)

Olson goes on to describe briefly the history of fundamentalism as it began to break out of the old denominations and create its own institutions. His summary of this history is correct. After surveying the history, he comments on their theology. Fundamentalists began to insist on six day creationism (with no compromise in any way with “Godless evolution”), generally came to insist on dispensationalism, especially in eschatology, and developed the doctrine of separation to include separating from Christians who wouldn’t join them in separating from liberals. He also links fundamentalism with legalism (lists of right and wrong behaviour), racism (segregation), and a reversion past Princtonianism to the dictation theory of inspiration (John R. Rice).

Many other Christians continued to describe themselves as fundamentalists through the 1930s and 1940s, but “the label became more problematic for anyone who wished to be taken seriously as thoughtful, reflective, and even relatively gentle and open-minded.” (p. 89) These men decided to reform fundamentalism by founding new institutions. One of these men was Harold Ockenga. He first formed the New England Fellowship, and from this group the National Association of Evangelicals sprang. “In 1942 the National Association of Evangelicals emerged out of the New England Fellowship and postfundamentalist, new Evangelicalism was born.” (p. 90)

The important point to draw from this brief description is that Fundamentalism forms a direct root of Evangelicalism. Evangelicalism grows directly out of Fundamentalism. Subsequent changes modified the direction of evangelicalism still more, but evangelicalism undeniably begins as a reaction to fundamentalism. As I said before, both of them share the distinction as reactionary groups against the Enlightenment. Nevertheless, evangelicalisms immediate antecedent is fundamentalism.

This concludes the description of the eight strains of thought influencing evangelicalism. Olson has more to say. His next chapter introduces postfundamentalist evangelical theology, then he surveys four representative theologians to paint a picture of what exactly evangelical theology is. The last two chapters describe Postconservative Evangelical Theology and Tensions in Evangelical Theology. All of this provides “grist for the mill” of more blogging, so stay tuned, more to follow.

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: , , ,
by on 10.20.19

The Roots of Postfundamentalist Evangelicalism (and Fundamentalism) (Part 3)

I’m writing about the book, Pocket History of Evangelical Theology, published by InterVarsity Press, by Roger Olson. I listed the roots of what Olson calls postfundamentalist evangelicalism (otherwise known as “evangelicalism” today). For a more detailed definition of postfundamentalist evangelicalism, see this post. For an expansion on the first two roots of evangelical theology, see this post. For a discussion of the next three roots, see this post. Today we move on to the next roots in Olson’s list.

Once again, I’ll list Olson’s roots, and then we’ll expand on number 6 and 7. The last one will be explained in the next post.

  1. Pietism
  2. Revivalism
  3. Puritanism
  4. Wesleyanism
  5. The Great Awakenings
  6. Old Princeton Theology
  7. Holiness-Pentecostalism
  8. Fundamentalism

Pietism (see this post), Revivalism (see this post), Puritanism (see this post), Wesleyanism (see this post), The Great Awakenings (see this post)

One thing that I perhaps should mention is that evangelicalism (and fundamentalism) is the sum of reactions to the Enlightenment. In this sense, both movements are reactionary, but with turtle-like reactions of decades to a problem now centuries old. In his chapter on Princeton, Olson defines the Enlightenment as “a revolt against the stifling authorities of tradition and dogmatic religion and a search for truth through autonomous human reason without any appeal to special revelation, faith, or tradition.” (p. 61) Religiously, the Enlightenment found expression in “deism, unitarianism, and liberal Protestantism.” These movements responded to the Enlightenment by embracing it.

Olson says, “Pietists and revivalists thought that the best response to dead orthodoxy and modern paganism was also the best response to Enlightenment secularism and skepticism: proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ and appeal to people to repent and trust in Christ alone for salvation. … Fundamentalists, however, believed that the best response to the ‘acids of modernity’ was tearing down ‘proud arguments’ and militantly exposing them as errors, as well as strong reaffirmation of traditional, orthodox beliefs.” (p. 62)

With these background thoughts, we turn to Old Princeton theology.

Old Princeton Theology

Off the bat, Olson says, “The prehistory of fundamentalism as an antimodernist and antiliberal evangelical movement begins with the so-called Princeton School of theology…” (p. 62) This “school” had at its head the well-known names teaching at Princeton at the end of the nineteenth and into the twentieth century, Archibald Alexander, Charles Hodge, A. A. Hodge, B. B. Warfield, and J. Gresham Machen. They believed that “authentic Christianity’s enduring essence is orthodox doctrine” (p. 63) and made its defense a priority. In promoting orthodoxy, they sometimes made “an uneasy alliance” (p. 63) with revivalism. Hodge in particular wanted to use Enlightenment methods to defeat its effects on Christianity. He wanted to show that theology is “scientific in the modern sense,” (p. 64) rather than superstitious, anti-intellectual, or obscurantist.

Besides systematizing theology, Hodge’s contribution to Bibliology cemented his position in the history of evangelical theology. Olson credits Hodge with developing the doctrine of verbal, plenary inspiration. Olson says this “profoundly influenced later fundamentalism and conservative evangelical theology.” (p. 65) B. B. Warfield “attempted to nail down even more firmly this high doctrine of Scripture.” (p. 66) Olson says Warfield was “even closer to fundamentalism than Hodge.” (p. 66) In Warfield’s career, modernism began its influence in the Princeton faculty and Warfield engaged in battle with it. “Because of this conflict with the skeptics, Warfield defined the Christian doctrine of Scripture more precisely than most Protestant theologians before Him.” (p. 67) Both Hodge and Warfield influenced many beyond Princeton’s immediate circle of influence.

J. Gresham Machen was the last of the great Princeton theologians. A student of Hodge and Warfield, he came on the scene when modernism began to hold increasing sway. “Whereas Hodge and Warfield had been loyal opponents of the increasingly influential liberal mood of theological and biblical studies in the Presbyterian Church, Machen advocated division rather than compromise or coexistence.” (p. 71) With Machen separatism entered the equation among the Princeton men.

In contrast to Pietism/Revivalism, Princeton theology stood in the heritage of Puritanism, emphasizing “theological correctness” and the foundation of orthodoxy in an inerrant Bible. Pietism/Revivalism emphasized “conversional piety,” focusing on salvation, sanctification, and discipleship. As such, Princeton theology formed a “second pole” in the developing evangelical/fundamentalist consensus. (All quotes in this section, p. 72.) Looking back at these influences, we see necessary emphases in both “poles” that delight the heart of any fundamentalist today. Warm-hearted orthodoxy, that is what we are after.

Holiness-Pentecostalism

The Holiness-Pentecostal movement had little influence on fundamentalism, but nonetheless has come to have a profound influence on evangelicalism. Olson says,

“Two movements that especially influenced Evangelicalism and evangelical theology in the twentieth century are the Holiness-Pentecostal movement and fundamentalism. Many people tend to equate them or subsume the former under the latter as an especially emotional form of fundamentalism. However, this is not correct. In spite of certain similarities, the Holiness-Pentecostal movement and fundamentalism moved on separate tracks.” (p. 74)

The influence of the Holiness-Pentecostal movement on evangelicalism is, then, a distinctly post-fundamentalist phenomenon. In the course of developing the new evangelicalism (Olson’s “postfundamentalist evangelicalism”), evangelicals were modifying fundamentalism in part by embracing the Holiness-Pentecostal movement, “while shunning its most extreme forms and manifestations.” (p. 74)

Olson reviews briefly some of the history of the movement, and then gives some analysis. “Pentecostalism represented an intense form of revivalism.” (p. 79) “Pentecostalism is thoroughly Arminian in its theology of salvation, emphasizing not divine sovereignty in predestination but instead proclaiming unlimited atonement and every person’s ability to respond freely to the gospel unto salvation.” (p. 80) “The Holiness-Pentecostal movement … was intensely experiential and emotional.” (p. 80)

In the early part of the twentieth century, most evangelicals ignored the Holiness and Pentecostal movements. By the 1970s and 1980s, however, Pentecostalism began to exert more influence. Where one sees their influence most is on worship, an interest in “the higher life,” and an interest in “the gifts.” Their impact on so-called “contemporary worship” is an enduring legacy. “They have always remained, however, a distinct subset of Evangelicalism.” (p. 81) [My comment: they are definitely a “largish” subset these days.]

One More Preliminary Conclusion

I’ll leave off a discussion of the influence of Fundamentalism on evangelicalism until next time. I have to say, Olson’s analysis seems to me mostly right. We share a legacy with evangelicals of Pietism/Revivalism and Puritanism/Princetonism (to coin a term). Fundamentalists seek to maintain the best of both these poles of emphasis. Evangelicals no doubt see Fundamentalists as extremists especially on the Princeton-Machen-Separatism axis, but I would note that groups like the GARBC were separatists before Machen and that separatism is the only alternative for orthodoxy, otherwise you compromise orthodoxy. On the other hand, the warm hearts of revivalism are absolutely necessary to perpetuate biblical fundamentalism. We really can’t do without either emphasis.

Filed Under: Evangelicalism, Fundamentalism, Theology
by on 10.16.19

The Roots of Postfundamentalist Evangelicalism (and Fundamentalism) (Part 2)

I’m writing about the book, Pocket History of Evangelical Theology, published by InterVarsity Press, by Roger Olson. Last time I listed the roots of what Olson calls postfundamentalist evangelicalism (otherwise known as “evangelicalism” today). For a more detailed definition of postfundamentalist evangelicalism, see this post. For an expansion on the first two roots of evangelical theology, see this post.

Once again, I’ll list Olson’s roots, and then we’ll expand on the middle three of them. The last two will be explained in the next post.

  1. Pietism
  2. Revivalism
  3. Puritanism
  4. Wesleyanism
  5. The Great Awakenings
  6. Old Princeton Theology
  7. Holiness-Pentecostalism
  8. Fundamentalism

Pietism (see this post)

Revivalism (see this post)

Puritanism

The Puritans are important in the development of evangelicalism and fundamentalism primarily through their influence in the life of Jonathan Edwards. (Secondarily, the Baptist movement owes its beginnings first to Puritans and subsequently the English Separatists. This development, not noted by Olson, contributes to both evangelicalism and fundamentalism insofar as Baptists are a part of both movements. But back to the Puritans…) “The Puritan movement began in Elizabethan England in the late sixteenth century. … Puritanism broadly defined began as the English movement to purify the Church of England under Queen Elizabeth I … of all vestiges of ‘Romish’ doctrine and practice.” (38) The Puritans were statists, admiring John Knox of Scotland and his reformation of Scottish society into a constitutional monarchy with an established Presbyterian church. “The Puritans wanted a similar thorough reform of England.” (39) This anti-Romish impulse for purity and orthodoxy eventually led to the Plymouth Colony in America and a society formed on Puritan ideals. Out of this society later came Jonathan Edwards and the Great Awakening with assistance from the English evangelist, George Whitfield. Puritanism, then, forms a significant well-spring of evangelical and fundamentalist thought.

Olson says, “Evangelicalism as a movement was born in the 1730s and 1740s Great Awakening.” (46) By evangelicalism here, he means, I suppose, “pre-fundamentalist evangelicalism.” That is, the evangelical movement that followed the Great Awakening eventually became the fundamentalist and evangelical movements we know today.

Wesleyanism

Wesleyanism is the influence of John Wesley on the evangelical movement. Wesley, unlike Whitfield, was Arminian in his theology. He and his brother Charles were friends of Whitfield (and Wesley preached Whitfield’s funeral sermon), but they diverged sharply in soteriology. Nevertheless, Wesley’s emphasis on personal conversion paralleled the emphasis of Edwards and Whitfield. All of them called for individual salvation and decried any notion that church membership or ritual could make a man right with God. “For Wesley, true ‘scriptural Christianity’ begins in a person with the experience of being ‘born anew’ by the Spirit of God. Of course, he did not deny the efficacy of the sacrament of infant baptism, but he did deny that it alone establishes a person’s right relationship with God. For Wesley, authentic Christianity is experiential Christianity and must be freely chosen; it can never be inherited or the product of an effort to ‘turn over a new leaf.’” (48)

Further, Olson says, Wesley “believed that only God can save a person and that if a person is saved it is entirely due to God’s grace, but people must respond to God’s grace and to the gospel with a free decision of repentance and faith.” (48)

Wesley’s views of salvation and individual conversion form a major root of evangelicalism (and fundamentalism). His views of sanctification likewise influenced a large following, but their impact was only on a segment of the evangelical world, not the whole.

The Great Awakenings

Olson calls the Great Awakenings “the Crucible of Modern Evangelical Theology” (52, emphasis added). Olson says, “Something quite new appeared out of the Great Awakening and Edwards’s and Wesley’s sermons and essays — a massive movement, a subculture of experiential Christianity solidly rooted in Protestant orthodoxy.” (52) Noting the differences between these two (who he calls the “fathers of evangelical Christianity”), he says that their “two streams of thought about salvation” entered evangelicalism and remain present, but also make evangelical theology “an unstable compound always about to explode into internecine rivalry, if not warfare.” (53-54) Alas, we all know this is true.

The Great Awakening subsided but later events gained the name “the Second Great Awakening.” Prominent in this history was Charles G. Finney, but he is not the sole proponent of the Second Awakening. While his bad theology should receive no applause, no one can deny that his methods and the fervent activity of many other contemporaries profoundly shaped evangelicalism/fundamentalism with an emphasis on the authority of the Bible and the need for individual conversion. This influence is the influence of revivalism, but it is in the “crucible” of the First and Second Great Awakenings that its ideas formed.

Preliminary conclusion number two

Puritanism predates Revivalism, and “the Great Awakenings” are nothing more than specific instances of revivalism taking hold in America, especially. Likewise Wesleyanism is essentially Revivalism, but a specific flavor of it. It is interesting to me that Olson puts Revivalism ahead of Puritanism as a root of the movement. It is also interesting how much evangelicalism owes to Revivalism and Revivalists. When thinking about where we are today, we would do well to consider what God thinks of these movements and, if they are biblical and God-honouring (as I think they are), what we can do to implement Revivalism in our own ministries.

Filed Under: Evangelicalism, Fundamentalism, History, Theology
by on 10.16.19

The Roots of Postfundamentalist Evangelicalism (and Fundamentalism) (Part 1)

Returning to the book, Pocket History of Evangelical Theology, published by InterVarsity Press, by Roger Olson, today I want to discuss the roots of Postfundamentalist Evangelical theology. For a definition of Postfundamentalist Evangelicalism, see my prior post. The roots of Postfundamentalist Evangelicalism and Fundamentalism are identical, except for one point, which we will get to shortly. The two movements are branches of the same tree. Some people say Fundamentalism is a subset of Evangelicalism (including good friends), but I disagree. I think history bears me out. The two movements have a common ancestry, but they also have a definite point of divergence. I’ll say more on that later, as well.

Returning to the Roots

In Olson’s book, the first chapter defines evangelicalism. Having achieved that goal, he turns to Part II: The Roots of Evangelical Theology. This comprises eight chapters for eight roots (or threads in the tapestry, to use a different metaphor). The roots Olson lists are:

  1. Pietism
  2. Revivalism
  3. Puritanism
  4. Wesleyanism
  5. The Great Awakenings
  6. Old Princeton Theology
  7. Holiness-Pentecostalism
  8. Fundamentalism

Since Olson sees fundamentalism as a “root” of postfundamentalist evangelicalism, it is here where their root structure differs. Obviously, fundamentalism can’t be a “root” of itself. This may seem trivial, but it is one of those key facts which disproves the notion that fundamentalism is a subset of evangelicalism. Fundamentalism is a smaller movement than evangelicalism, but it isn’t evangelical in the modern sense of the word (which is Olson’s sense). The reason some see fundamentalism as a subset is because of a mostly shared root system and the fact that fundamentalism is smaller. The reality is that we have two divergent movements built on the same root system.

Having said that, let’s do some quick definition of the roots of postfundamentalist evangelicalism. Today we will look at just the first two, then pick up on the others in subsequent posts.

Pietism

Pietism began around one hundred and fifty years after the Reformation. By this time, many states had established (i.e. state-sponsored) Reformed churches and a certain settled formalism ensued. Pietism grew up out of a concern over this formalism, desiring a more heart-felt religion for those professing Christ. “Pietists are always concerned that Christianity be something more than historical knowledge and mental assent to doctrines; they want to distinguish authentic Christianity from false or merely nominal Christianity by identifying the ‘real thing’ by life-transforming experience of God in conversion and devotion to God in the ‘inner man’ and by discipleship that is shaped by the Bible, aims towards perfection, and seeks to be ‘in the world but not of the world.’” (Olson, 23)

Revivalism

Revivalism has some connections with Pietism, but is its own distinct movement. Ethnically, it is more a British and American phenomenon, even though there were (and are) Pietists in America. Olson’s initial definition of revivalism goes this way: “Revivalism was the phenomenon in Great Britain and North America that saw emotional preaching calling masses of mostly already baptized people, often outdoors, to make decisions to repent and follow Jesus Christ.” (33) The distinctive mark of revivalism as opposed to pietism is “the need for each person publically to repent and receive Jesus Christ by an act of inward faith as well as outward profession.” (34) Revivalism included Christians of differing theological beliefs (Calvinists and Arminians), who shared a similar fervor and a desire for awakening the lost or the backslidden to a public testimony of Christianity. The division in theology persists among evangelicals (and fundamentalists) today, but what the revivalists united on was that “they … elevated experience over doctrine as the true centerpiece of Christian existence.” (37)

Preliminary conclusion

The roots of Pietism and Revivalism are important components of evangelicalism and fundamentalism. Some of the new “Conservative Evangelicalism” wants to go back to a Reformed religion, bypassing almost all of evangelicalism’s roots. Especially the earliest and most persistent roots of Pietism and Revivalism receive the most scorn. This disdain for historical impulses galvanizing evangelical history is mystifying. Surely they contributed to the success of genuine Christian expansion worldwide for hundreds of years. Perhaps we should consider that religion of the heart is at least as important as the religion of the mind.

Filed Under: Evangelicalism, Fundamentalism, History, Theology
Next Page »