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.
- Pietism
- Revivalism
- Puritanism
- Wesleyanism
- The Great Awakenings
- Old Princeton Theology
- Holiness-Pentecostalism
- 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.
Comments