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