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.
Olson dubbed Carnell the “apologist for evangelical theology.” He gives a brief biographical sketch, and then proceeds to outline Carnell’s theological contributions. His educational background paralleled Henry’s somewhat. They both went to Wheaton under the training of Gordon Clark. They both attended Boston University for PhD. work. He was among the founding faculty at Fuller Seminary, later becoming the second president of the school. The term “troubled” often describes him, though Olson does not use the term. He does mention that Carnell resigned his presidency of Fuller in 1959, suffering “an emotional collapse.” He died in 1968 (only forty-four years old) of an overdose of sleeping pills; “whether his death was accidental or a suicide is not known.” (p. 109).
Carnell wrote several books, the most striking one being The Case for Orthodoxy, published 1959. In this book Carnell made his reputation as the “apologist for evangelical theology” as he distinguished it from other types of Protestant theology. He contrasted “orthodox theology” (his term) with “liberal, neo-orthodox, and conservative” theologies. To Carnell, all three were problematic, but his harshest criticism focused on fundamentalism and its conservative stance. Olson reports that he called fundamentalism “orthodoxy gone cultic.” (p. 110, Carnell, Case, p. 113). His attacks dismayed many, but Olson says, “In general … Carnell’s Case book did Evangelicalism a service by driving a second nail in the coffin of its connection with the old militant, separatistic fundamentalism. In hindsight it seems this was necessary, as many postfundamentalist evangelicals had not yet shaken off their fundamentalist past and most nonevangelicals still equated Evangelicalism with fundamentalism.” (p. 110).
Olson quotes part of Carnell’s diatribe against fundamentalism, considering his “Orthodoxy” as rising above ideology and militancy, holding fast to original Christianity. He called evangelicalism back to “early Christian creeds, Reformation confessions, … and fearless pursuit of truth…” (p. 111). “Above all,” Olson says, “he called for evangelical engagement with modern knowledge.” (p. 111).
Olson’s chapter on Carnell is very short, just four pages. He includes him, I think, because he represents an energetic (aggressive?) evangelicalism, attempting to assert itself as an alternative to its immediate past, fundamentalism. My view, of course, is that evangelicals rely on stereotypes in making their distinctions with fundamentalism. The strength of a stereotype is that there is enough truth in the portrayal to make a reasonable facsimile of your opponent. The error of stereotyping is that it oversimplifies complex concepts, thus reducing to caricature and misrepresentation.
Next on our list for discussion is Bernard Ramm.
Comments