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.
Comments