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!
Comments