Representative Evangelical Theologians: Clark Pinnock

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

I’ve held my peace on this for a couple of weeks now, so it is time to get back at it.

Roger Olson begins his chapter on Clark Pinnock with two incredible paragraphs giving his take on the current state of affairs in evangelicalism (as of 2007, that is, the date of the book). These paragraphs are so significant I reproduce them here:

At the turn of the century and millennium, evangelical theology is undergoing special stress and strain. Up until this time, most evangelical theologians have been postfundamentalist and yet conservative. Postfundamentalist evangelical theology during the first half-century of its existence has been marked by a profound anxiety of wanting to distance itself from fundamentalism without being anything other than conservative or traditional. Fear of theological liberalism and fundamentalism has been its obsession. As soon as someone moves too far from fundamentalism — even in terms of harsh rhetoric against its narrowness and dogmatism — he or she falls under ‘concern’ by fellow evangelicals for possibly moving too close to liberalism. The same thing happens whenever an evangelical calls for dialogue with liberals in theology. Anyone who talks of separation from heretical or apostate denominations falls under suspicion from some quarters of having a fundamentalist spirit.

In this milieu of evangelical obsessiveness over its own identity vis-à-vis liberalism and fundamentalism, a few courageous evangelical thinkers have begun to step out and develop what can best be described as a postconservative evangelical theology. Postconservative does not indicate ‘anti-conservative’ (contrary to what some critics have suggested) but only a desire to move beyond the category of conservatism insofar as it biases Evangelicalism and evangelical theology in favor of the status quo and keeps it bound to its fundamentalist heritage and habits. Postconservative evangelicals are extremely diverse and can hardly be called a movement. They represent a mood that is dissatisfied with the old forms of old debates and with traditionalism for its own sake and especially with maximal conservativism. They believe that ‘the received evangelical tradition’ (whatever that is, exactly) is often a form of bondage that hinders creativity, innovation, and renewal. There is no organization of postconservative evangelicals; they prefer to network with each other and nonevangelicals. By and large they consider the Evangelical Theological Society too narrow and restrictive; they do not like its requirement of belief in and confession of inerrancy for membership. Postconservatives tend to think ‘outside the box’ and are willing to take risks in reforming traditional evangelical formulas. They think of theology as a journey or a pilgrimage and of theologians as pioneers rather than guardians or gatekeepers. They desire a ‘generous orthodoxy’ that eschews both narrow dogmatism and liberal relativism. They see value in constructive evangelical engagement and dialogue with postmodern culture and philosophy and are saddened by the harsh polemics that evangelicals often hurl at nonevangelicals and secular culture. Above all, postconservative evangelicals wan to rise above the traditional spectrum of ‘left’ (liberal) and ‘right’ (conservative) in modern theology by leaving behind obsessions with issues of the Enlightenment and liberal or fundamentalist habits of the mind. They are willing to reconsider traditional evangelical doctrinal formulations insofar as they are held only because they are traditional and defensive against liberal theology.

What do you think? I think Olson describes the current scene vividly. There are still conservative evangelicals (read “new evangelicals”) of course. They have a lot of influence. Many of them react with alarm at the excesses of “postconservatives” in their broader movement. They will call them out, theologically, but their great challenge is to call for separation from them. That is a step rarely taken, a step too fundamentalist for many of them.

Olson’s poster-boy for postconservative evangelicals is Clarke Pinnock. He is an example, not the leader of a new cadre of evangelicals, but an example of an evangelical who went beyond conservativism as Olson describes. Olson describes his biography, raised in a liberal Baptist church, but influenced by godly evangelical grandparents who served as missionaries in Africa. After conversion, Pinnock aligned with fundamentalists, later to become aligned with the burgeoning postfundamentalist evangelicalism, and still later moving beyond conservativism to a wholly new approach. This last move became troubling to many. Pinnock grew to doubt the settled and static views of orthodox theology, thinking of doctrine as malleable and always developing. Gradually Pinnock moved towards the “openness” view of God, with the notion that God learns what the future will hold, he does not know it ahead of time. Pinnock’s view of inspiration also shifted, viewing the process of inspiration as fluid, moving from the original writers of Scripture to the engagement of readers who gain new insights into God as time progresses. His views of salvation broadened with a support of “the wideness in God’s mercy” so that salvation is “inclusive.” Olson says Pinnock stopped short of universalism, but it is hard to see much difference between that and his views. Pinnock moved into Third Wave Charismatism. His views show the effect of postmodernist thought, though he might not be considered a postmodernist himself.

It is hard to see how Olson sees Pinnock (and those like him) as any kind of evangelical. That such characters exist within evangelical circles in unsurprising. Evangelicalism committed itself to avoiding fundamentalism at all costs. Thus it might argue with aberration, but would be very reluctant to expel the aberrant from its midst. While fundamentalism can be narrow, obsessed with minute orthodoxy, evangelicalism typically tolerates the seeds of its own destruction.

Olson includes all five of his examples of evangelical theologians under the evangelical umbrella for this reason:

What makes them all evangelical is their common commitment to the supernatural life and worldview, the Bible as the supernaturally inspired and infallible Word of God, Jesus Christ as God and Savior, the triune, transcendent-immanent God of the Bible as the creator of all things, salvation through conversion to Jesus Christ by repentance and faith and through grace alone, world transformation through evangelism and social action, and the cross of Jesus Christ (i.e. his atoning death) as the only hope for and means of reconciliation and redemption of lost humanity.

I think Olson is too charitable towards Pinnock and men like him. Every one of these defining statements could be held by them, in a way, but the terms would be redefined to suit their viewpoints. I’m not making any statement regarding Pinnock’s spiritual condition, how would I know that? All I can say is that his stated views stretch the definition of evangelical an extremely long way. In my view, he stretches them beyond the breaking point.

In any case, this is what evangelical theology is, according to Roger Olson. His book is a valuable survey of the theological scene and is well worth acquiring and studying. He has one last chapter in his book on “tensions” in evangelical theology. I think I will leave off blogging about it and conclude with this piece. Olson’s work puts a clear definition on evangelicalism. I think he’s done us a good service in that way. Evangelicalism (the broad center of the North American church) is made up of many sincere believers who are too willing to tolerate error and allow the unfaithful a platform among them. Fundamentalists need to understand them and stand aside from cooperation with them. Even more, we need to conduct a positive ministry, proclaiming the untainted gospel without descending into a narrow Pharisaism. There is a balance to be found, it is just that the place of balance isn’t in evangelicalism.