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!

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.