{"id":2438,"date":"2019-10-31T08:38:05","date_gmt":"2019-10-31T16:38:05","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/oxgoad.ca\/?p=2438"},"modified":"2019-10-31T12:25:38","modified_gmt":"2019-10-31T20:25:38","slug":"the-evangelical-coalition","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/oxgoad.ca\/2019\/10\/31\/the-evangelical-coalition\/","title":{"rendered":"The Evangelical Coalition"},"content":{"rendered":"

My earlier discussion from Roger Olson\u2019s Pocket History of Evangelical Theology<\/i> covered the first half of the book. The subject there was the roots of evangelical theology. He listed eight roots or sources of evangelical thought:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Pietism<\/li>\n
  2. Revivalism<\/li>\n
  3. Puritanism<\/li>\n
  4. Wesleyanism<\/li>\n
  5. The Great Awakenings<\/li>\n
  6. Old Princeton Theology<\/li>\n
  7. Holiness-Pentecostalism<\/li>\n
  8. Fundamentalism<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    For discussion of each of these, see my earlier posts (you can work your way backwards from this one<\/a>).<\/p>\n

    The rest of Olson\u2019s book describes postfundamentalist evangelical theology, beginning with a brief introductory chapter then discussing five different evangelical theologians as representatives of the breadth of evangelical theology. Olson\u2019s introduction to postfundamentalist evangelicalism (new evangelicalism) is striking in that the history I was taught by fundamentalist professors matches exactly<\/i> what Olson describes. Many younger men in the \u201con-line discussion mosh pits\u201d need to read this chapter. They tend to have a highly revisionist view of the period. It will not do to construct a narrative justifying your prejudices. You need to let real history inform your thinking about the current state of affairs and the way forward.<\/p>\n

    Olson opens the introductory chapter this way:<\/p>\n

    \u201cThe Evangelicalism that forms the context for this resource on evangelical theology is the postfundamentalist, new evangelical coalition that came into existence as a result of the efforts of [Harold] Ockenga and his colleagues in the 1940s. Of course, they did not create an entire new religious movement. Instead, they managed to reform the fundamentalist movement by giving it a new face, so to speak. They reorganized and refurbished it and pushed out to the periphery those militant, separatistic leaders who had captivated it throughout the 1930s. The latter continued to exist, of course, and so the two movements \u2014 later fundamentalism (militant, separatistic) and the new Evangelicalism (irenic, cooperative) \u2014 have existed alongside each other since then as the two wings of conservative Protestant Christianity.\u201d (pp. 91-92)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

    Many points in this comment cry out for rebuttal, but most will have to wait another time. It is interesting and ironic that Olson can\u2019t avoid the term \u201cnew evangelical\u201d in this paragraph, though he earlier decried it as a fundamentalist pejorative. It is, in fact, Harold Ockenga\u2019s term. I don\u2019t see how it can be a pejorative if it comes from him! Interesting, however, how much evangelicals resist it.<\/p>\n

    The bottom line is that the new evangelicals split the movement of their forbears, gained influence over the majority, and succeeded in pushing those who persisted in militancy and separation to the periphery, as Olson describes.<\/p>\n

    One factor in the history is new to me. Olson says that when Ockenga et al organized the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE), Carl McIntire and company organized at roughly the same time a \u201cmore separatist\u201d organization called the American Council of Churches. According to Olson, there was some talk of merging the two organizations, but McIntire balked at the NAE inclusion of Holiness-Pentecostal groups in their membership. Ockenga had a broader coalition in mind. \u201cThe NAE charter and vision were too broad for McIntire and most other fundamentalists, so the merger never occurred.\u201d (p. 92). One wonders if the broadening of fellowship to the Pentecostals was a purposeful \u201cpoison pill\u201d to keep the ACC out? Perhaps that\u2019s just my cynicism talking. Today, Charismatics dominate the NAE.<\/p>\n

    As is well known, the evangelical coalition promoted unity through the efforts of the NAE, led by a chief spokesman, Billy Graham, with Fuller Seminary becoming its chief seminary and Christianity Today<\/i> its chief publication. These four institutions (if we can call Billy Graham an institution) were the four pillars of the new evangelicalism. In their cooperative efforts they united under Graham\u2019s \u201ctwin themes,\u201d that is, \u201cconversion to Christ through personal repentance and faith in his cross, and the Bible as God\u2019s specially revealed Word, wholly inspired and completely trustworthy in all matters related to faith and practice.\u201d (p. 94). These two ideas are the doctrinal minimums required for ecclesiastical cooperation in evangelicalism. A careful reader will note that the Bibliological \u201cpillar\u201d rests on a rather sandy foundation; it isn\u2019t rooted in the rock of Biblical inerrancy. It allows room for inerrancy, but also for much softer views of inspiration as well. This may be evangelicalism\u2019s Achilles heel.<\/p>\n

    In my first post on Olson\u2019s book, I quoted his definition of evangelical theology:<\/p>\n

    \u201cEvangelicalism is a loose affiliation (coalition, network, mosaic, patchwork, family) of mostly Protestant Christians of many orthodox (Trinitarian) denominations and independent churches and parachurch organizations that affirm\u2026
    \n\u00b7 \u201ca supernatural worldview\u2026
    \n\u00b7 \u201cthe unsurpassable authority of the Bible\u2026
    \n\u00b7 \u201cJesus Christ as unique Lord, God, and Savior\u2026
    \n\u00b7 \u201cthe fallenness of humanity and salvation provided by Jesus Christ\u2026
    \n\u00b7 \u201cthe necessity of personal repentance and faith\u2026
    \n\u00b7 \u201cthe importance of a devotional life\u2026
    \n\u00b7 \u201cthe urgency of gospel evangelism and social transformation;
    \n\u00b7 \u201cand the return of Jesus Christ\u2026\u201d (14-15)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

    The \u201ctwin themes\u201d discussed above encompass most of these points.<\/p>\n

    With these minimums as the basis, evangelical theology proceeds out of the NAE, Graham, Fuller, and Christianity Today<\/i> coalition. A broad range of views exemplifies evangelical theology. Olson describes five men as representatives of this broad range:<\/p>\n