Introduction
I would like to state up front that I am a confessing evangelical, a graduate of an evangelical bible college and currently a graduate student of an evangelical seminary. So rest assured that this is not an attack on evangelicalism, but hopefully a helpful reminder of where we have come from and anticipating where we are going. Given this disclaimer, it is important to state that evangelicals are not unaware of the controversies and debates of specific doctrinal issues that took place and are taking place under the evangelical tent. Moreover, these evangelical disagreements have been the topic of discussion in some of my seminary classes and cause for some interesting dialogue (in many respects, much of what follows in the product one of those classes and its notes). Therefore, I would like to briefly outline the contexts of some of these controversies, which may help us in understanding our disputes better and perhaps settle them (maybe), and conclude with a suggestion on how to move evangelicalism forward in the 21st century.
The Context and Controversies of Evangelicalism
First the context of the 20th century posed some interesting controversies. Without going into great detail the point of these evangelical diversities points us in the direction of the existence of theological differences within the movement. In the early 20th century, millennial debates and dispensationalism were of huge interest. The mid-century introduced us to the charismatic movement. The 1960s produced controversies concerning gender roles as they related to women ordination. The 1970s-80s saw issues of contemporary worship and defining and defending the inerrancy of Scripture. Most recently, the meaning of justification has been the hot bottom topic within evangelicalism.
Many of the age old debates, such as Calvinism and Arminianism, the nature of the Spiritual gifts, gender roles, the sacraments (e.g. baptism and the Lord’s Supper), find their supporters among the evangelical camps and are till an issue today. In other words, as a group we have not solved these debates. Even our high view of Scripture, which I’ll mention soon, has not led to a consensus understanding of how to interpret Scripture. In fact, there are considerable differences about “how” to interpret the Scriptures and this of course results in biblical/theological differences. These evangelical biblical/theological differences have caused evangelicalism to define itself, and in light of the disagreement within academia and the church, who decides what answers are “correct”? Moreover, who decides what issues we must argue on in order to be an evangelical?
In an effort to define evangelicalism, the Evangelical Theological Society (ETS) provides a doctrinal basis that one must sign every year in order to be a member of the society. It reads, “The Bible alone, and the Bible in its entirety, is the Word of God written and is therefore inerrant in the autographs. God is a Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, each an uncreated person, one in essence, equal in power and glory.” First, such a statement is often associated with notions of the essentials of evangelicalism and in it we find a specific understanding of the authority and nature of Scripture as well as the nature of the trinity. However, is this enough to establish evangelicalism and one as an evangelical? Yes there are many doctrinal aspects that evangelicals must agree on: such as, the final authority of Scripture, the divinity of Jesus Christ and a need for personal faith in him; however, what about the nature of Christ’s work on the cross? What did it primarily accomplish? Victory and defeat of Satan’s hold on humanity, a satisfaction of God’s wrath, a moral example, etc.? Furthermore, the nature of humanity and the necessity to live a life spiritually transformed? Lastly, what about the importance of mission work for furthering the kingdom (whatever it looks like)? Therefore, along the similar vain of the in the previous paragraph, what confessions are essential and who decides that?
So the doctrinal aspects of a definition of evangelicalism are quite diverse among confessional evangelicals (e.g. evangelical Methodists and Presbyterians). There may be some affirmation of essential doctrines and thus in a sense unity, but it does not take too long to find many aspects of doctrinal diversity within the essential doctrines and then some. As a result, it seems that the theological characteristics and professions of evangelicalism are not enough to primarily hold it together and define it.
Not even cultural definitions can hold evangelicalism together. While evangelicalism is commonly identified as “politically conservative” (e.g. the republican party), who defend ethical issues such as pro-life and anti-gay marriage, there are many evangelicals who vote for different parties. Moreover, there are many non-evangelicals who are also “culture conservatives” (e.g. Roman Catholics and Mormons). Also, there are many who seek to hold evangelicalism together from a scientific approach, but this is flawed as well. For while evangelicals are typically labeled as “scientifically conservative” (e.g. creationism and intelligent design), who hold certain scientific notions about the age of the earth and anti-evolutionary theories, there are many evangelicals who hold an old earth view as well as certain notions of evolutionary theological theories (check out BioLogos http://biologos.org/).
In light of the insufficiency to define evangelicalism with a doctrinal/theological profession, and culturally political and scientific standpoints, many scholars have gone the route of defining evangelicalism in light of historical paradigms. George Marsden suggests a Protestant paradigm as it understands evangelicalism’s close association to the heritage of the Protestant Reformation. I think Marsden rightly notices this, but there seems to be more to evangelicalism historically than just the Protestant Reformation. As a result of many unanswered historical influences, Donald Dayton claims that a Pentecostal paradigm is best as it notices a common heritage in the revivals of the 19th (2nd Great Awakening) and 20th (Pentecostal) centuries. But still there seems to be things that Dayton
What seems to best define and unite evangelicalism is what it stands against. In other words, what best defines evangelicalism is not what it is but what it is not. For example, evangelical’s battle with modernism is the common enemy of evangelicals and in a sense an accurate defining aspect of the movement. Our attacks against the ethical relativists, the religious atheists, liberal Jesus scholars (e.g. Bart Ehrman, and the “scholars” of the Jesus Seminar), etc are just as much a definitional aspect of who we are as a movement as what our creeds say.
Conclusion: The Future of Evangelicalism
The contexts and controversies of evangelicalism are quite numerous and there is more to be explored. There are two books coming out that I need to read on this topic before I make any more concluding remarks regarding what the future of evangelicalism will look like: Four Views on the Spectrum of Evangelicalism and Evangelicalism: What Is It and Is It Worth Keeping? by D.A. Carson. But some thoughts would be that we must clearly define what we are and I think that evangelicalism can only do that if it sees itself as a movement instead of a religious group or organization within Protestant Christianity. My reason for saying this is because there seems to be too much infighting than actual agreement on specific issues. If we understand evangelicalism as a religious movement within Protestant Christianity, then the things we stand for can often be associated with reforming and reviving specific Christian groups.
No comments:
Post a Comment