The Spectrum of Evangelicalism 2—Confessional Evangelicalism (Al Mohler)

Post Series

0—Intro
1—Fundamentalism (Kevin Bauder)
2—Confessional Evangelicalism (Al Mohler)
3—Generic Evangelicalism (John Stackhouse)
4—Postconservative Evangelicalism (Roger Olson)
5—Conclusion and Reflection

This is the second post on our walk through Four Views on the Spectrum of Evangelicalism, which I received from Zondervan to review. The last post was on fundamentalism, which centers around the clarity of the gospel and unity/fellowship of the Church with a healthy dose of separatism. This post inches further from the right, but perhaps is a shade different than the fundamentalism Bauder describes. Al Mohler takes us on a journey through confessional evangelicalism, which I found odd—along with John Stackhouse, who sees his brand of evangelicalism as “conservative” rather than “confessional,” and I agree—because Mohler neither quotes from a single confession nor is he from a confessing denomination. At any rate here is the portrait Mohler paints along our spectrum.

Mohler begins his essay with what he says is “what we should hope to recognize as authentically evangelical”: a passion for the gospel of Jesus, deep commitment to biblical truth, a sense of urgency to see non-believers hear the gospel, and a commitment to personal hones and the local church. And he likes the word evangelical because “the word identifies those who find their primary identity as a gospel people” (69)

He then looks at the history and description of evangelical front he viewpoint of David W. Bebbington, who traces the term from the spiritual awakenings in Britain and then to American and the post-WWII founding of modern evangelicalism by people like Graham, Ockenga, and Henry. Mohler finds Bebbington “quadrilateral” helpful, and that includes: conversionism, activism, biblicism, and crucicentrism.

Before moving on, are these descriptions/definitions from Mohler and Bebbington helpful? Anything missing or too constricting?

I think both are helpful, and I’m thankful Stackhouse and Olson each add an additional descriptor in their chapters to bring Bebbington’s helpful quadrilateral to 5 and 6.

Mohler admits there is no evangelical magisterium to corral a definition of what is evangelical, but insists that the word and movement of evangelicalism is a center-bounded movement: “most sets are defined by both a center and a definable or discernible boundary. While evangelicals are first and foremost defined by love for Christ and enthusiasm for the gospel [center], there’s no question that conscious and deliberate attention to the boundary of acceptable belief is also necessary.” (76) I agree with this assessment, and have grown tired of movements with in the Church to simply rally around Jesus and his way at the expense of definitions (boundaries) of both. In so doing doctrine has become the new four-letter word and confusion is beginning to reign regarding what is central and has always been central to the Christian faith.

Consequently, Mohler believes that central to evangelicalism is theological responsibility and the task of defining which doctrines are central and essential to our faith. He calls this task Theological Triage. Triage is a medical term that’s a process that empowers medical personnel to quickly evaluate medical emergencies. The terms comes from the French word “to sort,” and thus is a method and manner of sorting out which patients need the most urgent medical treatment in an emergency room.

Similarly, Mohler believes “The same discipline that brings order to the hectic arena of the emergency room can also greatly assist Christians in defining the faith in the present age.” (78) Such theological triage requires Christians to determine a scale of theological urgency and he suggests three levels of that type of urgency.

First-level theological triage are most central and essential beliefs to the Christian faith, which include: Trinity, full deity/humanity of Jesus, justification by faith alone, bodily resurrection, and authority of Scripture. Second level, or order, beliefs are those that evangelicals may disagree on, though they create significant boundaries between individual Christians. An example is meaning and mode of Baptism. Finally, Mohler says “Third-order issues are doctrines over which evangelicals may disagree and remain in close fellowship, even within congregations,” and he puts issues of eschatology here.

And what is the goal of such sorting? “The goal…would be to avoid doctrinal collapse in terms of first-order doctrines, on the one hand, and doctrinal preoccupation and schism over third-order, on the other.” And placed along set theory, exercising theological triage supports evangelicalism as a center-bounded set. Some theological divergences and debate are possible within the circle of evangelical identity. Others are clearly outside that circle.” (80)

At this point I can understand if people cry foul, insisting who has the right to decide who and what is evangelical? Others will loudly protest, and Olson does, that there is no evangelical magisterium, it’s only a movement that can’t have rigid boundaries and certainly can’t have rigid boundarians policing evangelicalism! Any thoughts?

At any rate, I found this section very helpful and very timely, not only as evangelicals but also as Christians. Yes Jesus and His gospel-story and way are at the center of our lives and identity as Christians, but that life and identity is bounded by certain beliefs—beliefs about that person and about that gospel-story. Except nowadays it seems almost impossible to name what exactly are the contours of that person and gospel-story, unless you’re Catholic and then you do have a magisterium and tradition to remind and root you. Since us evangelicals don’t have such central governing body and hardly find a rootedness in tradition by way of liturgy and the creeds, such an effort at triage is necessary.

Some may see this effort at theological triage as theological policing. I know of people in my own life who would take great issue with any issuing a directive and declaration regarding proper, first-order Christian belief. I’ve been on the receiving end myself of scathing accusations of narrow fundamentalism and WASP perspectivalism because I insist belief in the Trinity and the physical resurrection of Jesus are necessarily Christian. So I get the accusation but respond that’s a predictably postmodern response that has no place in the Church, a community that is centered around Jesus and his gospel and bounded by beliefs about both.

In the end I agreed more with this section from Mohler than I expected, though his charge that open theism is “disastrous to biblical Christianity” went too far for me. I’ve read all the open theists and, while I’m not 100% on board with their conclusions, find them to be well within the evangelical tent (ETS and NAE thought so, too) and helpful in correcting Calvinist overreach regarding the divine sovereignty and human freewill. I was also dismayed to find zero emphasis on orthopraxy, right living. The emphasis on orthodoxy was predictable, but neglecting pietism and social activism as extension of our evangelical gospel convictions was sorely unfortunate and a big miss. It’s unfortunate this predictability marks confessional/conservative evangelicalism to such an extent it’s basically cliche. The gospel and gospeling is about behavior as much as beliefs, and I don’t mean the anti-drinking, anti-smoking, anti-dancing variety of behavior. I mean the type that is radically countercultural to the retribution, consumption, and injustice found in Kingdom America, the type of behavior that can only come from a radical encounter with Jesus’ gospel and life in the Kingdom.

Thankfully, John Stackhouse helps us with this in his illumination of the generic part of the evangelical spectrum, which we’ll see in the next installment.