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

Last week we spent several days walking through The Spectrum of Evangelicalism, a new book by Zondervan. Here is what we saw:

Kevin Bauder taught us that Fundamentalism is centrally about the unity and fellowship of the Church around the gospel, especially minimal Christian fellowship based on the fundamentals of the Christian faith on which the gospel itself depends. Furthermore, maximal Christian fellowship is possible when Christians are “united by the entire system of faith and practice, the whole counsel of God.” (34)

Al Mohler followed up Bauder’s fundamentalism with a revision and extension through his discussion of Confessional Evangelicalism, which could also be called Conservative Evangelicalism. In this essay, Mohler agreeably quotes David Bebbington’s quadrilateral definition of Evangelicalism, which includes: conversionism, biblicism, crucicentrism, and activism. He also emphasizes the center-boundedness of Evangelicalism, saying “Evangelicalism is coherent as a movement only if it is also known for what it is not. Attention to the boundaries is as requisite as devotion to the center….Our task is to be clear about what the gospel is and is not.” (95, 96) Furthermore, Mohler offered what he calls Theological Triage as a normative practice for Evangelicalism to discern between different levels of necessary theological commitment in order to preserve the gospel, while avoiding getting divided over the wrong issues.

Generic Evangelical, was covered by John Stackhouse. This is broad-tented Evangelicalism in its finest. As Stackhouse argues, “Evangelicalism cannot be sharply characterized in its beliefs, affections, and practices beyond understanding it to be observant Protestant Christianity expressed in authentic, vital discipleship issuing forth in mission with similarly concerned Christians of various stripes. As such, the definition of evangelicalism is inherently contestable…only because the definition of authentic and healthy Christianity is inherently contestable.” (141) He does join Mohler, however, in agreeing that Bebbington’s four-fold definition of Evangelicalism fits the bill, while also adding a fifth: transdenominationalism, hence the big tent.

Rounding out the evangelical spectrum is Roger Olson, the Post-conservative perspective. He argues that it is “an interesting but ultimately futile project to attempt to define evangelical and evangelicalism,” and “identify their boundaries.” (162). He insists that movements cannot be bounded, but instead are center-sets and only become bounded-sets when movements become organizations. As he says, “Evangelicalism has no definable boundaries and cannot have them…And without boundaries it is simply impossible to say with certainty who is in and who is not an evangelical.” (163) But while he insists that fundamentalists and conservatives are obsessed with narrow evangelical boundaries, he does stop short of saying all are in and goes so far as to deny Seventh Day Adventists and Church of God admission into the Evangelical camp.

Before concluding with my own personal reflections, I must say how impressed and thrilled I was to see the level of candor, honesty, and stick-to-itiveness regarding personal positions coupled with irenic, respectful dialogue. While there were clear differences (even heated ones), this book stands as a witness to the type of dialogue that can happen in the Church. Unfortunately I wasn’t able to include everything in these reviews that were covered, including their positions on evangelicals and catholics working together, penal substitutionary atonement, and recent debates regarding open theism. For the rest of the story you’ll have to get the book, which is a good thing indeed!

Now for my own personal reflection:

As I mentioned at the beginning of this journey through the spectrum of evangelicalism, I’ve had my fair share of this spectrum in its fullness. I was reared in a fundamentalist church (IFCA), educated in both confessional/conservative evangelicalism and generic evangelicalism, experienced post-conservative evangelicalism and even post-evangelicalism through my involvement in the emerging church.

Needless to say, I’ve been there and done much of that.

After reading this take on the evangelical spectrum, how would I place myself now? I would say I resonate the most with generic evangelicalism, with a dose of confessionalism on the side. Let me explain.

What I loved about Stackhouses understanding of generic evangelicalism was the transdenominationalism. Perhaps because of my own experiences with this and broad friendships with other believers in Christ, I resonate with the evangelical ethos Stackhouse describes that goes along with the transdenominationalistic character of that ethos. I also like the idea of a broad-tented evangelicalism that is bordered by the fundamentals of the gospel (first order issues, as Mohler would say), while making ample room for tertiary issues that are not central and instead centering on the ethos of evangelicalism comprised in Bebbington’s quadrilateral: conversionism (the necessity for new birth in Jesus through conversion), biblicism (the centrality of the Holy Scripture and a recognition of its absolute authority), crucicentrism (the centrality of the dual event of the cross and resurrection for the salvation and rescue of the world), and activism (in the full Kingdom sense, both evangelistic and social).

What I do fear, however, and what I have witnessed in my recent experience in generic evangelicalism through the Evangelical Covenant Church and the recent Rob Bell Love Wins fiasco, is that the broad-tented approach is not “secure” enough. There is a danger with the tent ballooning to such an extent that everything goes as evangelical, and there a danger of the analogy of a wall-less tent—rather than an obviously defined structure, like a four-walled house—ringing true. (To be honest I think the same holds for the Christian faith generally, but that’s another conversation!)

In other words, there has to be a way to say what is minimally, authentically evangelical.

And that’s where I think the healthy dose of confessional/conservative evangelicalism comes in. Mohler’s center-bounded set offering is helpful in containing evangelicalism. The theological triage of which he speaks is also incredibly helpful, and I think incredibly needed. While this type of posture does smack of theological policing, so what? Shouldn’t we be able to name and claim what is authentically evangelical? Shouldn’t we be able to re-claim the ethos and definition of evangelical/ism from those who would seek to broaden it and dilute it? (And tiptoeing into the deep end of the pool: shouldn’t we be able to name and claim what is Christian?) I think so.

I also understand the type of theological policing for which theological triage also calls seems to smack of fundamentalism. In some ways I’m OK with that. Not the type of fundamentalism that Bauder speaks of, however. The type that borders in the Christian faith to such an extent that Catholics are apostate. The type of fundamentalism that doesn’t allow for healthy dialogue regarding the shades of Christian consensus, as in the recent open theism conversation. The type of fundamentalism that insists the King James Bible is the only God-inspired text and Tim LaHayes Left Behind is the eschatological perspective and Ken Ham’s creationism is equated with the gospel and the type that claims alcoholic consumption isn’t Christian.

I mean the early 20th century fundamentalism as modeled by J. Greshem Machen in his old but relevant book Christianity and Liberalism. In this small, potent tract Machen sought to re-orient the Church around the fundamentals of the Christian faith, around the historic Christian consensus that has named and claimed what is central to the Christian faith. And the type of triage Mohler and others call for seems like a posture that could accomplish such a re-orientation without tiriary theological issues overwhelming and overcoming a conversation about the fundamentals, the consensus of the historic Christian faith.

At the end of this journey I am struck by the fact that those writing about their respective slices of the evangelical spectrum were all over the age of 50, one of them is almost 60. What struck me about the ages of these respondents is how the future of evangelicalism is firmly planted in the hands of my generation. While these men wrote about the historic development and progression of evangelicalism and its current state, my generation will have the power to preserve or radically transform it.

My hope is that my generation would take notice of the history of a movement that, with all of its failure and foibles, has sought to preserve and proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ with courage and conviction. And I hope that my generation would refine this movement, yes, but also preserve the best parts of its model and method, for the sake of God’s glory and the salvation of the world. Perhaps this fine book can serve as that reminder and manual for such a refining and preservation effort.