On the boundary

FOUR VIEWS ON THE SPECTRUM OF EVANGELICALISM
Edited by Collin Hansen
Zondervan. 222 pages. £10.99
ISBN 978 0 310 293 163

What is an evangelical? Who is an evangelical and who is not? These are questions which continually crop up as more people claim a place on the most successful bandwagon in the wider church.

Edited by Collin Hansen (who works for the Gospel Coalition, Christianity Today and authored the book Young, Restless and Reformed), four heavyweights seek to answer those questions in the context of the US scene. In particular, they interact concerning how to respond to the three vital issues of evangelical relations with Roman Catholics, Open Theism and the doctrine of the cross as substitutionary atonement.

Quadrophonics

Kevin Bauder represents the Fundamentalists. This label does not mean quite what we might imagine. He defines Fundamentalism in terms which we in the UK would call ‘separationism’ — the need to withdraw fellowship from those who deny the gospel. Al Mohler of Southern Baptist Seminary writes from the perspective of Confessional Evangelicalism. His stance is doctrinally similar to that of Bauder, but he sees the need to engage with the world and fight theological liberalism rather than just withdraw when it rears its ugly head. Both these men believe in the inerrancy of Scripture and define evangelicals prescriptively in terms of those who believe and promote the evangel – the biblical gospel.

The other two contributors do not adhere to Scripture’s inerrancy and see it as unnecessary luggage for the evangelical cause. John Stackhouse argues for what he calls Generic Evangelicalism which cannot simply be characterised by its beliefs, but, rather, he says, by a vital relationship with Jesus. The question here, of course, is ‘which Jesus?’ — the Jesus of Scripture or another? Roger Olsen, the fourth writer, says that he has suffered from unloving attitudes from those keen to be clear about doctrinal issues. He describes himself as a Post-Conservative Evangelical who ultimately sees the idea as trying to define the boundaries of evangelicalism as the futile project of the narrow-minded. Stackhouse and Olsen go for a more descriptive approach to the question defining an evangelical, and spend some time kicking around Bebbington’s ‘quadrilateral’ which suggests evangelicalism being characterised by conversionism, activism, biblicism and crucicentrism. Stackhouse wants to add transdenominationalism and an emphasis on right behaviour rather than simply right belief; Olsen wants to add respect for historic Christian orthodoxy but it must be a ‘generous orthodoxy’ (a term garnered from Brian Mclaren of emerging church fame).

Three vital issues

On the three issues, Fundamentalist Bauder explains that Evangelicals and Catholics Together (EACT) betrays the gospel, as does Open Theism, and that Substitutionary Atonement is essential to the gospel. Al Mohler agrees with him. Stackhouse feels that EACT does not betray the gospel, that Open Theism is wrong but does not deny the gospel, and that Substitutionary Atonement is essential to the gospel but you can still deny it and be an evangelical. Olsen agrees with Stackhouse on the first two issues and says that Substitutionary Atonement is normal for evangelicals to believe but not essential.

It is clear that the watershed among these four spokesmen is to do with the inerrancy of Scripture. It is their position on this crucial matter which determines where they end up on the various issues they discuss.

While belief in the inerrancy of Scripture may not be essential to salvation it seems to me to be essential to the definition and unity of evangelicalism. After all what such exercises as those exemplified in this book are really about is whether or not we can stand together. With Scripture accepted as God’s true word we at least have a place to start and a clear agenda at which to work as we pursue agreement. But without this, ultimately we are all at sea, as, in fact, the book demonstrates.

While the concept of ‘generous orthodoxy’ seems inclusive in an avuncular kind of way, it ultimately betrays the gospel. The gospel is already generous in that it is full of God’s grace. What are we saying about God when we move to water it down to make it more inclusive? Or what are we saying about God’s ability to communicate if we conclude that the primary truths of the gospel are not clear and are in fact debatable? What good news do we then have for the world? After all, as Kevin Bauder warns, whose orthodoxy is it that we think we are being generous with? Christ died to establish the truths of the gospel.