The Weakness of the Evangelical Ethos in its Present Day Form

Without openness to curiosity, imagination, or theological exploration the Christian faith harms itself. It cannot both be highly suspicious of critical thought in theology, biblical studies, philosophy, etc, and yet pretend to keep its currency in contemporary dialog. The one requires the other else withdraws into its own cloistered communities of the "ins" and the "outs". Evangelical Christianity has become this latter thing which now harms its very foundations.

R.E. Slater

February 13, 2019

The Dark Side of Evangelicalism

Patheon link here

by Roger Olson

February 12, 2019

"Suffice it to say that evangelical intellectuals have always found themselves somewhat on the defensive and rarely applauded. By “intellectual” I mean a person given to critical inquiry even about his or her own religious (or other) commitments." - RO

Here, in this essay, by “evangelicalism” I do not mean any particular evangelical movement but what I have described as the “evangelical ethos”—a broad and inclusive spiritual-theological form of Christianity defined by the so-called “Bebbington quadrilateral”: conversionism, biblicism, crucicentrism, and activism. I have expounded these here much in the past, so I will refrain from doing so again. Anyone interested can simply look up the “Bebbington quadrilateral” and read about evangelical Christianity—not as a particular movement (the ethos is shared by many movements) but as the spiritual-theological ethos that grew especially out of the Pietist movement in Germany and Scandinavia as well as Great Britain and spread throughout the world.

The ethos of which I speak always existed in Christianity but came especially to the fore in and with a series of “awakenings” among (mostly) Protestant Christians beginning in the early 18th century. However, once it was recognized as a distinct form of Christian life people recognized its precursors in the radical Reformation (e.g., the Swiss Brethren) and among some Puritans.

I have described and promoted this evangelical spiritual-theological Christian ethos in my books, articles, and here. For the most part I have attempted to clear up misconceptions about it, especially the one that regards it as political which it is not and never has been. (Although, of course, as with any movement many both inside and outside the movements marked by the ethos have attempted to hijack it for their political causes.)

*Sidebar: The opinions expressed here are my own (or those of the guest writer); I do not speak for any other person, group or organization; nor do I imply that the opinions expressed here reflect those of any other person, group or organization unless I say so specifically. Before commenting read the entire post and the “Note to commenters” at its end.* - RO

I am unapologetically evangelical—so long as I can explain what I mean by that. I do not regard myself as part of any particular evangelical movement as I once did. For many years I identified myself with the American post-World War 2 post-fundamentalist, “neo-evangelical” movement associated especially with the National Association of Evangelicals and the Billy Graham ministries and related organizations. (For more about this particular evangelical movement read Revive Us Again: The Reawakening of American Fundamentalism by historian Joel A. Carpenter (Oxford University Press, 1997). However, I think that evangelical movement is dead. Remnants and relics of it exist, but as a relatively cohesive movement it is gone.

In case I need to say this—in my opinion (and that of most scholars of evangelicalism—the evangelical spiritual-theological ethos is not tied to any denomination or organization.

As a church historian-historical theologian, what do I regard as the weaknesses of the evangelical ethos? Of course, as a kind of Platonic essence, in its purity, I don’t think it has any weaknesses except certain tendencies it seems to carry along with it that have to be resisted because they automatically “pop up” among people who “catch” the ethos of evangelical Christianity (or are raised in it).

The first weakness I find is a tendency of evangelicals to lean toward anti-intellectualism. Evangelical historian Mark Noll examined and critiqued this so well in his book The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind (Eerdmans, 1999) that I don’t feel the need to repeat that. Suffice it to say that evangelical intellectuals have always found themselves somewhat on the defensive and rarely applauded. By “intellectual” I mean a person given to critical inquiry even about his or her own religious (or other) commitments.

The second weakness I find is a tendency of evangelicals to succumb to hero-worship. By this I mean a tendency to identify men and women among themselves—past or present—who are placed on a pedestal as “especially spiritual” and expected to be immune to the vagaries of fallenness and given spiritual authority beyond that which any human (other than Jesus Christ) deserves.

The third weakness I find is a tendency of evangelicals to eschew organized efforts at social reconstruction to eliminate poverty, hunger and oppression. Oppression is a concept almost totally lacking among evangelicals—except the spiritual oppressions of Satan, sin and “the world.” Many evangelicals have been active in charitable work, community development, etc., but few have been actively involved in anti-poverty and anti-oppression programs of a political nature. Liberation theologies, for example, have been largely rejected by evangelicals as allegedly replacing “spiritual salvation” with “social salvation.”

The fourth weakness I find is a tendency of evangelicals to follow a “Christ against culture” approach (H. Richard Niebuhr) to the arts. By and large, with some exceptions, evangelicals have neglected the arts. Many are highly suspicious of the arts, as they are of critical thought (in theology, biblical studies, philosophy, etc.). This has been a notable tendency among evangelicals historically. There are exceptions, of course. I have written here before also about a seeming aversion to writing literary fiction from an evangelical perspective.

The fifth and final weakness (for now) is a tendency I find among evangelicals toward spiritual elitism—to the point of often believing that non-evangelical Christians are not authentically Christian or even saved. Especially in the past, but still to a very large extent, evangelical Christians have been conditioned to regard Catholics (to say nothing of Eastern Orthodox about which they tend to be ignorant) and “mainline Protestants” as false Christians and unsaved. The language of evangelicals has been that we/they are “Christians” and others are something else. This has hindered ecumenical understanding between evangelicals and other Christians.

Evangelical pastors, organizational leaders, institutional administrators, need to work to correct these tendencies and many do. However, what I have observed is that when they do they get “push back” from the evangelical grassroots. Many among the grassroots of evangelical Christianity have fundamentalist leanings that cause them still, in spite of not being fully fundamentalist, to label all such attempts by pastors, denominational leaders, college and university administrators as “on a liberal trajectory.”

These tendencies seem to be endemic to evangelical Christianity—with many outstanding exceptions. Unfortunately, the exceptions struggle to maintain an evangelical identity among evangelicals. They are often viewed with suspicion.

I struggle with the question of whether these weaknesses are actual endemic to evangelical Christianity or whether they could be overcome with success. I have seen them overcome with success in places, but often those “places” are marginalized by the evangelical constituents.

*Note to commenters: This blog is not a discussion board; please respond with a question or comment only to me. If you do not share my evangelical Christian perspective (very broadly defined), feel free to ask a question for clarification, but know that this is not a space for debating incommensurate perspectives/worldviews. In any case, know that there is no guarantee that your question or comment will be posted by the moderator or answered by the writer. If you hope for your question or comment to appear here and be answered or responded to, make sure it is civil, respectful, and “on topic.” Do not comment if you have not read the entire post and do not misrepresent what it says. Keep any comment (including questions) to minimal length; do not post essays, sermons or testimonies here. Do not post links to internet sites here. This is a space for expressions of the blogger’s (or guest writers’) opinions and constructive dialogue among evangelical Christians (very broadly defined). - RO

* * * * * * * * * * *

What is an Evangelical?

https://www.nae.net/what-is-an-evangelical/

Evangelicals take the Bible seriously and believe in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord. The term “evangelical” comes from the Greek word euangelion, meaning “the good news” or the “gospel.” Thus, the evangelical faith focuses on the “good news” of salvation brought to sinners by Jesus Christ.

Evangelicals are a vibrant and diverse group, including believers found in many churches, denominations and nations. Our community brings together Reformed, Holiness, Anabaptist, Pentecostal, Charismatic and other traditions. As noted in the statement “Evangelicals — Shared Faith in Broad Diversity,” our core theological convictions provide unity in the midst of our diversity. 

The NAE Statement of Faith offers a standard for these evangelical convictions.

Historian David Bebbington also provides a helpful summary of evangelical distinctives, identifying four primary characteristics of evangelicalism:

• Conversionism: the belief that lives need to be transformed through a “born-again” experience and a life long process of following Jesus

• Activism: the expression and demonstration of the gospel in missionary and social reform efforts

• Biblicism: a high regard for and obedience to the Bible as the ultimate authority

• Crucicentrism: a stress on the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross as making possible the redemption of humanity

These distinctives and theological convictions define us — not political, social or cultural trends. In fact, many evangelicals rarely use the term “evangelical” to describe themselves, focusing simply on the core convictions of the triune God, the Bible, faith, Jesus, salvation, evangelism and discipleship.

Defining Evangelicals in Research

Evangelicals are a common subject of research, but often the outcomes of that research vary due to differences in the methods used to identify evangelicals. In response to that challenge the NAE and LifeWay Research developed a tool to provide a consistent standard for identification of evangelical belief.

The NAE/LifeWay Research method includes four statements to which respondents must strongly agree to be categorized as evangelical:

• The Bible is the highest authority for what I believe.

• It is very important for me personally to encourage non-Christians to trust Jesus Christ as their Savior.

• Jesus Christ’s death on the cross is the only sacrifice that could remove the penalty of my sin.

• Only those who trust in Jesus Christ alone as their Savior receive God’s free gift of eternal salvation.

Researchers are encouraged to use the method, with proper citation to NAE/LifeWay Research.

Methodology for NAE/LifeWay Research Evangelical Beliefs Research Definition

For Further Study

An Evangelical Manifesto

Charles J. Scalise, “What Does Fuller Mean by ‘Evangelical’?,” Fuller Theological Seminary, February 1, 2015.

David W. Bebbington, Evangelicalism in Modern Britain: A History from the 1730s to the 1930s (London: Unwin Hyman, 1989).

“Evangelical: What’s in a Name?,” Evangelicals Magazine, National Association of Evangelicals, Winter 2017/18.

“Evangelicals — Shared Faith in Broad Diversity,” National Association of Evangelicals, May 22, 2018.

Leith Anderson and Ed Stetzer, “Defining Evangelicals in an Election Year,” Christianity Today, March 2, 2016.

Leith Anderson and Ed Stetzer, “Who are Evangelicals & Where are They Headed?,” Today’s Conversation podcast, January 15, 2016.

Mark A. Noll, The Rise of Evangelicalism: The Age of Edwards, Whitefield, and the Wesleys (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 2003).

Wheaton College Institute for the Study of American Evangelicals

* * * * * * * * * * *

What Is an “Evangelical?”

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2016/06/what-is-an-evangelical/

by Roger Olson

June 21, 2016

To learn quickly and simply what an “evangelical Christian” is you can do no better than peruse the web site of the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) at www.nae.net. There, on the web site’s “front page” you will find links to such defining tools as the NAE Statement of Faith and answer to “What Is an Evangelical?”

The NAE does not claim to speak for all evangelical Christians, but it is far and away the most important and historically influential organization for uniting evangelical Christians in the U.S.A. for purposes of cooperation.

The reason I am posting this essay here is that my blog contains the word “evangelical” as part of my own self-definition. Due to the secular media’s ongoing misguided and misleading effort to define “evangelical” as a political posture people are naturally confused when they discover that I am a lifelong, “card carrying” evangelical and politically progressive—especially with regard to economic issues. I strongly believe in government redistribution of wealth such that many people would regard my political-economic posture as “socialism”—in the Northern European sense of the term. (My Scandinavian genes perhaps incline me that way, but I believe faith in Jesus Christ is the real reason for my belief in redistribution of wealth.)

The NAE adamantly rejects any identification of “evangelical” with a particular political ideology or even posture. Historically and theologically that is correct—even if most people in the United States who identify themselves to pollsters as “evangelical” also identify as conservative Republicans. Here is an analogy. Probably most people in the United States who identify themselves as “Unitarian” also would identify themselves to pollsters, if asked, as liberal Democrats. Historically-theologically, however, there is no necessary link between the two (viz., being Unitarian and being politically liberal).

My point is that if you consider the NAE as the major “voice” of evangelicals in the United States, as it was throughout the 1950s and beyond and still probably is (except for the secular media which has no “credentials” for defining “evangelical” historically-theologically), then there is no necessary connection between being evangelical and being conservative in the sense of supporting the goals and aims of the current Republican Party.

Again, the NAE does not pretend to speak for all evangelicals in the United States or elsewhere, but since its founding in 1942 it has served as the single most important “voice” for evangelicalism in the United States. Nobody in the NAE leadership would claim that a person or organization must belong to it or even agree with every single word or sentence in its Statement of Faith to be authentically evangelical. However, its Statement of Faith was carefully and cautiously crafted by the founders to be as inclusive as possible without being compatible with anything and everything. Denominations as diverse as the Christian Reformed Church and the Church of the Nazarene have been members. (Some evangelical denominations such as the Southern Baptist Convention have never officially joined the NAE but have participated in its programs at a non-member level and sent non-voting “observers” to its board meetings.)

One of the NAE’s most important programs is its World Relief Commission that raises funds for suffering people around the world.

The NAE has had its “ups and downs” in recent years. Some of what has happened in it has saddened and even upset me. One president was ousted due to his strong suggestion that the NAE drop its policy that member denominations cannot also belong to the National Council of Churches. Another president was discovered to be secretly living a lifestyle incompatible with evangelical Christian morality (viz., paying a prostitute for sex). Every organization has problems from time to time, but I think the main reason for what many of us perceive as a decline in the influence of the NAE is the media’s constant identification of the concept “evangelical” with relatively extreme political, social and economic conservatism. This has caused many evangelicals in the U.S. to shy away from the very word “evangelical.”

I consider myself “evangelical” in the general sense of the word as defined by the NAE which shaped my early spiritual and theological formation. My uncle, with whom I was very close (and still am), was a member of the national board of the NAE for many years. When I was struggling to settle on a religious self-definition in my late teens and early twenties he and I had numerous conversations. I came to agree and identify with the broad evangelicalism of the NAE. Eventually I studied the history of the NAE. It was founded in 1942* to provide a cooperative “umbrella” for non-fundamentalist, non-liberal, gospel-centered Protestants in the United States. At its founding it included a diverse group of relatively conservative Protestants in the U.S.—ranging from the Presbyterians to Pentecostals. (*I have chosen 1942 for the NAE’s founding because that year falls between its initial exploratory meeting in 1941 and its first official convention in 1943. I believe the actual “birth” of the NAE can best be pegged to 1942.)

Over the years at least 50 distinct denominations have joined the NAE which also includes numerous individual churches and trans-denominational organizations. The current president is highly respected evangelical pastor Leith Anderson, by all descriptions a moderate theologically. (I have met him and heard him speak and we belonged to the same Baptist denomination for some years. He also served on the governing board of the college and seminary where I taught from 1984 to 1999. While I do not agree with everything he has done or said I consider him a good representative spokesperson for contemporary American evangelical Christianity. I wish more media people would turn to him instead of to certain neo-fundamentalists when they seek a resource to explain American evangelicalism.)

There is no single person or organization that speaks for all American evangelicals. In some sense evangelist Billy Graham was viewed by most American evangelicals as the main spokesman for them, even though he was never an “evangelical pope.” With Graham’s retirement many individuals calling themselves “evangelical” have attempted to replace him as the recognized spokesperson for American evangelicalism, but to date no one has achieved that recognition. Most of those wishing to be recognized as the spokesperson for American evangelicalism work out of theological orientations that would have been considered “fundamentalist” by the NAE’s founders.

I will end this blog post by coming around to where it began and its main purpose. If you want to know what “evangelical” means you can do no better than look at and examine the web site of the National Association of Evangelicals at www.nae.net. While I do not commit myself to agreeing to everything you find there, I still consider myself “evangelical” in that broad sense and I do not allow the popular media to define “evangelical” for me.

Roger Olson - Is God Infinite or Personal? The Rise of Boston Personalism as Foundation to (but different from) Process Theology and Revival in Open and Relational Theology

Is God Finite?

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2017/07/is-god-finite/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=BRSS&utm_campaign=Evangelical&utm_content=259#

by Roger Olson
July 23, 2017

Most Christians in the middle or to the “right” of the middle of the Christian theological spectrum will automatically recoil at the question “Is God finite?” The knee-jerk reaction even I feel is “No, of course not. What a silly question.” On the other hand, when asked to explain God’s infinity many such Christians (middle to right of the theological spectrum) have some difficulty. “Unlimited?” “Eternal?” “Omnipotent?” All are answers one hears as attempts to pin down what “infinite” means in relation to God.

To the best of my knowledge, however, nobody thinks or can show that the Bible itself actually says God is “infinite.” The word itself simply means “not finite.” But what does “finite” mean?

This became a divisive issue among European Christians especially during the so-called “Atheismusstreit” (atheism controversy) that broke out in German universities in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. The person who launched it was philosopher Johann Gottlieb Fichte who argued that God can either be infinite or personal but not both. Fichte’s claim possibly cloaked an atheistic intention; it’s somewhat difficult to tell as atheism was illegal at that time and place.

Perhaps the most important legacy of Fichte was G. W. F. Hegel who, after Fichte, tried to “fix” the problems Fichte and others raised about God and defined God as “Absolute Spirit” and the “wahrhaft Unendliche” (“true infinite”) that includes the finite in itself.

Now jump to the early 20th century. One of the nearly forgotten but very influential Christian philosophers of religion throughout the early and middle 20th century was Edgar Sheffield Brightman (d. 1953) who taught at Methodist-related Boston University. Brightman was very interested in theology and sought to reconstruct the Christian idea of God to make it fit the facts of experience more adequately. He launched a brief movement called “Boston Personalism” that was eventually replaced, for most liberal-leaning Protestants in the U.S., by Process Theology. (Here it might be helpful to note that Brightman was Martin Luther King’s mentor at BU during his doctoral studies there.)

Over the years I have heard of Brightman and Boston Personalism and read some secondary sources (book chapters, journal articles) about him and it. But I never, until recently, actually dipped into a primary source. Because of a recent challenge to do so, by a philosopher of religion influenced by Brightman and Boston Personalism, I bought the “classic” of Boston Personalism at a used bookstore and read it. The book is The Problem of God by Brightman published by Abingdon Press (the Methodist publishing house) in 1930.

Here I do not have space to go into all the “ins” and “outs” of Brightman’s (and Boston Personalism’s) idea of God. I will just mention a few points I found interesting and say that I found them interesting partly because I think they left a lasting impression that is not directly connected with Process Theology. (Most scholars of modern theology seem to think that Brightman laid the foundation for Process Theology’s later rise and replacement of Boston Personalism as the “theology of choice” among liberal-learning Protestants in America.) In other words, I “hear” and read echoes of Brightman’s view of God as “finite” elsewhere—not only among Process theologians and those influenced by A. N. Whitehead and Charles Hartshorne.

In The Problem of God Brightman argues at some length, but in winsome style (the book is really very easy to read), that throughout the history of thought about God (especially but not only Christian) there has been a back and forth tendency that he calls “expansion” and “contraction.” The expansion tendency has been to think of God as so different from humanity as to make God useless for human religious need. (And Brightman does argue that God is necessary for humanity and includes in the book some strong arguments against atheism in all its forms including secular humanism.) One notable example of that, he argues, is the attribution to God of “infinity” which does lead, as Fichte argued, toward a de-personalizing of God. Pushed to its logical conclusion, “infinity” is incompatible with personality and we need a personal God because our basic religious need is for God to deal with suffering. (I will leave that there and challenge doubters to read the book which is available on line through Amazon and other re-sellers of out-of-print books.)

The contraction tendency has been to think of God as so similar to humanity, so anthropomorphic, as to be also useless religiously. Another human religious need is to have someone to worship and be powerful enough to bring value out of evil.

In true Hegelian style (although Fichte actually said this before Hegel), Brightman’s thinking is about “thesis” and “antithesis” searching for “synthesis.” The “thesis” would be the expansion tendency and the antithesis would be the contraction tendency. So what is the “synthesis?” That God is finite and personal but supreme above all other finite and personal beings.

So, in what sense is God “finite” for Brightman (and his Boston Personalism followers—a few of which are still around)? And why do I care?

Well, first of all—to why I care. I long ago rejected the notion that God is “infinite.” I rejected it when I first heard it articulated which was probably in some seminary class. I immediately thought that the concept itself was beyond comprehension (except perhaps in mathematics) and that attributing it to God led away from thinking of God as personal, present, involved, loving and able to be affected by us. With Brightman (who I only learned about later) I thought of that attribute of God in traditional theology as an inappropriate expansion of the concept of God brought into Christian thought through philosophy, not the Bible.

On the other hand, I have never felt comfortable with saying that God is finite. That “feels” to me like too much of a contraction of God. So I have preferred to think of God as not infinite but also not finite—insofar as the latter implies a God who is limited in knowledge and power. I have long, perhaps always, preferred to think of God as self-limiting in relation to the world he created. I kept looking for some serious discussion of that concept in Brightman’s book but did not find it. That is interesting because, around the time Brightman wrote The Problem of God the great Baptist theologian Augustus Hopkins Strong was advocating (or had been advocating) the solution (to the same problems Brightman identifies) as “God’s Self-Limitations.” (I do not know the exact date of that essay; it is included in a volume of Strong’s essays published by Judson Press in 1899.) I can’t believe Brightman knew nothing about Strong’s alternative and I wish he had responded to it. Perhaps he did in another publication.

Anyway, my preferred alternative to the problem Brightman identified in historical Western thinking about God—going back to the Greeks—is God’s self-limitations. That, of course, has become one of the major themes of non-Process Christian theologians such as Emil Brunner and Jürgen Moltmann.

So what did Brightman mean by God’s finitude? A careful reading of The Problem of God reveals that he did not mean that God is pathetic, or “evolving,” or powerless. He did mean, however, that there is inherent in God’s eternal being “the Given” which is a particular nature that governs what God can and cannot do. Clearly Brightman was no nominalist/voluntarist! He was a realist with regard to God. He believed God has a specific nature and it includes certain limitations that are not voluntary on God’s part. Among those limitations are that God cannot know the future insofar as it contains events not yet knowable because they will be determined by free will beings other than God and that God cannot coerce free creatures to do his will. According to Brightman, these denials/affirmations about God are necessary “contractions” apart from which the “expansion” would make God religiously unavailable if not irrelevant.

Well, it should be obvious to all readers who pay any serious attention to conversations about God taking place in even evangelical Christian theology how Brightman’s influence may have “trickled down”—even where his name is not known.

Here are a few things about which I agree with Brightman—after reading The Problem of God:

1. First, he was not afraid to think about God metaphysically.
2. Second, he recognized and articulated one of the main problems in Western theism including much traditional Christian thinking about God—the problem of the continual alternation between expansion and contraction.
3. Third, he affirmed that God’s personhood is primary for religion. An impersonal God is of no religious interest or use.

Here are a few things about which I disagree with Brightman—after reading The Problem of God:

1. First, I would not go so far as to call God “finite.” I think that at least strongly hints at too much contraction in the doctrine of God.
2. Second, I think all the problems he identifies can be solved by replacing “the Given”—as he thinks of it—with God’s loving self-limitation in relation to creation.
3. Third, as a philosopher, not a theologian, Brightman relied too heavily on reason and experience to the neglect of revelation and tradition (the four parts of the Wesleyan Quadrilateral).

In some ways my recent book Essentials of Christian Thought turns out to be an alternative to The Problem of God although not entirely in disagreement with the latter.

I found reading Brightman’s The Problem of God a satisfying exercise even as I found myself disagreeing with many of its point. One quandary left over from reading the book is whether Brightman believed in an eventual triumph of good over evil. I find hints in the book that he did, but I’m not sure how his “finite God” could bring that about.

One thought I had was more of a “wonder,” a question, whether my friend Thomas Jay Oord ever read the book or any of the writings of the Boston Personalists and whether he was influenced by them. I think I see certain real points of congeniality there—especially Oord’s basic idea that God cannot coerce free will beings. Tom does not seem to me to “fit” into the category of Process Theology (even though he studied with Cobb at Claremont). Might his theology “fit” more closely into the category of Boston Personalism?

I know of one other theologian who is working to revive Boston Personalism—Gary Dorrien who teaches theology at Union Theological Seminary. (Which is not to say Dorrien follows Brightman or anyone else slavishly; I have just heard him say publicly that he feels a special affinity for Boston Personalism and wishes to breathe new life into it as a live option for liberal Protestant theology.)

By no means do I intend this question as a criticism of Tom Oord or Gary Dorrien; as a historical theologian who focuses especially on modern theology I’m always curious about connections—especially ones not known or recognized. I believe there can be connections, strings of influence, that are not conscious or even known. This is what I call my “trickle down theory” of historical theology. Thinkers like Brightman can “release,” as it were, ideas into the theological “atmosphere” that later re-appear even where he is not known or his influence recognized.

Can a Fundamentalist Exist in the Trump Era?

You Might Still Be a Fundamentalist Even If…

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2017/07/might-still-fundamentalist-even/

by Roger Olson
July 18, 2017

In January of this year (2017) I served on a panel at a session of the American Society of Church History’s annual, national meeting. The subject of the discussion was “The Future of Evangelicalism in America” which is also the title of a book edited and written by the panel’s participants. I was the only theologian on the panel as I was also the only theologian who authored a chapter in the book which was published in 2016 by the University of Columbia Press. The other authors and panelists were historians and sociologists of religion. One difference that emerged among us, especially during the Q&A time after the panelists’ presentations, has to do with how best to define “evangelicalism.” I define it as a deep and wide historical-theological tradition within Protestant Christianity and as a distinct spiritual ethos found primarily among Protestant Christians.

Understandably, given the influence of the media and the participation of many voters calling themselves evangelicals during the 2016 American presidential election, many others, especially in the audience, tended to think of “evangelical” as a political identity nearly identical with “Trumpism.”

During the Q&A I was specifically asked by a member of the scholarly audience, composed mostly of church historians, how it is possible that certain notable evangelical thinkers and leaders have spoken out publicly against Trump. The person named names and they were all people I would identify as inhabiting the “far right” of the evangelical spectrum. (I will refrain from naming names here, but many readers will know who they are.)

Reading the faces and body language of the audience I felt that this question was of special interest. During the presidential campaign and in the period between the election and the inauguration several “evangelical notables”—all of whom I would call fundamentalists—broke from their own ranks, their own cohort, their own tribe to denounce Trump as unfit to be president of the United States. The question aimed at me was how to explain these men’s seemingly odd, unfitting, peculiar political posture when nearly all of their own friends and colleagues loudly supported Trump.

My off-the-cuff response to the question was that I considered the persons named primarily motivated by theology and as intelligent, thoughtful men. Obviously my understood intention was to distinguish them from the majority of their own “pack” or “tribe” many of whose influential self-appointed spokesmen, mostly pastors of fundamentalist churches, supported Trump.

However, and this is my point here, the mere fact of not supporting Trump and of expressing dissenting opinions about Americanism mixed with Christianity does not make one any less “fundamentalist” theologically, spiritually or dispositionally.

Fundamentalism is a particular theological and spiritual posture within evangelical Christianity. Some people will insist on a clear line of distinction, even difference, between “fundamentalism” and “evangelicalism.” There is some support for that clear differentiation historically and theologically. However, in the wider view fundamentalism has always been evangelical Christianity’s “far right wing”—theologically.

However, neither evangelicalism nor fundamentalism are political identities; this confusion is the creation of certain sociologists of religion and the media.

There is and has been since at least 1942 a line, however blurred it may be, between moderate-to-centrist evangelicalism and fundamentalism. This is especially the case in Great Britain and America. I won’t attempt to speak for the situation in other countries. Fundamentalists are evangelicals who display the following characteristics:

1. belief that “biblical inerrancy” is a “super badge” (Carl Henry’s own term) of evangelical identity, 
2. belief that true evangelical Christians will always interpret the Bible as literally as possible,
3. belief that true evangelical Christians will never have Christian fellowship with non-evangelicals (“biblical separationism”), and,
4. a habit of searching for, “finding,” and exposing heresies especially among evangelicals.

To make my point here as clear as possible without naming any names…. Imagine influential American fundamentalist evangelical theologian “John Doe.” Dr. Doe is well-known for bearing all the characteristics of fundamentalism I mentioned above. However, like many American fundamentalists, he wants to be considered a mainstream evangelical leader and spokesman. In the past, anyway, he has been aggressive toward those among American evangelicals he considers heretics, “sheep in wolves’ clothing,” people he considers not authentically evangelical, and has worked to undermine their acceptance and influence among evangelicals.

Then, surprisingly to many people who think of both “evangelical” and “fundamentalist” as political identities, Dr. Doe breaks ranks with his fundamentalist evangelical cohort and denounces their favorite politician as unfit to be president of the United States. Then he goes even further and denounces the prominence of “Americanism” mixed together with Christianity—something his own cohort is especially known for.

I understand the confusion Dr. Doe creates among those ignorant about evangelical and fundamentalist history and theology—especially those who have wrongly come to identify these categories as political identities. What I don’t understand is the tendency on the part of some moderate-to-centrist evangelicals to think that, only for this reason, Dr. Doe must no longer be “one of those fundamentalists.” He might have broken ranks with some outspoken fundamentalists—about these matters—but this alone does not make him now no less a fundamentalist or now a moderate-to-centrist evangelical (non-fundamentalist evangelical).

My plea here is for everyone to take a deep breath and remember that neither“evangelical” nor “fundamentalist” is really, historically-theologically speaking, a political identity. A person can be a true blue fundamentalist and nevertheless be opposed to both “Trumpism” and “American exceptionalism” cloaked with the cross and the Bible.

Roger Olson - A New Christian Dogmatics from Eerdmans

A New Christian Dogmatics from Eerdmans
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2017/07/new-christian-dogmatics-eerdmans/

by Roger Olson
July 16, 2017

I recently received from publisher Wm. B. Eerdmans a complimentary copy of Christian Dogmatics: An Introduction by two Dutch theologians Cornelis van der Kooi and Gijsbert van den Brink (2012/2017). It’s a beautifully hard cover volume encompassing 806 pages (including indexes). On the back cover and inside are glowing endorsements by Richard J. Mouw, Michael S. Horton, Charles Van Engen, and John Bolt—all well-known Reformed theologians with evangelical credentials. I have not read the whole volume yet, but have glanced through it and read portions. It is very contemporary, moderate, irenic, broadly Reformed in posture and orientation, and accessible in language. The authors quote a broad range of theologians and philosophers but the influences of certain 20th century Dutch Reformed theologians such as G. C. Berkouwer and Hendrikus Berkhof are notable.

One of the first things I noticed as I scanned the table of contents is that the doctrine of Scripture appears as Chapter 13—on the heels of the doctrine of the Holy Spirit (Chapter 12). That is not to say, of course, that the Bible is not mentioned or used as an authority for theology before that; it is only to note that a complete account of a doctrine of Scripture follows that of the Holy Spirit—which is ironic (at least to me).

Years ago my good, late friend Stanley J. Grenz published his similar one volume “dogmatics” entitled Theology for the Community of God (also published by Eerdmans) and included the full discussion of a doctrine of Scripture after the doctrine of the Holy Spirit—late in the order of chapters. For that he was pummeled and vilified by certain conservative evangelical theologians. I am waiting to hear from them now about van der Kooi and van den Brink who do the same.

Of course, as an evangelical Arminian, I am especially interested in these Dutch Reformed theologians’ treatment of the doctrines of God’s sovereignty—especially providence and election/predestination. I found them to be very moderate—following closely Berkouwer and Berkhof (Hendrikus, not Louis!). There is no hint here of the aggressive “five point Calvinism” of many American Calvinists.

In sum, if someone asked me to recommend to him or her a moderately evangelical, one volume systematic theology from a broadly Reformed perspective I would recommend this one while cautioning that I have not yet read every page. What I have read pleases me even though, naturally, as an Arminian, I would have trouble using it as my own textbook in a course in systematic theology.

We evangelical Arminians need a good, broadly evangelical (not only Wesleyan), contemporary, one volume systematic theology from an Arminian perspective. I have heard rumors of such—that it is “in the works”—from a British Nazarene theologian, but he has cautioned me not to expect it anytime soon. I hope that it may yet appear in publication during my lifetime. I will not write one; I’m not a systematician but a historical theologian. I will leave it to others to risk systematizing revelation and Christian belief; I’m not at all convinced it can be successfully done. I agree with Alfred Lord Tennyson who famously wrote:

“Our little systems have their day; they have their day and cease to be. They are but broken lights of Thee and Thou, O God, art more than they.”

Roger Olson - The Disappearing Difference between Rhetoric and Argument

Perception vs. Perceiving

by R.E. Slater

Perception is all we know and it is happening in our consciousness. Perceived is therefore the same as perception for we can never ever be sure about the objective reality of the perceived.... Consciousness that does the perceiving is the only reality that we can ever know or be sure of. - Quora


When we perceive something, we become aware of or notice it. Sometimes we perceive things by using our senses of sight, hearing, and smell. Or we can use our mind to perceive things, which means that we are able to recognize or understand them. - Urban Dictionary

Today's post-truth societies writes its own narratives based upon its own agendas. Jesus said to love one another. If our beliefs are not humane, or humanely enacted, then we are not loving one another.

I've been thinking a lot about things over the years which is also why I've written so much. Except for today. I couldn't focus. The news continues to be exceptionally bad for a nation broken too many times. Without getting into anything, here is something I had worked on back in July of 2017....

"When writing, the best I can do is to expand people's ingrained perceptions knowing that for many, their perception is their reality.

"The term 'interprefacts' may be apt here when claiming perceptual 'truth-claims' as 'fact'. The point is, all claimed 'facts' are someone’s interpretation of reality, including 'belief-claims" in politics, religion, or the bible.

Whether we know it or not, we promote our own narratives at the expense of who we are. As Kurt Vonnegut once said, 'Be careful what you pretend to be. You become what you pretend to be.'

In another sense, 'Our beliefs, far from being primary, are often shaped and adjusted by our social goals.' I think this is a wise observation. What this means is that outcome matters. What we believe produces good or bad outcomes.

Thus the necessity to examine one's beliefs that they error on the side of humanity. The tools we have at hand are always available - compassion, wellbeing, and care for the other. In Jesus' words, if our outcomes are less than humane than our beliefs must be adjusted 'er we fall into blinded darkness.

R.E. Slater

May 27, 2020

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Clue: front "half" view or distorted
side view looking to the left?

The Power of Perception:

You ARE what others PERCEIVE!

http://minds2xcel.com/knowledge/2016/11/28/the-power-of-perception-you-are-what-you-are-perceive/

by the Knowledge Center

Perception is an amazing thing. A double-edged sword that can help you cut through the maze of social dynamics; or one that can cut you down to size. Forming a perception about someone or something comes naturally to us, and we do it subconsciously, whether you want to or not; or even when you tell yourself it is not the right thing to do. Let’s not deny this instinctive nature of ours, as it does help us make sense of our social environment, and of the person whom we are interacting with.

It takes just a few seconds to create an initial perception of someone. In quick time, this perception will become a “judgement”. Sometimes there are already preconceived perception biases existing even before the events happen. On this, I will share a little more on the research that I am conducting on perception bias.

Whether you are perceived positively or unfavourably, will suggest the level of difficulty for you “the perceived” to validate yourself subsequently. That is, if you are perceived positively in the beginning, it is easier for you to continue to reinforce that preception to create a favourable subsequent judgment.

Basically, how you come across to someone is defined through your ‘Presence’; how you ‘Behave’; and how you ‘Communicate’. I call this the “PBC”. This sums up a “persona” that you want others to see of you. Instead of an elaborate explanation, let me share a story to showcase what I mean:

I was posted to an overseas assignment several years back. During a visit from my family friends and hosting them to a sumptuous dinner and a night out to the city, our guests were immersed in the sights and sounds of the weekend city-life of the place. There were great scenery and beautiful people dressing to the nines for the weekend. In particular, we saw two exceptionally well-dressed ladies in the crowd. As our friends were appreciating and commenting on how good they look (there you are – our perception), we were drawn to witness a commotion between these 2 ladies in no time. They were hurling verbal insults at each other. We were obviously shocked. The way they behaved and communicated did not carry their Presence. All the ‘positives’ we perceived of them earlier on just disappeared. This disconnect in the persons’ “PBC” is obvious!

- KC (2016)

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

The Disappearing Difference between Rhetoric and Argument

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2017/07/disappearing-difference-rhetoric-argument/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=BRSS&utm_campaign=Evangelical&utm_content=259

by Roger Olson

July 10, 2017

Recently (during and since the 2016 U.S. presidential election) there has been a lot of “chatter” about “facts.” Someone publicly labeled a public truth claim an “alternative fact.” This neologism created a great deal of consternation, controversy, and more than a little tittering.

This event, or series of events, provoked me to think about truth claims, “facts,” and reality. Long before someone uttered the phrase “alternative fact” someone else said that “perception is reality.” I’ve uttered that myself in certain contexts. Some years ago the “sociology of knowledge” became interpreted by many intellectuals and academics as the “social construction of reality.” Others cautioned that the sociology of knowledge should be interpreted only as the “social construal of reality.”

For quite a long time now European and North American intellectuals (and please don’t think you’re not affected by what they think and say, something I’ll explain later here) adopted “anti-realism” or its softer version “critical realism.” The “social construction of reality” expresses anti-realism; the “social construal of reality” expresses critical realism. Both points of view accept the sociology of knowledge but with different degrees.

I long ago gave up any thought that “facts” (truth claims) match reality perfectly—as it actually is. I adopted a critical realism posture toward truth claims. All truth claims construe reality from within some narrative, some story about what is real and important, some perspective on “the world,” some point of view. As some thinker said, there is no view from nowhere.

I worry, however, that many people in the Western world (Europe, North America, places influenced by their intellectual trends) either 1) Don’t know or accept the inescapable social construal of reality or 2) Embrace the anti-realist social construction of reality view.

Some readers may know that much of what I am talking about here comes, at least partially, from American sociologist Peter Berger who died very recently. I was privileged, over the past two-to-three years to call him my friend. He initiated the friendship and I was simply “blown away,” to use an American colloquialism, by that. We met over lunch a few times, corresponded a few times, and he invited me to respond in a public colloquium or symposium to one of his last books. And he suggested to the editor of a volume of essays responding to that book that I write a chapter. By “friend” I don’t mean we were “chums” or “buddies” or anything like that; we knew each other and had some friendly social as well as professional interactions.

Through my friendly acquaintance and interactions with Berger, widely considered one of the “fathers” of the sociology of knowledge, I discovered that he was not, as many have assumed, an anti-realist. He believed, he told me directly, that there are methods of research, in sociology itself, that filter out bias, subjectivity and perspective. This felt a bit inconsistent to me—at least with many people’s interpretation of Berger’s sociology of knowledge epistemology.

It was not Berger, however, from whom I first learned about critical realism and the role that narrative, perspective, and social location play in everyone’s construal of reality. I first learned that, something I already suspected, from…(drumroll)…Wheaton College philosophy professor Arthur Holmes. In some of his writings (e.g., Contours of a Worldview) he used the term “interprefacts” for all truth claims. The point is that all “facts” are someone’s interpretation of reality. Holmes, an evangelical Christian philosopher who influenced two or three generations of Wheaton College students, and through his writings many others, was a critical realist. (I’m not claiming that he was always consistently that; I’m only saying that some of his writings seemed to me to assume that posture toward epistemology.)

Of course, as everyone who has studied these matters knows, a breakthrough classic of critical realism, if not anti-realism, was Thomas Kuhn whose book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962) fell like a bombshell on the playground of the philosophers and scientists. Kuhn argued that, even in the “hard sciences,” there is no pure objectivity, no “view from nowhere.” Kuhn used the term “paradigms” for what sociologists of knowledge meant by terms like “perspective” and “social location.” All this is modern intellectual history.

Here’s the point and the “rub.” My own experience and observation of my culture—North American academia—leads me to believe that many people with tremendous influence—even where their names are never heard or known outside of academia—have adopted the belief that because of the sociology of knowledge, critical realism or even anti-realism (belief that “knowledge” never even comes close to matching reality-as-it-is if such even exists), because of the “social construction of reality,” all that’s left to us is rhetoric. The traditional ideas of “facts” and “arguments” are simply “old school thinking.” Since that is the case, many movers and shakers of culture believe, there is really no “line” between argument and rhetoric. All arguments (about what is the case) are actually only rhetoric and therefore….

Yes, what follows the “therefore?” Bear with me as I give an example in order to answer that question. A few years ago I met and had lunch with a man who is an executive of a major American “news” corporation that owns numerous “news” outlets spread out all over the United States and even the world. If I mentioned its name every reader would recognize it (or at least one or more of its news outlets—print or broadcast). This executive told me what I already suspected. A high executive of the corporation publicly stated to the people working under him that the purpose of the corporation, other than earning a profit, is to “promote our narrative.”

Now, don’t get me wrong. I admire and respect that news organization executive for at least admitting the truth. But this is why I have largely given up reading, listening to, or watching news outlets. Most, if not all, are driven by some “narrative” which means, some perspective on reality that is tied to a particular group’s overall social location and agenda.

Now, some of you, my dear readers, might be thinking, and preparing to say that this has always been the case so why now stop reading, listening to, and watching the news? I believe there was a time in my life—long ago—when at least some journalists actually tried to deliver news objectively—without his/her delivery being driven by a narrative or agenda. Of course, I don’t believe there ever was a time when news was delivered in a purely objective manner such that the words being spoken matched reality perfectly without any distortion and without any perspective playing a role in how it was gathered and stated. But I think there was a time, even during my own lifetime, when most journalists and academics believed the “pursuit of truth” was worthwhile and that there was a real difference between rhetoric and arguments, between information and manipulation. Now, however, it seems to me that all news delivery includes blatant manipulation. If nothing else, the manipulation lies in delivering “news” that people want to hear or read and ignoring “news” that will harm ratings or readership. But I believe I detect also in it a not-very-well-hidden agenda to persuade readers and viewers toward a certain perspective on reality. In other words, much, if not all, “news” is really social engineering. Once your “eyes” are opened to it, you can’t miss it. It’s everywhere. We all know it’s part of contemporary advertising, but many people still dream that somewhere there is a news outlet that is dedicated to facts separated from any narrative.

So, do I blame the journalists? No. In fact, when I do watch television news (which is rare) I actually have feelings of sympathy for the talking heads, most of who probably know that what they are communicating under the guise of “facts” is really part of some nameless, invisible group’s social agenda rooted in a narrative about how reality is or should be.

Oh, I could give hundreds of examples. One very obvious one is how little we read or hear in American news about events taking place in Africa—unless it affects “American interests.” Do you want to know something about Africa? Watch Anthony Bourdain’s CNN series “Places Unknown.” It doesn’t even pretend to be news, but many of his episodes take place in Africa—from Libya to Senegal to Ethiopia to Zaire. From them you will at least realize what earth-shaking things are happening in Africa that you will never read about in or hear about on American news.

So, some of you will want to say “Watch the news on BBC!” and “Read The Economist.” I have; I’ve stopped. In my opinion, both are also driven by narratives and agendas and by people “at the top” who expect them to promote those narratives and agendas.

Some of you, at least, will think I am being “Chicken Little,” but I don’t think so. In fact, I will go further than Chicken Little and say that the sky has fallen already; it’s too late even to hope for a return to real concern with “the facts” separated from someone’s narrative and agenda. In my opinion, relying on memory and on things I have read about him, Walter Cronkite at least cared about the facts, about attempting to tell us Americans about the realities of world events.

Today, as I see it, the lines between argument and rhetoric, fact and persuasion, news and social engineering (and entertainment), have largely been erased both in academia (professional societies are driven by narratives and agendas that determine what is appropriate to think and say and what is inappropriate to think and say) and in journalism. Which means both are dead in any traditional sense.

If you want to watch a fascinating documentary that well illustrates the implicit anti-realism I am talking about, please get your hands on and watch the final episode of the series The Day the Universe Changed: A Personal View by journalist James Burke (1985). It is entitled “Worlds without End: Changing Knowledge, Changing Reality.”

Moving at a Snail's Pace - Reformed Theology's State of Affairs

Dr. Roger Olson has done a little fact-check comparing "what was said then" vs. "what is being said now" to discover several movements in today's Reformed circles:

1) Reformed Theology has loosened up a bit... but not nearly enough; its still buttoned-down and pigeoned-holed by doctrinal presuppositions;

2) Curiously, Reformed churches in general hold to a stricter Reformed theology than its principle heads steeped in doctrinal knowledge; that is to say, the congregant is less forgiving, less imaginative, and less reconciling than their leading theological architects; and,

3) Religious criticism never seems to change. What is "good for the goose is not necessarily good for the gander" depending on which governing body grants theological approval. Denominational authority is famous for pushing up their credentials and approvals while pushing down all those they disagree with. Unless, of course, they later say the same thing themselves - then, it is acceptable. Otherwise, all non-approved sanctioning bodies and publications are deemed unworthy.

In sum, Reformed Theology must become un-Reformed if it is to become better conversant with contemporary postmodern and progressive theologies running circles around its doctrinally bound  creeds and confessions. Until that day comes, other church and academic groups will be doing the hard work of comprehending God's Word so that Jesus may be preached to the nations, His gospel sowed, and souls reaped.

As a postmodern/progressive theologian I leave you with this great quote summarizing all theologies past and present - including mine own. It would be wise to remember when defending our faiths that not all knowledge is certain but must always leave room for movement, openness, and discussion:

“Our little systems have their day; they have their day and cease to be. They are but broken lights of Thee, and Thou, O God, art more than they.” - Alfred Lord Tennyson

R.E. Slater
July 17, 2017

* * * * * * * * * * *

A New Christian Dogmatics from Eerdmans

article link

by Roger Olson
July 16, 2017
Comments

I recently received from publisher Wm. B. Eerdmans a complimentary copy of Christian Dogmatics: An Introduction by two Dutch theologians Cornelis van der Kooi and Gijsbert van den Brink (2012/2017). It’s a beautifully hard cover volume encompassing 806 pages (including indexes). On the back cover and inside are glowing endorsements by Richard J. Mouw, Michael S. Horton, Charles Van Engen, and John Bolt—all well-known Reformed theologians with evangelical credentials. I have not read the whole volume yet, but have glanced through it and read portions. It is very contemporary, moderate, irenic, broadly Reformed in posture and orientation, and accessible in language. The authors quote a broad range of theologians and philosophers but the influences of certain 20th century Dutch Reformed theologians such as G. C. Berkouwer and Hendrikus Berkhof are notable.

One of the first things I noticed as I scanned the table of contents is that the doctrine of Scripture appears as Chapter 13—on the heels of the doctrine of the Holy Spirit (Chapter 12). That is not to say, of course, that the Bible is not mentioned or used as an authority for theology before that; it is only to note that a complete account of a doctrine of Scripture follows that of the Holy Spirit—which is ironic (at least to me).

Years ago my good, late friend Stanley J. Grenz published his similar one volume “dogmatics” entitled Theology for the Community of God (also published by Eerdmans) and included the full discussion of a doctrine of Scripture after the doctrine of the Holy Spirit—late in the order of chapters. For that he was pummeled and vilified by certain conservative evangelical theologians. I am waiting to hear from them now about van der Kooi and van den Brink who do the same.

Of course, as an evangelical Arminian, I am especially interested in these Dutch Reformed theologians’ treatment of the doctrines of God’s sovereignty—especially providence and election/predestination. I found them to be very moderate—following closely Berkouwer and Berkhof (Hendrikus, not Louis!). There is no hint here of the aggressive “five point Calvinism” of many American Calvinists.

In sum, if someone asked me to recommend to him or her a moderately evangelical, one volume systematic theology from a broadly Reformed perspective I would recommend this one while cautioning that I have not yet read every page. What I have read pleases me even though, naturally, as an Arminian, I would have trouble using it as my own textbook in a course in systematic theology.

We evangelical Arminians need a good, broadly evangelical (not only Wesleyan), contemporary, one volume systematic theology from an Arminian perspective. I have heard rumors of such—that it is “in the works”—from a British Nazarene theologian, but he has cautioned me not to expect it anytime soon. I hope that it may yet appear in publication during my lifetime. I will not write one; I’m not a systematician but a historical theologian. I will leave it to others to risk systematizing revelation and Christian belief; I’m not at all convinced it can be successfully done. I agree with Alfred Lord Tennyson who famously wrote “Our little systems have their day; they have their day and cease to be. They are but broken lights of Thee and Thou, O God, art more than they.”

Roger Olson - Review of William P. Young's Book and Recent Movie, "The Shack," Part 2/3

Introduction

I loved "The Shack" when I read it, and felt the movie that came out in March 2017 was very close to the original book's message. Frankly, its themes of the love of God, man's free will to love or unlove, and the tragedy of life when beset by sin, is one of those deep areas hard to understand but tells of God's love so plainly that it becomes the very substance which makes sense of all else in this thing called life. And it is the deep realization of God's love which the author, William P. Young, wished to express based upon a severe tragedy in his early life many years ago.

What I liked about the book is that Young took all the gnarly accusations of God and centered them into a fictious figure suffering an awful tragedy who began, in parable form, the long, hard process of working out what he believed was true and later, needed to correct, about the love of God in intricate dialogue and restorative venues. Which means watching the film will not be enough. It will require a thorough reading of Young's easily read (but deeply disturbing) book, The Shack, which must also be in order. And for its themes to truly sink in, a sharing of Mac's discoveries with fellow book club members.

To do this I've provided two reviews - one by Olson, who presents a list a questions for a reader or a book club to work through along with a companion volume. And secondly by Oord, who moves to the larger themes present in the book while presenting his own companion volume related to those larger themes.

Now I hesitate to advise forming "a bible study with church members" because so many in the evangelical church will misunderstand the theology behind the book (both Olson and Oord speak to this problem). For myself, it was when thinking/praying/meditating through The Shack that I discovered  the paucity in my own thoughts about God, and then, over many years later, finally began to form my current blog/reference/website Relevancy22 to speak to this oversight and subsequent re-orientation of my thoughts about God.

Relizedly, throughout Relevancy22 the basic themes of The Shack can be found under dozens and dozens and dozens of topical headings if churchly direction is needed. But it would be best to begin on your own. If your journey is like mine, you'll find yourself re-thinking many of the church's errant teachings on God, His work and ways. For myself, The Shack's most basic message brought me back to the God I knew was there but hidden in the theology of the church thus creating conflict where it did not need to exist. This is the beauty of "Finding God" somewhere along life's journey. His/Her love comes to you from the most curious places to catch us back up to Himself/Herself even as Young learned and wished to present through the (autobiographical) novel's thoughtful arguments and penetrating lessons.

Enjoy!

R.E. Slater

March 22, 2017

Related Links:

Part 1 - Thomas Oord: Review of "The Shack"

Part 2 - Roger Olson: Review of "The Shack"
Part 3 - Scot McKnight: Review of "The Shack"

A scene from the movie, The Shack

Finding God in “The Shack”

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2017/03/finding-god-shack/

by Roger Olson
March 4, 2017
Comments

Amazon link

Yesterday I viewed the new movie “The Shack” which is based on the 2007 book of the same title by William Paul Young. (If you have seen the movie you know why I chose the above image to go along with this post.) I have been looking forward to the movie with both excitement and trepidation. My main fear was that it would omit the heavy theological message of the book. It did not, although it did omit much of the dialogue. Somehow, however, the movie makers managed to squeeze in the main theological ideas Young included in his book.

My movie viewers guide and theological movie review will be on InterVarsity Press’s web site in the near future. I will certainly notify my readers here when that is the case. For now I will not post those here but let IVP have them first.

In 2008 InterVarsity Press, one of my main publishers, asked me to write a theological commentary on the book The Shack: Where Tragedy Confronts Eternity (Windblown Media). I wrote it in less than a month and it was published as Finding God in “The Shack” in early 2009. It sold well and is still in print.

I hope you will buy a copy of my book if you have any interest in The Shack–either the book or the movie or both.

---

*Sidebar: The opinions expressed here are my own (or those of the guest writer); I do not speak for any other person, group or organization; nor do I imply that the opinions expressed here reflect those of any other person, group or organization unless I say so specifically. Before commenting read the entire post and the “Note to commenters” at its end.*

---

The movie lived up to my highest expectations and did not disappoint in any way. I have never seen a “Hollywood” movie (so not a Billy Graham film) that presented the gospel so clearly and unequivocally. That is not to endorse every sentence in the movie; it is only to say that if a person is able and willing to take it for what it (and the book) is–a parable–and not be put off by the imagery that person will hear the gospel in the movie.

Of course, were I a Calvinist, I might not think that. But, of course, I’m not, so when I say “the gospel” I mean the Arminian version of it. I do not know if Young considers himself an Arminian, but he cannot be a Calvinist. A major theme of the book and the movie is that evil and innocent suffering are not planned or willed by God even if God does permit them. They are the result of human misuse of free will. Free will plays a major role in the book and in the movie and the free will being referred to is non-compatibilist (i.e., it is power of contrary choice).

But the center of the movie is God’s goodness and love and our need to trust him in spite of what may happen to us or others.

A few years ago I met William Paul Young and heard him speak. His speech explained the autobiographical aspects of The Shack. He suffered a terrible event in his early life that could have made him question God’s goodness. Now, however, he wants everyone to know that the God of the Bible–Father, Son and Holy Spirit–is perfect, unconditional love who does not want any people to suffer unjustly and who wants everyone to be redeemed and has done everything to redeem everyone. Now, of course, it is up to us whether to be redeemed or not.

I highly recommend the movie, but I also urge people who see it to read the book. The book contains much more than the movie in terms of God explaining to the main character–“Mack”–God’s will and God’s ways. I also urge people who see the movie or read the book (or both) to get and read my book Finding God in “The Shack” which, again, is published by InterVarsity Press and is available from Amazon.

---

*Note to commenters: This blog is not a discussion board; please respond with a question or comment solely to me. If you do not share my evangelical Christian perspective (very broadly defined), feel free to ask a question for clarification, but know that this is not a space for debating incommensurate perspectives/worldviews. In any case, know that there is no guarantee that your question or comment will be posted by the moderator or answered by the writer. If you hope for your question or comment to appear here and be answered or responded to, make sure it is civil, respectful, and “on topic.” Do not comment if you have not read the entire post and do not misrepresent what it says. Keep any comment (including questions) to minimal length; do not post essays, sermons or testimonies here. Do not post links to internet sites here. This is a space for expressions of the blogger’s (or guest writers’) opinions and constructive dialogue among evangelical Christians (very broadly defined).

* * * * * * * * *

My Review of the Movie “The Shack”
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2017/03/review-movie-shack/

by Roger Olson
March 16, 2017
Comments

Dear blog friends: Below you will find my review of the movie The Shack preceded by a “viewer guide” to the movie. I wrote these for InterVarsity Press which published my book Finding God in "The Shack'"in 2009. This viewer guide and review was first posted on their web site together with the information about my book.

May I just say that I am very disappointed in some evangelical Christians’ responses to both the book and the movie; in my opinion some of them are extremely shallow and dismissive. One that I have read even admitted that he will not view the movie or review it and then, on his blog, he does review it without seeing it. That seems very strange to me. He is the Calvinist blogger who labeled my book “Finding God in ‘The Shack'” a “weak effort” (back in 2009). I can only consider his “unreview” of a movie he has not seen and has no intention of seeing a weaker effort. If a person is going to talk about a movie he or she should at least see it first–unless it is notoriously pornographic, of course. Then just say that and move on. The Calvinist blogger to which I refer here says the movie “The Shack” makes the invisible (God) visible and, to him, seemingly, that is nearly blasphemous (not his words but mine). He does not seem to me to “get it” that this is just a parable full of imagery not to be taken literally.

Of course, I don’t expect Calvinists to like the theology of the movie, but I do expect them to at least view it before talking about it. This happened a few years ago when Rob Bell’s book “Love Wins” was being promoted–before it was published. Many Calvinists trashed the book before reading it. (I blogged about that.)

If you decide to respond to my comments here or to my review, please keep your comments civil and constructive (as always). If you disagree (or agree) give reasons. Keep your comment brief, please.

---

Viewer Guide to and Review of the Movie “The Shack”
by Roger E. Olson

Introduction: The movie “The Shack” (2016) is based on the 2007 book of the same title by William Paul Young. (It is published by Windblown Media and was written together with Wayne Jacobsen and Brad Cummings. The subtitle of the book is “Where Tragedy Meets Eternity.”) This movie viewer guide is to help people who see the movie think about its message. The movie, like the book, contains a very strong Christian theological message without being a sermon or lecture. Calling it a “Christian theological message” does not imply agreement with every point of the message. This writer believes it is always important especially for Christians to be biblically discerning when reading any book or watching any movie. Below are some questions to consider when viewing the movie. Following this viewer guide is a movie review which contains spoilers; you may not want to read it until after viewing the movie.

• If you read The Shack, how does the movie compare with the book—especially with regard to its message about God?

• What is the movie’s overall message about God—his nature and character?

• What is “the Great Sadness” referred to both in the book and movie? Whose sadness is it? What causes it—beyond a specific event?

• This question could be interpreted as belonging before the previous two questions, but here it is: "What is the overall theme and message of the movie?"

• How would you describe the main character’s (Mackenzie Phillips’s or “Mack’s”) religious life in the early part of the movie? How deep is it?

• Mack’s two daughters have theological questions; they raise them to him during their camping experience after viewing a waterfall and hearing Mack tell a legend about its origin. What are they really wrestling with in terms of the Bible’s story about God and Jesus? What do you think about Mack’s answer?

• The movie revolves around a tragic event. What does it do to Mack and his family? That is, how do they respond emotionally—especially in terms of their personal feelings and thoughts about their own roles in it and God’s?

• Does how God is portrayed in the movie bother you? Why or why not? Are you supposed to take it literally? (If not, how are you supposed to interpret the depiction of God?)

• Clearly, this movie, like the book it is based on, is intended to convince you to think a certain way about God, human existence in the world, tragedy, evil, the meaning of life. The following questions are guides to thinking with the movie. Implied in each question, without being stated explicitly, is the question “and what do you think about this and why?”

• According to the movie, what is the real cause of Mack’s Great Sadness? (In the book, anyway, his “Great Sadness” refers to more than an emotional feeling or state of mind; it refers to something deeper in the human condition.)

• The movie, like the book it is based on, contains a message about “religion.” What is that message?

• How do the divine characters in the movie “diagnose” Mack’s condition? What do they tell him are the underlying causes of his emotional and spiritual malaise? What do they ask him to do?

• The movie, like the book, contains and communicates a certain theological perspective about evil, tragedy, innocent suffering, humanity, and God. A pivotal point in all that seems to be a certain perspective on free will. What is it?

• According to the movie (and the book), what is the purpose of free will? What good does it serve? Why has God given it to humans? What are we supposed to do with it?

• Perhaps the most poignant scene in the movie, which is also in the book, is Mack’s confrontation with “Wisdom” in a cave. What message does Wisdom (an aspect of God) give Mack about himself?

• If we view the book and the movie as a kind of parable, whom does Mack represent?

• There is a word in philosophy and theology for any attempt to explain why there is evil and innocent suffering in a world created and ruled over by an all-good and all-powerful God: theodicy. What is the movie’s theodicy?

• How does the movie portray life after death?

• What is the “turning point” for Mack—in the story? At what point, and why, does “the Great Sadness” fall away?

Inevitably, viewers will have widely varying emotional responses to the story—depending partly, anyway, on their own experiences of tragedy. Setting emotion aside as much as possible, what do you think about the movie’s message—about God, the human condition in this world, tragedy, evil and innocent suffering, forgiveness, salvation, etc.?

---

A Theological Review of the Movie “The Shack”
by Roger E. Olson

Spoiler alert! If you have not seen the movie based on the book (of the same title) you may not want to read this review until you have seen the movie. It contains “dead giveaways” about the movie—including its ending. However, the movie adheres closely to the book, so if you’ve read the book but not yet seen the movie, you may want to read this movie review anyway.

The movie “The Shack” (2017) is the long-awaited film version of the book The Shack: Where Tragedy Confronts Eternity by William Paul Young (with Wayne Jacobsen and Brad Cummings) published in 2007 by Windblown Media. This writer/reviewer read the book when it was published and wrote a theological commentary on the book entitled Finding God in The Shack: Seeking Truth in a Story of Evil and Redemption published by InterVarsity Press in 2009. (Unbeknownst to this writer another book of the same main title was published by another publisher at almost the same time!) The book The Shack was causing much controversy among Christians—including some who did not even read it! This writer [myself] is an evangelical Christian theologian; my commentary was intended to guide fellow Christians in thinking about the book’s theological message. After my book was published I had the privilege of meeting William Paul Young and hearing him speak about The Shack. I spoke about The Shack and my book about that book in many churches during the years 2009-20012. Then the “hubbub” died down. Now, with the release of the long-awaited movie version, many Christians have a renewed interest in the story and its message. That is the purpose of this movie review: to express my own opinions about the movie and its message—as I did more fully in Finding God in The Shack.

---

I need to begin this review with some caveats. I am not any kind of expert on movies in general. Much of the time, I especially enjoy movies panned by movie critics and do not like movies that win praises from critics (and even “Oscars!”). I do not pretend to know anything about the artistic side of movies; I watch movies almost always only for entertainment. However, I sometimes also watch a movie for its message—especially about the human condition. I tend to think I see such messages embedded in movies (as in novels) that others miss. I tend to think, for example, that horror novelist Stephen King is a philosopher whose books and the movies based on them convey not-very-subtle messages about a worldview, about the meaning of life. Others do not always agree, but I am convinced of it.

The movie “The Shack” (which I put in quotation marks to distinguish it from the book whose title I put in italics—to distinguish them here) is clearly meant to convey a message and a very profound, if somewhat controversial, one. My review of the movie here will focus almost solely on that message; I claim no expertise about the artistic qualities of any movie including “The Shack.” (I will say that I enjoyed it very much, cried a little during it, thought the “cinematography”—whatever that is exactly!—was excellent and so was the acting. But what do I know about any of that?) So please do not look here for any expert commentary on the production values of “The Shack.”

---

My main question, and qualm, about the movie, before viewing it, was whether it would stick closely to the book—especially in terms of its theological message. I thought the theological message of the book was very interesting, thought-provoking, somewhat troubling in places, but overall theologically correct. In Finding God in the Shack I laid out my theological critique—both positive and negative—of the book’s message. There I emphasized that I thought it a parable and not a true story in the sense of description of real events that happened in time and space. I believed then, and still believe, that it is a theological message conveyed through a story [as a parable]. I believed that I could discern certain Christian theologians’ ideas in the story even though none are mentioned specifically.

I was very pleased at how closely the movie “stuck” to the story and to the author’s theological message. One specific question I had in mind as I began viewing the movie was whether, for example, the all-important chapter in The Shack entitled “Here Come Da Judge” (Chapter 11) would be included in the movie and, if so, how. To me, anyway, it is the central chapter of the book and the events it describes and the dialogue it contains—between “Sophia” and Mack contain the main point of the story. (I realize other readers and movie viewers will disagree, but that is still my opinion.) I was surprised and pleased by the way that scene was portrayed in the movie.

Frankly, I expected the movie, like so many that deal with theological questions and issues, would “dumb down” the message of The Shack. It didn’t. The basic message of the book comes through “loud and clear” in the movie—even if much of the dialogue in the book is omitted in the movie. As any reader of the book knows, much of it consists of rather lengthy conversations between Mack and God (portrayed as three persons such that Mack sometimes has separate conversations with them). I knew going into the movie that much of that dialogue would have to be deleted or at least condensed for time’s sake. It was. My personal opinion is that no one should see only the movie! Read the book for the rest of the story and especially for the theological content of the conversations which is the “meat” of the story.

Here I am going to limit my theological analysis and critique to the movie. For my whole theological response, please read Finding God in The Shack which is still in print by InterVarsity Press.

Unlike some viewers, perhaps, I will not take the imagery literally—especially the imagery of God. Of course God is not three separate personalities—one an African-American woman (“Papa”), another a Jewish man (Jesus), and the third a young Asian woman (Sarayu or the Holy Spirit). That is not the author’s or the movie’s intention and anyone who listens closely to the three can discern that these are only forms, manifestations, taken on the Father, Son and Holy Spirit for the purpose of helping Mack recover his faith in them. As a historical theologian, of course, I found myself, while watching the movie, saying—to myself—“Oh, that’s sound like tritheism” and later “Oh, that sounds like modalism.” (Tritheism and modalism are historical heresies about the Trinity.) But I do not think it’s fair to impose on the imagery or the movie itself—which is clearly intended as a parable—a literal [trinitarian] interpretation.

I believe the point of the story, both in the book and in the movie, will be missed by people who focus too much on the imagery and take it literally or allow it to get in the way of hearing the message.

---

The message of both the book and the movie, author Young’s message, comes through loud and clear in both if someone is willing to “get it” in spite of the possibly distracting imagery. What is that message? Well, I believe it is multifaceted but has a center. Let’s begin here with the center and work outward to the facets.

First, at its center, the story conveys the idea, promotes the belief, that God is unconditionally good and therefore can and should be trusted in spite of evil, tragedy and innocent suffering. There is an implicit “theodicy” at the center of the story. (As I explained in the viewer guide, a “theodicy” is any attempt to explain the consistency of an all-good, all-powerful God with evil, tragedy and innocent suffering in the world he created and rules over.) I suspect it may take two or more viewings of the movie, or a careful reading of the book combined with a viewing, to get it. But it is clear to me that the author and the makers of the movie are laying out for us, readers and viewers, a particular answer to the question “Why?”

The answer to that question comes through to me “loud and clear” in both the book and the movie and it will not be appreciated by “divine determinists”—those who believe God has “designed, ordained, and governs” everything that happens including sin, evil and innocent suffering. Many of them are called “Calvinists,” but Calvinists are not the only Christians who are divine determinists. To me, the center of the story of “The Shack” (and The Shack) is that sin, evil, tragedy and innocent suffering are not planned or rendered certain by God. They are foreknown by God, but they are not in any sense part of God’s will—except that he allows some of that to happen. (The book makes clear in a way I did not hear in the movie that God does intervene to stop much evil and innocent suffering but does not always for very good reasons unknown to us*.) Part of that center is that God is perfectly, unconditionally good and worthy of our trust in spite of our questions about evil and innocent suffering.

[*res - because when God created us in love, love grants to all creation full freedom to do and to will what it pleases. As such, God cannot overrule who He is (love) but must allow sin and evil "its day." The miracle is (or sovereign mystery is) that God works in the world His loving will to bring it into fellowship with Himself without disrupting or interfering with free will by overruling it. He might confront it, presage it, confound it, disquiet it, or thwart it in some way, and yet, God must be true to Himself and to His decree for creation to be fully free as much as it can be confined as it is within a sinful world. - re slater]

Much more is said about this in the book than in the movie; that is why everyone who sees the movie needs also to read the book. You cannot get the whole story, the whole message in all its fullness, from the movie alone.

---

So what does God say to Mack about evil, tragedy and innocent suffering? That it’s a fallen world we live in, corrupted in every part by human forgetfulness of God and even rebellion against God—all of which comes from misuse of free will—which is itself a good gift God gave to humans for freely receiving his love and having communion with him. Free will is itself not the center of the story; it is one of the peripheral points, a facet, of the story but clearly connected with the center. Sin, evil, corruption, tragedy, innocent suffering are not God’s perfect will; they are not intended or rendered certain by God. They are permitted by God for reasons God cannot explain to creatures in a way we can fully understand. God expects us to trust his goodness.

Another facet, peripheral point of the story, but also clearly connected with the center, is that God wants to redeem every creature, especially his human creatures of whom every one he is “especially fond.” However, redemption requires cooperation; God does not redeem—which means more than only “forgive”—by coercion. Mack has to kneel [in his heart willing] with Papa and confess his lack of forgiveness and say that he is willing to forgive his worst enemy. Only then can he be redeemed in the fullest sense possible in this life; only then can he enjoy life as it was meant to be enjoyed in communion with God.

If the story of “The Shack” (and The Shack) were a full blown systematic theology—which it is not intended to be!—surely the author would say much more about God, sin, salvation, the afterlife, etc. So that leaves many critics of the story guessing and some of them put the worst spin possible on it and shout “heresy!” in response to things they think are implied but not expressly stated in the story. For example, one might guess that the story implies “universalism”—belief that in the future all people will be saved. It does not say that; all it says is that God loves everyone equally and that Jesus died for all people equally so that all people can be saved.

Stepping aside from the movie, for a moment, however, and going back to the book, it does say that God has already forgiven everyone and done everything possible to redeem everyone. But both the book and the movie make abundantly clear that full redemption includes reconciled relationship and not only forgiveness. To forgive does not automatically establish relationship or reconciliation. Forgiveness, God says (in both the book and the movie) simply means taking your hands off the enemy’s throat. Again, imagery. One can assume it means not hating the person but being willing to have a reconciled relationship with them if they are willing.

I left the movie thinking many things at once (and with a few tears still in my eyes). Among them were that the movie leaves out much of the book that is at least peripherally important to the message and that it also leaves out the most controversial parts of the book. (Unless one takes the imagery of God literally in which case that’s perhaps the most controversial part of the book and the movie.) The book contains much more about free will and God’s will and why God allows evil and innocent suffering—although that is never fully explained because it is alleged to be beyond human comprehension.

I plan to see the movie again; I think it is a movie that really requires more than one viewing to get it all. I have read the book several times but may read it yet again. My response to both is that this is perhaps the best Christian fiction since C. S. Lewis’s novels and that the movie does not “dumb it down” as much as I feared it would. I do not think I have ever seen a “Hollywood-made” feature movie that as clearly conveys a profound Christian message without mixing it up with alien aspects or dumbing it down to the point of being simply insipid.