Why Emergent Christianity IS NOT Liberal Denominationalism!

The emergent church movement challenged by a participant
http://www.patheos.com/community/rogereolson/2011/07/25/the-emergent-church-movement-challenged-by-a-participant/

by Roger Olson

July 25, 2011

The following is a guest blog post by Brandon Morgan, one of the organizers and leaders of the Void Collective. Brandon is a seminary student and participant in an emergent church who has attended various emergent church conferences and meetings.

Brandon’s guest post (unedited):

I just got back from a tiring drive to North Carolina where a group of my friends and I performed an event at the Wild Goose Festival-a self-proclaimed community combining the various impulses of art, justice and spirituality that reside within Emergent and Progressive Euro-American Christianity. I have been conversant with and engaged in the Emergent conversation for a few years now, mostly dealing with the philosophical shifts within post-evangelical emergent types. I have to say initially that I was raised in a Southern Baptist family who were confessedly conservative politically and theologically. And because it is vitally important that the terms "conservative" and "progressive" be defined within a specific context, I will say that the conservative proclivity dominant within my nascent Christian spiritual journey commonly held anti-gay, pro-life views mixed with inerrant views of scripture and complimentarian views of gender in family and ministry. This will sound familiar to most evangelicals, even though many self-confessing evangelicals refute these views.

I generally have qualms with much of the political and theological conservatism rampant within conservative evangelical circles. I don't feel, however, that i have much at stake in the conversation about evangelicalism, its definition, its life or death, and its connection to right-wing political policies. I do, however, have a stake in the direction of the church in America and where the Emergent folks fit in to that conversation. I have this stake because I am a Christian in America and I am fairly conversant and sympathetic with Emergent forms of American Christianity. For a while, I saw Emergents struggling to recover from their fallout with fundamentalist Christianity. Emergents wanted to be as socially engaged as some of the folks they saw in the Mainline denominations. I am sympathetic with the concerns and criticisms of conservative evangelicalism and the way this group so readily conflated Christianity with right wing political agendas. The Emergent folks eventually wanted to become, post-conservative, or post-evangelical in light of their fallout with the conservatism in their evangelical past. This need to redefine the church in America apart from conservative evangelicalism has sort of left the direction of Emergent types up for grabs. They pledge to no center, institution or affiliation. They have no infrastructure and no money. Their strive for authenticity has lead to a number of attempts to reshape the church in America (and across the pond as well) in ways that transcends the evangelical-mainline divide. (I use "mainline" perhaps unhelpfully to describe denominations who align themselves with left-wing political views and who find themselves within an American form of the tradition of liberal theology begun in 17th century Germany).

Upon returning from the Wild Goose festival, I felt that the festival was, among others things, a blatant attempt to show how well Emergent folks and mainline folks get along (particularly regarding the LGBTQ community) and how they generally have the same enemies (conservative evangelicals). (Typologies are not necessarily helpful, but they will have to do here). If Emergent folks initially sought to bring together the evangelical emphases of conversion, scripture and discipleship with the progressive emphases of social justice, inclusion, and theologically progressive approaches to Christian doctrine (which, we must admit, often amounts to a covert denial of many traditional forms of those doctrines), then the question is: have Emergent folks succeeded in transcending the evangelical-progressive division in American Protestantism. Have they formulated a holistic theological approach able to include the benefits of both sides and jettison the negative aspects? Some may question whether this is actually the goal of Emergent folks. If this is not their goal, at least peripherally, then my personal understanding of being involved with the Emergent conversation is perhaps questionable. But more importantly, if this is not at least a tertiary goal, then my question is: why haven't Emergent folks joined the mainline denominations? Why have the negatives of evangelicalism been so easy to describe and virulently rebuke, while the negatives of the mainline denominations have barely shown up in Emergent concerns? Another way to ask this question would be: Why hasn't the Emergent critique of evangelicalism's involvement with the American nation-state and it's tendency toward creating theologically exclusive boundaries not found root in a critique of Mainline denominations, whose political interests also conflate the church with nation-state interests? Yet another way to ask this question might be: Why do post-liberals (e.g. The Ekklesia Project) look so different from liberals yet nothing like evangelicals, while post-evangelical Emergents look alot like liberals?

One reason for this is perhaps economic. Evangelical churches wont fund Emergent projects and the Mainlines, who have been trying to recover from their downfall, are willing to invest. But I sense economics is not the only issue. Another issue is the inclusion of the LGBTQ community. Many Emergents unquestionably advocate the way Mainlines have dealt with this issue, which is to see the church as a tool for social justice in America whose goals, therefore, tend to be ineradicably tied to the maneuverings and structures of the American nation-state. While I have deeply sympathetic opinions about the LGBTQ community and its relationship to the church, and while I also have my opinions about economic investment in Emergent projects, my more fervent concern is to ask if Emergent folks are really going to question the Mainline denominations' political and theological liberalism in a similar way they criticize evangelicalism's theological and political conservatism. If not, then its a question whether or not Emergent folks have anything new to offer to American Protestantism. If they do have something to offer, then perhaps it should be a critique on the conflations of liberal freedom (aka pluralistic tolerance) and Christian freedom in the Mainline church, or the attempt to manipulate nation-state policy to fit with the vision of such freedom. Maybe it should be a critique on conflating love with open tolerance to anyone, which eventually leaves everyone affirmed as they are and no one converted. It could be the failed attempt to reduce theological claims to social justice claims, which forces us to ask exactly what the doctrines of the church, the Trinity, the Incarnation and the Resurrection accomplish, other than pithy symbols used to advance left-wing forms of American democracy. The critique could be the loss of Christian uniqueness within American religious and political culture that suffers from a spiritually amalgamate ethos that can be summarized by a phrase made in Paul Knitter's Wild Goose talk: "I love Buddha and Jesus, but I still go home to Jesus."

I don't necessarily mean to lay my censuring cards on the table about Progressive Christianity in America (Notice, I critique conservatives too). I just mean to say that if Emergent folks find themselves comfortable in Mainline walls, particularly the walls of liberal pluralism dominant in both theological and political aspects of American liberal protestantism, then I question what new things the Emergent conversation has to offer. If they have something new to say, then angst about a painful past with fundamentalism will need to produce theologically fruitful reflections about the church that look different than a recovery of mainline dominance in the early 20th century. Emergent folks will have to start distinguishing themselves from progressive Christianity if they want people to think that something new and important is really happening. They will also have to start caring more about the theological and political space of the church itself than they do about using the church to bolster American nation-state policies. Simply put, emergent folks need some theological sophistication that cultivates distinctiveness lest they seep into the homogenized spirituality of progressive Christianity in America or find themselves directly tied to the project, initially espoused by liberal Christianity and copied by evangelical Christianity, of trying to use the Christian church to control the history of American politics.

Comments

Russ says,

Very well put… I have said again and again to my Christian friends that unless they participate in the “re-make” of emergent Christianity instead of debunking and critizing it, then they will indirectly suffer from its ultimate failure within their own faith constructs.

Emergent Christianity has a lot to offer but it cannot align neither right nor left… it has to be on its own distinctive… neither fundamental nor progressive but Jesus through and through. I applaud Brandon’s analysis and would encourage evangelics and emergents alike to better express postmodern Christianity lest it becomes stillborn in its own cradle!

**********

Re: Brandon Morgan’s guest post & emergent Christianity

http://www.patheos.com/community/rogereolson/

by Roger Olson

July 26, 2011

I think Brandon’s guest post should be read by all people involved on emerging or emergent Christianity and the emergent church movement. Please spread it around and invite discussion about it here and elsewhere. I will post Brandon’s responses to comments here.

One thing I have been thinking about (in this context) is how hopeful it has been that emergent Christians might find an alternative to conservative evangelicalism and liberal “mainline” Protestantism by exploring postmodern philosophy’s possible contribution to theology and practice. Lesslie Newbigin and Nancey Murphy (among others) have called for such a “third way”–neither fundamentalist (they both mean conservative evangelical) nor liberal but postmodern in some sense (not necessarily radical). Many of us have identified both conservatism and liberalism in European and American Protestantism as too tied to modern modes of thought. We tend to define both types of theology (and practice) by stances toward modernity–either rejection or accomodation.

If the emergent church/Christianity movement has anything to offer it has to be an alternative to those two types of Christianity and their rootedness in modernity.

(Here I am ignoring another alternative that I think we too often ignore–the premodern alternative. Many contemporary Christians, both educated and not, prefer to live and worship and think as if the Enlightenment never happened. But I would argue that’s very difficult to do–especially once one begins to think and interpret and explain and write. For example, many people point to Pentecostalism as an alternative to fundamentalism and liberalism or to conservative evangelicalism and liberalism. However, I regard the “tongues as initial, physical evidence” doctrine as very modern, rooted as it is in the craving for certainty through physical evidence.)

However, disappointment sets in when we hear emergent church leaders/spokespersons sharing their excitement in “discovering” a new type of theology that turns out to be thoroughly modern. For example, not long ago a leading emergent church personality shared his excitement in finding and reading Henry Churchill King’s The Reconstruction of Theology published in 1901. The problem is, that book is a classic of liberal (Ritschlian) Protestantism! It’s thoroughly modern! I don’t understand its appeal to a supposedly postmodern, emergent Christian.

I think Brandon’s challenge to emergent church types is worthy of very serious consideration and response, but by all means let’s not get bogged down in details of his analysis. His main point is obvious and we should dwell on it. It takes the form of a question to emergent church/Christianity leaders: How is your new, different type of Christianity different (at the deep level of theology and ethics) from “mainline,” liberal Protestantism?Your reaction to fundamentalism and conservative evangelicalism is clear. Now what do you have to offer European and American Christianity (and hopefully the rest of the world) that is new and different from modernity-based liberalism?

Comments

Russ says:

July 25, 2011 @ 7:34pm

Very well put… I have said again and again to my Christian friends that unless they participate in the “re-make” of emergent Christianity instead of debunking and critizing it, then they will indirectly suffer from its ultimate failure within their own faith constructs.

Emergent Christianity has a lot to offer but it cannot align neither right nor left… it has to be on its own distinctive… neither fundamental nor progressive but Jesus through and through. I applaud Brandon’s analysis and would encourage evangelics/emergents alike to better express postmodern Christianity lest it becomes stillborn in its own cradle!

Ron says:

July 27, 2011 at 10:55 pm

I didn’t get to the Wild Goose Festival this year. Like the writer, however, I, too, have been conversant with the Emergent conversation for a few years as well, and I agree with much of his characterization of the Emergent movement. I did have a couple things I wanted to suggest in response, though. First, I am not sure that “conflating love with open tolerance to anyone” leads to a condition in which “everyone is affirmed and no one converted.” I dare say that those I know who have been hurt by conservative evangelicals/evangelicalism were won (by the power of the Spirit) more through love conflating with tolerance than through “love” manifesting as animosity and intolerance. You can proof-text it as “His kindness leads us to repentance” or “you can catch more flies with honey,” but many people I know have been repulsed and scarred by evangelicals whose “love” looks so much like “hate.”

As far as what “new things the Emergent conversation has to offer,” I would respond that, on the one hand, the Emergent movement probably doesn’t care about “what new things it has to offer.” I have been to a multitude of Emergent gatherings, conferences, etc., and I have never heard any overt “sales pitch” or recruitment for the Emergent movement. Group leaders and speakers have often encouraged and challenged participants to pursue God and a relationship with Christ, but I have yet to hear any emphasis put on the unique selling proposition or member benefits of the Emergent movement per se.

On the other hand, the statement contains at least one possible response—the Emergent conversation offers exactly that: a conversation. In the churches I have attended most of my life, having an honest conversation without regurgitating the party line was the quickest way to be excluded from fellowship. I think the conversation itself, though maddening to some who want conclusive straightforward and clear cut answers, has restored faith in the possibility of faith for many of us who were taught implicitly if not explicitly that honest conversation, especially about particular topics, was not acceptable.

**********

Brandon Morgan's Response

http://www.patheos.com/community/rogereolson/2011/08/08/brandon-morgans-response/

by Roger Olson

August 8, 2011

Here is Brandon Morgan’s response to critics of his guest post here (about the ECM):

“I would like to thank Tony Jones, Scot Mcknight and Deacon Bo over at Homebrewed (see next article below) for taking the time to respond/repost my reflections after attending Wild Goose. A number of the comments from these blogs have asked many good questions, some of which I’m afraid I won’t have time to respond to.

Initially, I suppose, I would like to clear up some concerns that Dr. Jones had with my reflection about the relationship between ECM and mainline denominations. His criticisms were more directed toward methodological or stylistic concerns, which perhaps led him to interpret my seemingly important questions (or else no one would have noticed) as rhetorical conjectures rather than substantive questions. This inevitably led to a rhetorical critique against my writing style and “methods of research” than substantive responses to my thoughts.

I am actually surprised; first, that Tony disagreed with me at all. I would have assumed that, given his thoughts in his books, podcasts (particularly that AAR podcast with McKnight and Diana Butler Bass) and blog posts, that Tony would have been similarly concerned with the ease in which conversations among ECM people collude with the underlying methods of mainline denominations.

I am surprised, secondly, that Tony’s recent follow-up asking for a new word to describe non-evangelicals other than “progressive” or “liberal” does not at least convey an attempt to promote exactly what I hope ECM folks do, namely, transcend or at least govern imaginatively the evangelical-liberal impasse in American Protestantism. It would seem that Tony does not really disagree with me as much as perhaps feel defensive regarding my reference to my thoughts about Wild Goose because perhaps he felt I was targeting him. That was not the case.

That being said, I also assume that individuals who post on blogs asking questions (or who sit in church asking questions for that matter) need not convey elaborate qualitative or quantitative data in order for such questions to be on the table of concerns. My reflection on Wild Goose was the spearhead to a number of conversations I have had with mainline folks in dialogue with ECM ideas. So my thoughts do not spawn uniquely from that meeting, nor are they unique in comparison with others who have similar analyses.

In all honesty, I do not find ECM’s similarity with mainline concerns as a problem. Interestingly enough, mainline denominations do not generally see ECM as a problem either, but a promise. They do not see ECM as controversial because the mainline has already asked the questions that post-evangelical people are asking now. Their books generally include emergent ideas as a “shot in the arm” to an already established form of denominational life. So, it would not be a negative if ECM folks decided to find a home in mainline denominations. In fact, this was the very advice McLaren and others gave to VOID in order to get monetary support. It might actually benefit ECM in an attempt to overcome what Jeremy Begbie has called “naïve anti-institutionalism.” But it would convey a contradiction regarding what Tony himself, in an interesting spat with Diana Butler Bass, claimed as being the benefit of ECM, namely that it attempts to move beyond the division in American Protestantism.

Now, in reference to Deacon Bo, I think the difference between liberal and progressive is negligible. However, I do not think they are un-theological terms. Theology is always [sociological and] political and vice-versa. We do not get to call our names theological because they are unsociological or unpolitical. They do, however, seem to have similar theological trajectories. That trajectory is one which I find to be rather similar to the kind of theology that, as Bo mentioned, someone like John Cobb would espouse. However, Cobb’s differentiation between Liberal and Progressive rests on the same premise: that experience (gender, racial, national included) is a valid location for theological reflection. I do not generally agree with this claim, and so am definitely not liberal. I also do not think one has to be a liberal in order to confess such an idea. But the take away from the conversation of titles expresses to me that, even after a number of years, the ECM has failed to contribute significantly to a well-worked theological/missional trajectory. This is perhaps the reason why I think criteria for ECM need to be laid out before any effective analysis is performed. How will we know what we are looking for when our qualitative and quantitative analyses take to the churches? I am assuming this is what some of my friends, like Gary Black, are doing when they type away in their studies. We have to agree on what something is before we ever find it. My own Baptist tradition has this same problem. This problem in ECM may likely be due to the ideas expressed in Tony’s recent comment that:

“We’ve taken a pastiche approach to church and theology — we take a little bit from here and a little bit from there. The benefit of that is a great deal more freedom than many leaders in the church feel. The other side of that coin, however, is that we inevitably disappoint anyone who comes from a particular camp, because we’re never really enough of anything.” - Tony Jones

This comment in response to David Finch’s reflections about a book on ECM seems to convey the sentiment that I find already quite prevalent within the dominant political liberalism of contemporary America. The organization of contracted individuals to freely choose what they like from the consumer line of theological and social thought is not new but is in fact an orthodox tenet of American politics, not to mention the American university. Tony thinks the pastiche model really works. I do not. It seems that David Fitch’s comment that “all we’ve done is stir the pot, and then blended in with existing structures” is perhaps an overly grouchy-anabaptist way of saying what I was attempting to claim about EMC and its relationship to the theological presuppositions that reside in the mainline denominations. I will not spell out again the ways in which ECM has at its disposal to critique liberal or progressive forms of theological collusions with specific nation-state policies, or modern presuppositions about freedom, tolerance, personhood, rationality etc. I simply want to ask again how ECM is going to make itself up on the spot. Its thoughts have to come from somewhere and they can’t come from everywhere.

Personally, I find theological liberalism/progressivism to be a highly sophisticated approach to theological reflection, albeit ill-founded. Anyone who has even glanced at the work of Gary Dorrien will see that mainline liberal presuppositions are not toss-away categories. These are serious thinkers. But they are subject to critique in a number of ways. ECM will, I think, find its place to the extent that it can avoid what I see as the mistakes of the liberal tradition to theology and its approach to the church/world relationship.

So here are the (non-rhetorical) questions again:

1 - Why haven't Emergent folks joined the mainline denominations?

2 - Why have the negatives of evangelicalism been so easy to describe and virulently rebuke, while the negatives of the mainline denominations have barely shown up in Emergent concerns?

2b - Another way to ask this question would be: Why hasn't the Emergent critique of evangelicalism's involvement with the American nation-state and it's tendency toward creating theologically exclusive boundaries not found root in a critique of mainline denominations, whose political interests also conflate the church with nation-state interests?

I will also point out in conclusion that I have not been to every church in America. I do not have the time. So a number of churches, perhaps more than we realize, fall outside the typologies I or anyone else has chosen to use. That is the nature of the beast. That is why Bass can think Mainline is on the rise and others think it’s in decline. The same fact is true of every denomination. Because of this, I do not feel the need to account for every church community in order for my questions to bear relevance.

Lastly, my use of the pronoun “they” instead of “we” is perhaps due to my recognition that, in order for there to be a “we” there must be an agreement that ECM speaks for me. Since I am, at the moment, unsure exactly who ECM speaks for, other than the plethora of leaders that ride atop its cultural wave, then I am not sure what it would mean for me to say “we”.I am not simply saying that ECM does not speak for me, but more importantly, I am currently unaware exactly on behalf of whom ECM does speak.

**********

Progressive is not Liberal

http://homebrewedchristianity.com/2011/08/04/progressive-is-not-liberal/

by Deacon Bo

August 4, 2011

This has been an exciting couple of weeks for evangelicals. Well, at least the term evangelical. Kurt Willems started it all with a post about being an evangelical “reject” and a guest posted about C.S. Lewis being one.

I responded by putting forward a progressive re-interpretation of the classical definition with my Nine Nations formulation.

Then, this week Roger Olson (from Podcast episode 96) had a guest post-er Brandon who was a little confused about his experience at the Wild Goose Festival. He asked some questions about the Emerging Church that Tony Jones responded to … which led to Dr. Jones (Podcast episode 105 ) to suggest that we abandon the term ‘evangelical’ to the conservatives and go a different direction.

The hitch seems to be that both Brandon and Tony (as well as Roger) have real concern / apprehension about the distinction between Liberal and Progressive.

The problem seems to come when people fail to make a distinction between Progressive and Liberal – even equating them.

Dr. Jones says :

The problem with both “liberal” and “progressive” is that they are not inherently theological categories. They are sociological and political. “Evangelical,” on the other hand, is inherently theological.

As odd as this seems – I actually disagree with Jones on all three points. Liberal and Progressive are both thoroughly theological terms and everyone from Carol Howard-Merritt to Austin Roberts has been trying to tell me that Evangelical is a sociological distinction and not inherently theological. ( I still hold out hope)

In Podcast episode 101 John Cobb makes an important distinction by explaining it this way:

• Liberal simply means that one recognizes human experience as valid location for the theological process.
• Progressive means that one takes seriously the critique provided by feminist, liberation, and post-colonial criticisms.

I know that when many people think of Liberals they think of a caricature of Marcus Borg and have him saying something about the laws of nature and how no one can walk on water or be conceived in a Virgin so we know those are literary devices that need not be defended literally. It is someone stuck in the Enlightenment who puts more faith in physics than in the Bible.

Similarly, I often hear a flippant dismissal by those who don’t get the Progressive concern so [they will] resort to the cliche that “progressive is just a word non-conservative evangelicals who don’t like the word ‘liberal’ hide behind as camouflage.”

Both are woefully cartoonish.

Tony Jones, on the other hand is addressing a real concern. So if he wants to say “Those of us who are not conservative need a new label.” That is fine and I would probably even join team TJ – whatever it says on our uniform.

Just don’t say that Liberal and Progressive are not theological. They are inherently so and the distinction between the two is worth the effort. They, along with the term ‘Evangelical”, come with a historical framework, a theological tradition and a social application. They are not interchangeable nor are they disposable. They come from some where and the represent a group of some ones.

I think that they are worth clarifying, understanding, and maybe even fighting for – and over. They matter.

What is right and wrong with the emergent/emerging church movement?

Since the spring of this year I have been struggling with a definition of "Emergent Christianity" - what it is and what it believes - and have chosen to use the medium of this web blog to grasp practical, missiological, worship and doctrinal entry standards for this relevant Christian movement. And with this task I am including a few of my own personal beliefs and preferences that will be left open-ended for consideration but deem important to internalize on select topics and subjects.


A year ago, in 2010, Dr. Roger Olson had hit on a few of emergent areas he had personally noticed but as I am reading his piece I've noticed that they seemed generally untrue of my own emergent experience. For I have participated at Mars Hill Church under Rob Bell since its inception (1998? 1999?) and have witnessed it as "cooler" re-expression of classic evangelicalism into emergent form that has been provocative at times while at other times been very liberating.


And so, I've highlighted a few areas that I've either agreed with or think is important to know while including the sum of Roger's 2010 analysis. Coincidentally, at my first blush with Emergent Christianity many years ago, I too believed it reactionary in wishing to depose the sum total of our orthodox Christian heritage... but, as it settled down, it began to re-include our ancient heritage while expanding its understanding of theology and worship from a postmodernistic set. This then felt much more comfortable to me in our search for authenticity otherwise I had feared a re-expression of some contemporary form of Gnostic Christianity dressed up in postmodernistic dress.


Lastly, in that Roger's statement is nearly a year old, and in my more recent formal exploration of Emergent Christianity (beginning in March/April of 2011), there has been a lot of movement from within it - especially because of the severe evangelical backlash to Bell's Love Wins book (among other Emergent statements during this time). So that, somewhere between classic evangelica-lism, postconservative evangelicalism, and emergent-Christianity there is a movement afoot between all parties considered to recapture the life and faith that is within Jesus Christ and his Word.


And as such, this blog intends to participate and lend spiritual insight and resources as it can to these very relevant areas of exploration and discovery. For if I and others do not then we will have failed to lead in this newer expression of contemporary Christianity. A task which I would encourage all my readers to engage in.


- skinhead 

**********

http://www.patheos.com/community/rogereolson/2010/09/24/what-is-right-and-wrong-with-the-emergentemerging-church-movement/

by Roger Olson

September 24, 2010

I get asked this all the time. Especially students, but also strangers, ask me “What do you think of emergent churches?” (Here I will use “emergent” and “emerging” interchangeably even though some are trying to distinguish between them.)

I can’t claim expertise. Others have studied the phenomenon much more thoroughly than I have. But I have attended several well-known emergent churches and I am either acquainted with or count as good friends some of the movement’s leading spokesmen.

Some years ago Pastor Kyle Lake of Waco’s University Baptist Church (where David Crowder is the music minister) sought me out and we became friends. We had lunch together about once a month from the time I arrived here until his tragic death. We talked a lot about emerging churches and the movement. Through him I came to know many others involved in the movement.

I led a retreat for emerging church planters, attended conferences where most of the speakers and attendees were somehow affiliated with the emerging church movement, had lunches and dinners with leaders of the movement, read books by emerging church leaders and about the emergent church movement.

What I have been searching for is something all the self-identified emergent churches have in common. But just when I think I’ve identified one, an exception pops up!

There are some generally true, superficial similarities (family resemblances):

• mostly young leaders and attenders (20-something to early thirties),
• no creed or statement of faith that everyone has to affirm,
• belief and practice of the “belong, believe, behave” philosophy of community,
• experimentation with worship styles (especially interest in ancient forms of worship),
• eclecticism, candles and art (almost anything except Solomon’s head of Christ picture!),
• contemporary Christian music (usually performed by a leader or worship band than sung by the congregation),
• and a vague, generalized dissatisfaction with traditional churches.

In some ways the movement reminds of the Jesus People movement of the early 1970s (of which I was sort of a part). But there are differences, as well. Most emerging churches tend to be a little more cerebral than the Jesus People movement which also tended to be more fundamentalist in its theology.

Below the surface is where I want to go. What’s “down there”–on the deeper level of motivation and driving concern? The one thing that stands out to me as underlying almost everything about emerging churches is a passion for authenticity. It seems to me that most of the emergent church leaders and followers are convinced that most traditional churches (at least that they are familiar with) go through motions but don’t know why–except “that’s the way we’ve always done things.” Emergent church people are turned off by anything they consider inauthentic. I know some of them would rather have an authentic atheism than an inauthentic Christianity. (Kind of like the old Pietist saying “Better a live heresy than a dead orthodoxy.)

So what do they consider inauthentic Christianity? Any form of Christianity, church life, that is just going through the motions because it’s respectable or traditional or they fear change. I respect their concern for authenticity.

One hesitation I have is that many emerging churches seem somewhat adrift doctrinally. I’m not a dogmatician or creedalist, but I would like to see a greater emphasis on Bible study and doctrine in some of the emerging churches I’ve encountered. I’d also like to see more emphasis on transformative spiritual experiences (conversion, Spirit baptism, renewal through rededication, etc.). And I worry that some emergent churches tend to throw the baby out with the bathwater in their search for authenticity. Just because something is done inauthentically doesn’t mean it is itself inauthentic. (For example, hymn singing.)

Overall, however, I applaud the emerging churches and their leaders (with a few exceptions I don’t care to mention by name). And I am turned off by the ridicule heaped on them by some self-appointed spokesmen for evangelicalism. (Go to youtube.com to see them.)

So what is the future of emerging churches? Like everything else, the movement will probably tend to go mainstream as the leaders and leading followers age and have families, etc. I hope and pray they retain their passion for authenticity. And I suspect someday their grown children will think their songs and worship styles, etc., are kind of “old school.” It’s inevitable. Alexander Pope said “We think our fathers fools, so wise we grow. Our wiser sons no doubt will think us so.”

This past Saturday evening my wife and I attended an all community hymn sing. (I mentioned this in an earlier post.) One part of it was especially striking. On stage together were Kurt Kaiser (of my generation) and David Crowder. What a contrast! Yet, Kaiser was one of the founders of “contemporary Christian music.” I think a lot of his work has enduring value. Suddenly this thought struck me: Someday the middle aged children of Crowder’s fans will come to see him perform with their parents and say “Oh, he’s so old school.” Just an observation; not a value judgment. But it’s something to keep in mind lest anyone think the music or worship styles of their own generation are the pinnacle, the apex that will last forever.

Rachel Held Evans - My Favorite Books About Justice

My favorite books about justice

http://rachelheldevans.com/books-justice

by Rachel Held Evans

July 20, 2011

I’ve been focusing on justice this month, both in preparation for my trip to Bolivia and as part of the biblical womanhood project. Last week Dan and I attempted a “week of eating justly,” in which I vowed to know exactly where all the food we purchased came from in order to ensure that no people or animals were exploited in the process. In some ways it was harder than I thought ($3 for a can of chicken broth!) and in some ways it was easier than I thought (which fair trade chocolate should I taste test today?). In addition, I’ve been focusing my prayers and reading on subjects related to justice. So today I thought I’d share my favorite books on the topic:

1. The Hole in Our Gospel by president of World Vision Richard Stearns is a fantastic introduction to the centrality of justice to the gospel message. Packed with biblical references and personal testimonies, it’s the kind of book you can safely introduce as a book study option at your church if your group includes participants with a variety of political and theological viewpoints. Stearns issues a moving call to action that challenges Christians to look beyond the walls of their churches and work together to demonstrate God’s love for the world by acting justly, loving mercy, and walking humbly with God.

2. In Half the Sky, Pulitzer Prize-winning duo Nicholas Kristof and Sheryl WuDunn explain how investing in the health and autonomy of women worldwide will lift millions out of poverty. According to the authors, more girls have been killed in the last fifty years, precisely because they were girls, than men were killed in all the wars of the twentieth century. Focusing on sex trafficking, gender-based violence, and maternal mortality, the authors masterfully incorporate colorful stories of real women who have both suffered from oppression and triumphed over it in order to make the case that “women aren’t the problem but the solution. ” This is by far the most well-written book about poverty and injustice that I’ve read. What I love about it is that it really gives the reader a sense of being “on the ground,” where there are no easy answers and no simple categories of victim and rescuer. (In light of recent conversations here on the blog, I found it interesting that the authors are very much in favor of Westerners taking short-term trips to impoverished areas of the world.)

3. If you are looking for a super-practical guide to living more justly, I highly recommend Everyday Justice by Julie Clawson. I used this book to plan most of my activities this month, and it is has proven to be an invaluable resource for making better decisions as a consumer. With seven easy-to-read chapters on coffee, chocolate, cars, food, clothes, waste, and debt, Julie shows how our everyday decisions can affect people around the world. Best of all, each chapter concludes with lists of additional resources that provide readers with the books, documentaries, and Web sites they need to learn more and to put their resolutions into action. You don’t have to take all of Julie’s suggestions of course, but incorporating just a few can make a big difference.

4. Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger by Ronald Sider was the first book to really inspire me to rethink the way that I live in relation to my global neighbors. First published back in 1977, the book has been thoroughly revised and updated. (I read the 2005 version.) Like The Hole in Our Gospel, it provides a comprehensive biblical case for caring about justice, but with an emphasis on the contrast between Western materialism and worldwide poverty. Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger was named one of the Top 100 Religious Books of the Century by Christianity Today, and it is well-deserving of that honor.

5. Last night after dinner, I finally picked up Half the Church by Carolyn Custis James and, believe it or not, I’d finished it by 1:00 a.m.! I loved this book! In it, James argues that the Church’s emphasis on marriage and motherhood is not far-reaching enough to encompass every woman’s whole life within a multicultural, rapidly changing world. In order to take on the sort of injustices we encounter in Half the Sky, Christian women must be freed to lead and to capitalize on God’s positive, life-affirming vision for them. I was absolutely thrilled to see James, an evangelical, interpret passages like Genesis 2 and Proverbs 31 in ways that I believe are much more faithful to the original meaning of the text than are typically presented at Christian women's conferences. James issues a stirring call for the Church to move beyond stifling arguments over gender roles and embrace a holistic understanding of God’s calling for both men and women. I wrote “amen” in the margins more times than I care to admit.

N.T. Wright - Called to Study and Teach

Wise words from Tom Wright on vocation, passion, and how sometimes

it's the little things that end up making all the difference.

Study & Teach from The Work Of The People on Vimeo.

Neo-Fundamentalism, Part 2

Another Hallmark of Neo-fundamentalism

http://www.patheos.com/community/rogereolson/2011/07/06/another-hallmark-of-neo-fundamentalism/

by Roger Olson

July 6, 2011

I’ve been writing a series of posts here about the phenomenon among evangelicals (especially evangelical scholars and those under their influence including certain influential pastors and authors) that I call “neo-fundamentalism.” I’ve already identified several common (perhaps not universal) characteristics or hallmarks of this movement (if it can be called that).

First, let me reiterate that I’m not claiming there’s some kind of secret cabal or conspiracy at work. Rather, I think I detect a relatively new ethos among conservative evangelicals that feels a lot like the fundamentalism “the new evangelicals” supposedly left behind in the 1940s and 1950s. (In its broadest sense “evangelicalism” includes fundamentalists, but beginning with the founding of the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) and then taking off with the founding and growth of the Billy Graham ministries including Christianity Today (CT) in the 1950s a “new evangelicalism” struggled to distinguish itself from the fundamentalist movement led by men like Bob Jones, Carl McIntire and John R. Rice.)

This neo-fundamentalism consists of (mostly) men who claim to be part of the new evangelicalism and are usually so identified but who seem to be turning back to something more like fundamentalism in terms of their attitudes and approaches to evangelical theology and ministry. But there doesn’t seem to be any unifying organization tying them all together even though they do tend to huddle together in certain organizations.

The one hallmark of the older fundamentalism not shared by these neo-fundamentalists (who prefer the label “confessional evangelical”–a label I can’t give over to them because we postconservative evangelicals confess a lot!) is the doctrine of “biblical separationism” and especially “secondary separationism.” However, even these seem to be returning to some extent among these neo-fundamentalists. (I’m thinking for example of the SBC’s withdrawal from the Baptist World Alliance.)

One hallmark I don’t think I’ve talked about here before is the neo-fundamentalists’ tendency to publish ONLY scholarship aimed at “correcting” doctrinal drift or declension among fellow evangelicals. For them, theology should not be creative or engage in reconstruction. Apparently, anyway, God does NOT (for them) have new light to break forth from his word. They are defensive of whatever they perceive as “the received evangelical tradition” and pump out books and articles attacking those evangelicals they regard as somehow departing from it. It always turns out that they see all those straying evangelicals as “on a liberal trajectory.” They (the neo-fundamentalists) are obsessed with liberal theology–as if it still poses a huge threat. (In fact, although it is still around, it has almost no real influence except in some of the mainline Protestant denominations.) Fellow evangelicals like N. T. Wright, Brian McLaren, Rob Bell, the late Stanley Grenz, and numerous others I might mention are treated very harshly by the neo-fundamentalists merely for daring to push the envelope of tradition so as to rethink some traditional doctrinal formulations.

I am not against polemics, so long as they are practiced in a civil and respectful manner. But what puzzles me is why these seemingly brilliant neo-fundamentalist scholars, many of who teach in very respectable evangelical institutions, don’t get to work on something more constructive theologically than criticism of fellow evangelicals. They seem always to be waiting and watching for an evangelical to write or publish something they consider less than fully orthodox so they can jump on it and write another book attacking it.

This current evangelical situation reminds me of Karl Barth’s response to the question of possible universalism in his theology. In The Humanity of God (p. 62) he wrote: “One question should for a moment be asked, in view of the ‘danger’ with which one may see this concept [viz., universalism] gradually surrounded. What of the ‘danger’ of the eternally skeptical-critical theologian who is ever and again suspiciously questioning, because fundamentally always legalistic and therefore in the main morosely gloomy? Is not his presence among us currently more threatening than that of the unbecomingly cheerful indifferentism or even antinomianism, to which one with a certain understanding of universalism could in fact deliver himself? This much is certain, that we have no theological right to set any sort of limits to the loving-kindness of God which has appeared in Jesus Christ. Our theological duty is to see and understand it as being still greater than we had seen before.”

I think Barth’s comment there speaks powerfully into the ongoing debate over Rob Bell’s book Love Wins. And into the plethora of publications attacking moderate and postconservative evangelicals for daring to engage in fresh and faithful biblical research in order to test whether time honored (but still human) traditions are valid. We have too many “morosely gloomy” evangelical theologians today. I’d like to challenge them to take a year off from their inquisitions to write something positive and constructive.

Additional Comments and Notes

Thirsty says

Roger, one of the things I’ve been trying to do over the last year is to try to get a handle on evangelical Protestantism — in the main through reading what I can, through attending services at a local and thriving evangelical Anglican church, and through talking as much as possible to evangelical friends and friends-of-friends. Your blogs have been very helpful in this regard, but there’s one thing I keep wondering about.

You evidently envisage evangelical Protestantism as a kind of spectrum, with neo-fundamentalists at one end, and moderate and postconservative ones at the other. While labels can be limiting, they can be helpful too, and so I’m wondering where exactly you would place individuals such as Don Carson, John Piper, Rick Warren, Philip Yancey, and England’s John Stott, Steve Chalke, and Steve Jeffery? Indeed, where would you place yourself?

I’m having difficulties grasping the realities of the contemporary evangelical map, and I think some kind of pointers in this regard might be helpful.

I ask largely because friends at the local evangelical church have muttered gloomily about divisions between what might be termed the Chalke and Jeffery camps, notably talking of conventions splitting over Chalke’s views; one also has spoken unhappily about attending conferences where he’s been told that all books for sale there have been vetted in advance so only books completely in line with the conference’s doctrine are available. Feeling that we shouldn’t just read to validate our views, this bothers him.

Roger says

Well, watch for the forthcoming book The Evangelical Spectrum: Five Views. I, for one, don’t like the “right/left” spectrum. It operates from the assumption that all evangelical views are tied somehow to modernity. The spectrum I prefer is determined by attitudes toward tradition.

Fundamentalists and neo-fundamentalists are those who highly value militant or aggressive defense of something they perceive as a sacred hermeneutical and doctrinal tradition such that it is considered heresy or at least very dangerous even to question any part of it. These people tend to sanctify an entire systematic theology (in most cases in the U.S., anyway, somehow related to Charles Hodge’s and B. B. Warfield’s theology) as authoritative for authentic evangelicalism.

Postconservatives are those evangelicals who take more seriously sola or prima scriptura such that it is always worthwhile to question tradition insofar as fresh and faithful biblical research indicates it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Charles says

"what puzzles me is why these seemingly brilliant neo-fundamentalist scholars, many of who teach in very respectable evangelical institutions, don’t get to work on something more constructive theologically than criticism of fellow evangelicals.”

Maybe these guys have hemmed themselves in. They know from their own behavior how ready certain folk are to criticize anything new, to excommunicate, as it were, anyone who deviates from the conservative evangelical script. Therefore, these “scholars” have no freedom to say anything fresh or new. There are haunted by the fear that they themselves have generated.

Roger says

I think you’re on to something there!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

K says

I don’t understand how Rob Bell’s opening shot — calling the traditional understanding of hell “misguided, toxic, and ultimately subverts the contagious spread of Jesus’ message of love,” “a cheap view of the world [and]of God,” and “a shriveled imagination” — escapes the charge of criticizing fellow evangelicals.

Roger says

The difference is he doesn’t name anyone or aim at their throat so as to ruin their reputation and even get them fired from their teaching positions.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Barry says

There is no question that there is always more to be learned about God because our understanding of what he has revealed is not fully correct. That being the case, theology always needs further development.

The problem, as I see it, is to develop in the right directions. Bart Ehrman, for example, is not trying to develop a better understanding of God (IMHO). He is trying to cash in by saying the most destructive things possible to Christian faith. Rob Bell may, or may not, be trying to do something more positive. I’m not sure, but I think he may be tinkering with some things that don’t really need the kind of development he is exploring.

It is also clearly a fact that the neo-fundamentalists, as you call them, are vigilant to shoot down anything that sounds the least bit unfamiliar to them. That probably means they are going to hit some real errors as well as some possible improvements. I think you are saying that they should not be so fast on the draw and should ease up on their ferocity. But I’m not sure because you name no names.

I’m uncertain how you can be sure that allowing more free-flowing development in theology will not lead to really serious harm in certain cases. I feel sure there are developments in theology that you think are really headed for trouble. What is the right way to approach those cases?

Roger says

Good insights and questions. I don’t worry about theological innovation so long as it is tethered securely to the authority of Scripture. Where neo-fundamentalists see “unfettered theological experimentation” I often see faithful evangelical interpreters of Scripture doing their best to examine tradition critically in the light of God’s Word and unleash that new light God always has to bring forth from it. I get worried when a theologian, identified as evangelical or otherwise, begins to speculate apart from submission to Scripture. The problem is that neo-fundamentalists have trouble distinguishing between Scripture and their particular traditional interpretation of Scripture. I find it to be the case, often, that neo-fundamentalists have canonized the theology of Charles Hodge and confused it with God’s Word.

The Neo-Fundamentalism, Part 1

The New Fundamentalism
http://www.patheos.com/community/rogereolson/2011/03/24/the-new-fundamentalism/

by Roger Olson

March 24, 2011

Several have asked me here to explain my meaning of “fundamentalism.” That’s difficult to do in a nutshell. Like “evangelicalism” one has to distinguish between the Fundamentalist Movement (or “movement fundamentalism”) and the fundamentalist ethos.

The Fundamentalist Movement is well understood; scholars such as Marsden and Carpenter have recounted its history and distinguishing features. I have interacted with movement fundamentalists over the years by having them visit my classes. One of those speakers (from Central Baptist Theological Seminary in Minneapolis) emphasized that fundamentalism is marked off from other types of Christianity (including neo-evangelicalism) by its militant (not violent) defense of biblical orthodoxy and its doctrine and practice of biblical separation including secondary separation.

The Fundamentalist Movement, in spite of itself, has no definite boundaries because it is a movement and not an organization. It includes organizations such as the American Council of Christian Churches (ACCC) founded by Carl McIntire which became an evangelical rival on the right to the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE).

Billy Graham started out in this Fundamentalist Movement but was ostracized from it because of his inclusion of Catholics and “liberal” Protestants in his New York evangelistic crusade in the late 1940s. (All of this is described in detail by Marsden and Carpenter in their books to which I have alluded several times before. Look them up on amazon.com.)

Harold John Ockenga’s “new evangelicalism” emerged out of the Fundamentalist Movement in the 1940s and 1950s. The major differences had to do with cultural engagement (as opposed to separation), a broader perspective on who is evangelical (Ockenga and the NAE included Pentecostals), a greater emphasis on the good of education (even outside of fundamentalist Bible institutions) and an attempt to rebalance the Christian beliefs that properly belong in the “essentials” and “non-essentials” categories. (Many in the Fundamentalist Movement had come to view premillennialism as an essential of Christian faith.)

The NAE’s statement of faith illustrates well the shift: It does not include the inerrancy of Scripture (although it does use the term infallible for the Bible) or the substitutionary atonement (it says “vicarious sacrifice) or premillennialism.

Throughout the 1950s and 1960s and into the 1970s the new evangelicalism, largely focused on Billy Graham and his ministries (including Christianity Today), and the Fundamentalist Movement went their separate ways with occasional clashes. Both sides took delight in criticizing the other side. Fundamentalists criticized the new evangelicals for being “compromised” (with secular culture and liberal theology) and for seeking respectability. The new evangelicals criticized movement fundamentalists for being narrow minded, anti-intellectual, too separatistic and for majoring in the minors of doctrine and practice.

To make a long story short, during the late 1970s and throughout the 1980s movement fundamentalists such as Jerry Falwell began to call themselves “evangelicals” and the media began to call them that (much to the chagrin of some movement fundamentalists and some new evangelicals). Billy Graham began to decline as the glue holding the new evangelicalism together. The NAE’s influence began to wane. Fundamentalism began to bleed out of its normal zone of separatistic isolation into culture and into evangelicalism. Many conservative evangelicals began to sound more and more like fundamentalists.

One major turning point in this blurring of traditional differences between movement fundamentalism and the new evangelicalism was Harold Lindsell’s 1976 book The Battle for the Bible that fell like a bombshell on the playground of the evangelicals. It argued that biblical inerrancy (rather narrowly defined) is an essential of evangelical faith if not of Christianity itself. Even Carl F. H. Henry, the “dean” of the new evangelical theologians, disagreed and was dropped as a columnist from Christianity Today. (Henry had been the founding editor of CT; Lindsell was one of his successors.)

However, numerous evangelical pastors, denominational leaders, parachurch organization leaders and administrators of evangelical colleges, universities and seminaries either agreed with Lindsell or were cowed into seeming to agree with him by pressure from constituents.

A personal, illustrative anecdote. When I enrolled in an evangelical seminary in 1975 it did not have a statement on inerrancy and, to the best of my knowledge, none of the faculty believed in biblical inerrancy. They talked about biblical infallibility but distinguished that from inerrancy. They talked about inerrancy as a fundamentalist view of the Bible and preferred to adhere to the Bible’s full authority for faith and practice. This was a mainstream evangelical seminary, not at all to the “left” or influenced by liberalism. It did have a Pietist background, however, which inclined it toward a more generous orthodoxy (not a term coined by [Brian] McLaren!).

After The Battle for the Bible was published, while I was still in seminary, the denomination’s pastors pressured the seminary to adopt a binding statement of the Bible’s inerrancy in the original autographs. The faculty were asked to sign it. I noticed that several of my professors who had criticized inerrancy in class signed it to keep their jobs. One resigned and went on to a stellar career in American and Canadian Baptist seminaries. The ethos of the seminary changed. A chill came over the classrooms and student-faculty lounge and chapel. At my graduation a fundamentalist pastor and radio preacher delivered the commencement address, much to the chagrin of most of the faculty and students.

It isn’t so much that movement fundamentalists switched sides or joined new evangelical organizations. It’s that some among the new evangelicals began to sympathize with SOME features of fundamentalism and regret evangelicalism’s movement away from it.

The Fundamentalist Movement still exists in relatively clear distinction from the post-WW2, postfundamentalist evangelical movement. The distinction still has to do with separationism and especially secondary separation. Even the most conservative, neo-fundamentalist evangelicals rarely practice secondary separation. Billy Graham is still their hero and they claim him even if some of his specific views are not popular among them.

However, what I call a fundamentalist ethos has bled out of movement fundamentalism and begun to have a pernicious influence among people who are heirs of the original postfundamentalist evangelical founders and leaders. I call this “neo-fundamentalism.” It is beginning to coalesce as a distinct movement within evangelicalism and is attempting to take over the entire evangelical movement (as it did the Southern Baptist Convention).

What are the distinguishing features of neo-fundamentalism?

First, a certain militancy in defense of perceived evangelical doctrinal tradition. Self-appointed spokespersons for neo-fundamentalism are actively seeking to get those evangelicals they consider doctrinally impure or compromised fired from evangelical organizations and not published by evangelical publishers. They congratulate each other and give each other pats on the back for pointing out heresy or heterodoxy where it has not yet been recognized. Their practice of theology is almost exclusively critical; they see no value in constructive or reconstructive theology even if it is based on fresh and faithful biblical research. They are militant defenders and promoters of something they call “the received evangelical tradition” (or by another name).

Second, a certain mean-spiritedness toward fellow evangelicals who disagree with them. Many of these neo-evangelicals see nothing wrong with misrepresenting their opponents’ views in order to marginalize them. (I have myself been subjected to this frequently and could cite names, but that’s not my goal here.) One well-known and highly regarded neo-fundamentalist evangelical theologian tried to get a colleague fired for allegedly not believing rightly in the resurrection. (According to him it has to be “physical,” “bodily” is not enough.) The same man wrote a book claiming that open theism borrows from process theology and cited pages in an open theists’ book to prove it. Anyone who looked up those pages could easily see the open theist author denied influence by process theology while only admitting similarity on one point–God’s knowledge of the future.

Third, a tendency to fill up the “essentials” (dogmas) category of Christian beliefs with non-essentials. For example, many neo-fundamentalists are claiming that substitutionary atonement is an essential of Christian faith. Even the NAE statement of faith doesn’t mention it! Some are claiming that inclusivism is in direct conflict with basic Christian doctrine. (They conveniently overlook that C. S. Lewis was an inclusivist as is Billy Graham.) I could go on mentioning secondary doctrines that neo-fundamentalists within the evangelical movement are contending for in a somewhat militant manner even to the point of questioning the salvation of those who do not believe them.

Fourth, a new version of separationism. Neo-fundamentalists don’t often practice secondary separation. But it is beginning to raise its ugly head among them. One example is the Southern Baptist Convention’s withdrawal from the World Baptist Alliance. Neo-fundamentalists are doing their best to take over organizations traditionally related to the broader “new evangelicalism” movement, but when they can’t, they are beginning to found their own separate organizations to compete with evangelical ones.

What I see emerging, that in my opinion is not being recognized by most evangelical leaders, is a third way–a way via media between movement fundamentalism and the postfundamentalist evangelicalism. People from movement fundamentalism are emerging out of their isolation into this third way and calling it “conservative evangelicalism.” People from postfundamentalist evangelicalism are adopting this third way and calling it “conservative evangelicalism.” THIS is why I call myself a postconservative evangelical. It has NOTHING to do with being liberal; it has everything to do with not wanting to be confused with these people creating and populating this third way via media. I simply refuse to give up the label “evangelical,” but because of the growing influence of this third way I have to use some adjective to distinguish my own way of being evangelical from that.

More to come….

Additional Comments and Notes

*Church Spectrums:
fundamentalism - neo-fundamentalism/conservative evangelicalism - classic evangelicalism - post-conservative evangelicalism

*(Non-)Denominational Spectrums: Catholicism - Anabaptism - Protestantism

*Primary separation (not a term used by fundamentalists but helpful to distinguish it from secondary separation) is the refusal of fellowship with false Christians. Secondary separation is refusing to have fellowship with people who have fellowship with false Christians.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

John says
These two terms, evangelical and fundamentalist, are very nebulous terms and made all the more so by the various sub-strata related to each. I think your earlier post with a definition of evangelical and this one of fundamentalist are very helpful. The definitions are, of necessity, broad generalities but ones I find to be legitimate.

There is no doubt that there is a hardening of stance among many evangelicals who seem to have lost the ability to vigorously contend for the truth (as they see it) without becoming mean-spirited and exclusionary. There is also no doubt that some well-known and well-respected Christian figures are not above misrepresenting the views of others in ways that can only be described as dishonest.

To be clear, I am not a universalist, not a liberal, not one to question the authority of the Bible. There are teachings that genuine Christians hold that are wrong. There are also “tares” in broader Christendom. The truth should be upheld. But, we should be able to do so without sinking to methods that discredit bout ourselves and our beliefs.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wikipedia - Christian Fundamentalists believe in:

1. The inerrancy of the Bible
2. The literal nature of the Biblical accounts, especially regarding Christ’s miracles, and the Creation account in Genesis.
3. The Virgin Birth of Christ
4. The bodily resurrection of Christ
5. The substitutionary atonement of Christ on the cross
Point 5 expanded would say that the New Fundamentalists require a belief in the “penal” substitutionary atonement of Christ on the cross.

Roger says
Those 5 doctrines were the usual ones promoted as essentials of the Christian faith by the original fundamentalists. After 1925 (according to Marsden, Noll, Carpenter, Balmer and other historians) fundamentalism took a turn. For one thing, many of the leading fundamentalists added premillennialism as a fundamental of the faith. I once taught with an amillennialist who was constantly under attack for being “liberal” even though the college’s statement of faith said nothing about the millennium. Most scholarly treatments of fundamentalism include the pre-1925 and post-1925 phases noting that after 1925 “biblical separation” and even “secondary separation” became hallmarks of fundamentalism.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Peter says
“THIS is why I call myself a postconservative evangelical. It has NOTHING to do with being liberal; it has everything to do with not wanting to be confused with these people creating and populating this third way via media.”

Hmmm… sounds like you’re retaining a key feature of both fundamentalism and evangelicalism in all their stripes: a tendency to define yourself by your opposition.

Roger says
And who doesn’t do that to some extent?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Carson says
I read ‘Reformed & Always Reforming’ after graduating from a conservative Bible college, and restored my hope for what the task of theology could be. Yet I was confused by the nomenclature of “postconservative.” Why not just use the term “moderate”? Not conservative. Not liberal. Drawing on element of both. Rejecting elements of both. Sounds moderate to me.

Roger says
I have found “moderate” too broad. I know people who call themselves “moderate Baptists” who are out-and-out liberals. (That’s not true of all who call themselves moderate Baptists, of course, and I use that label for myself in contexts where it will be correctly understood.) Originally, I thought I had coined the adjective “postconservative” and I meant it as sort of a parallel with “postliberal” - not that I agree with everything postliberals believe. The whole idea of “postconservative evangelicalism” was to get off the “right-left” spectrum that still bedevils most of our evangelical theological debates. Postconservative evangelicals are neither right nor left nor somewhere in the middle on that spectrum. The right-left spectrum is inextricably tied to modernity.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Timothy says:
If I have understood Roger correctly, fundamentalism is not so much a theology as a state of mind. Thus one might have the most conservative theology but not be a fundamentalist in Roger’s sense of the word or liberal but a fundamentalist. The key aspect of fundamentalism is how it interacts with those who disagree with it. So to take one issue, if it is able to interact graciously with disagreement then it is not fundamentalist but if it persecutes those with which it disagrees then it is fundamentalist.

In my own experience, I know an extremely conservative Anglican minister (I live in England) who is quite able to dine with the rather liberal Archbishop Rowan Williams. Indeed, they both enjoy those surpisingly frequent occasions. Such a minister, if I understand Roger correctly, would not be termed fundamentalist. Nor would Gavin, above, be termed a fundamentalist assuming he also relates to those with whom he disagrees with similar charity.

My observation is that often lack of charity is a function of immaturity. Thus very conservative speakers who are mature often have followers who are less mature and so exhibit the signs of fundamentalism absent from their doyens.

Since fundamentalism in Roger’s sense is not primarily a theological category as a personality or moral category, what we need is a kind of checklist to see if one is drifting towards it. One cannot tell simply by looking at one’s theology. A follower of Bultmann could be just as much a fundamentalist as a follower of John Piper.

One question we should ask ourselves is whether we can learn from those we disagree with. Bonhoeffer was someone that evangelicals regarded with distaste in the 1930s as being a liberal, or at least neo-orthodox. Time and martyrdom have lent a lustre to his reputation even among many evangelicals. But can we learn today from those outside our camp, successors if you like of Bonhoeffer?

Another question might be is there a positive and edifying priority in our teaching. Sometimes one can be far more concerned to condemn error in others than to affirm and expound truth, whether from our own tradition or from another’s. This is a particular tendency among the followers of the “great men.” It is so much easier to master the criticism of others than the exposition of our own understanding.

Roger rightly raises the issue of power plays. When we use power to enforce our views then I think we are up against something that if not fundamentalism is at least very distasteful.

But all this means that one issue that needs to be teased out is how we go about refuting error (as we see it). We need to have ways in which we discuss, debate and reject various views and even campaign against them. Roger’s blog is an attempt to do so. But there is a need to work out how we can do this responsibly. Roger may have mastered the art of doing it himself but the elements of such an art need to be brought to light for others to follow.

Roger says
Thank you for that very interesting comment; it is one with which I substantially agree. I would say, however, that I only use “fundamentalist” and “neo-fundamentalist” for those on the right of the theological spectrum. It seems odd, to say the least, to apply these to those on the left, as they are tied to the original fundamentalist movement and especially its post-1925 manifestations in the U.S. and perhaps Britain. The great leaders of the fundamentalist movement throughout the 1930s and 1940s and into the 1950s and 1960s tended to be men who would sometimes sacrifice integrity or civility in order to make their points and keep their followers in line. We need a parallel word for liberal leaders who do the same; I’m not sure what it should be. One principle I try to follow to avoid that tendency is to always be sure I understand before saying I disagree and to measure the volume and intensity of my disagreement to my level of certainty about the disagreement. I think fundamentalists and neo-fundamentalists tend to jump the gun, so to speak, when reacting to perceived liberal or liberalizing moves made by fellow evangelicals. And they often allow the volume and intensity of their disagreement to grow way out of proportion to the importance of the matter.