Four Views on the Spectrum of Evangelicalism

By Kevin Bauder, R. Albert Mohler, Jr., John G. Stackhouse, Jr. and Roger E. Olson

Understand the history, core values, and divisions as they've developed within the Evangelical Christian movement.

Four Views on the Spectrum of Evangelicalismcompares and contrasts four distinct positions on the current fundamentalist-evangelical spectrum. Each contributor offers their case for one of four primary views:

• Fundamentalism – defended by Kevin T. Bauder
• Conservative/confessional evangelicalism – defended by R. Albert Mohler Jr.
• Generic evangelicalism – defended by John G. Stackhouse Jr.
• Postconservative evangelicalism – defended by Roger E. Olson

Each author explains and defends his position, which is critiqued by the other three authors.

The Counterpoints series presents a comparison and critique of scholarly views on topics important to Christians that are both fair-minded and respectful of the biblical text. Each volume is a one-stop reference that allows readers to evaluate the different positions on a specific issue and form their own, educated opinion.

 

• Language: English
• Publisher: Zondervan
• Release date: Oct 4, 2011
• ISBN: 9780310555810

Kevin Bauder

Kevin T. Bauder (DMin, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School; PhD, Dallas Theological Seminary) is past president of and current research professor of systematic and historical theology at Central Baptist Theological Seminary, Minneapolis. He is a general editor of One Bible Only? Examining Exclusive Claims for the King James Bible.

Book preview

INTRODUCTION

COLLIN HANSEN

Americans have little trouble identifying an evangelical: that would be someone who stayed loyal to George W. Bush before transferring allegiances to Sarah Palin. Expand your focus group to the rest of North America and Great Britain and the answer may grow somewhat more complicated. Still, evangelicals are most commonly known for advocating the gospel of free markets, strong defense, and traditional morals. Jesus might as well have been Ronald Reagan. To the watching public, evangelicals seem to share the same one view on any given issue. So who needs to publish a whole book trying to describe evangelicals by presenting four views?

We self-described evangelicals often lament such stunted descriptions. Evangelicalism predates the Religious Right and represents a variety of political views, even if many now vote Republican in America. Besides, evangelicals are not so much political activists as ambassadors for the kingdom of heaven, where Jesus Christ reigns and sustains the world. We will gladly explain that an evangelical testifies to the evangel, the good news that the one and only Son of God has come into the world to save sinners. We pass along a message of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures (1 Cor. 15:3–4).

Yet all is not so clear within the evangelical camp either. Simply labeling ourselves evangelical no longer suffices. We are conservative, progressive, postconservative, and preprogressive evangelicals. We are traditional, creedal, biblical, pietistic, anticreedal, ecumenical, and fundamentalist. We are followers of Christ and Red Letter Christians. We are everything, so we are nothing. If the descriptor evangelical cannot stand on its own, then it has little use. There is no coherent movement, only an endless collection of self-styled labels created by Christians for their Facebook profiles.¹

Those of us who work for evangelical institutions often struggle to hold these factions together. Everyone has an opinion about where the movement should head. And everyone wants to offer his or her own special twist on defining evangelicalism. I have found myself simultaneously defending fellow evangelicals from skeptics, seeking to build consensus within the movement, offering my own perspective on key positions we must hold, and defending myself from evangelicals who do not regard me as sufficiently cooperative. Such is life in evangelicalism, which seems to be moving in several directions at once.

At the same time, the energy that threatens to pull evangelicalism apart supplies much-needed dynamism to Christianity in the West. In its history, evangelicalism has prodded the powers as a movement of renewal and revival. Evangelicals have called moribund ministers to theological renewal and called on God to send revival by the power of the Holy Spirit. Whatever their differences, evangelicals pledge allegiance to Christ alone, the only hope for self-absorbed sinners in any age or place, any stage or race. When tempted to leave behind the headaches of this eclectic movement with no leader and no membership, we pause and ask, But where should we go? So long as evangelicals testify to the words of eternal life, we count ourselves among their ranks. At its best, evangelicalism overcomes nonessential differences to unite like-minded Christians around the common cause of gospel proclamation and gospel living. If we lose evangelicalism to political captivity or rampant individualism, we lose a rare opportunity to demonstrate unity and mission outside the local church. We hope this book, then, will serve to shore up evangelicalism by highlighting common beliefs and fostering respectful disagreement where necessary.

Biblical Testimony for the Evangel

Evangelicals take their name from the koine Greek word euangelion, translated into English as good news. The word appears in Scripture with various nuances. But it frequently relates to the coming of Jesus Christ and his ministry to usher in the kingdom of God.

An angel announced to shepherds outside Bethlehem the good news of great joy for all the people. In a message particularly rich in biblical significance for Jews, the angel explained that a Savior was born in the city of David who was Christ the Lord (Luke 2:10–11). At the beginning of his ministry in Galilee, Jesus proclaimed the good news of God. The time has come, he said. The kingdom of God has come near. Repent and believe the good news! (Mark 1:15). Reading from Isaiah 61:1–2 in his hometown Nazareth synagogue, Jesus taught that he had fulfilled the prophet’s words: The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to set the oppressed free, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor (Luke 4:18–19). He reiterated this message to followers of John the Baptist who wanted to know if Jesus was the one who is to come (Luke 7:19). Indeed, Jesus testified that he is the Messiah who accords with prophecies proclaiming the coming of God’s kingdom. He responded, Go back and report to John what you have seen and heard: The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is proclaimed to the poor (v. 22; cf. Matt. 11:5).

Still today evangelicals bear this good news that Jesus Christ has fulfilled the messianic hopes of Israel, even if his followers did not expect him to submit to crucifixion and rise from the dead on the third day. Indeed, the first disciples eventually understood that these unexpected events only confirmed that the heavenly kingdom had dawned in Jesus. As the world awaits his second coming, we have the responsibility to repent of our sins and believe this good news. Amid much debate, the apostles began taking this good news that Jesus is the Christ to the nations (Acts 5:42). Philip evangelized an Ethiopian eunuch by explaining Isaiah 53:7–8, which gives particular attention to Jesus’ crucifixion. He was led like a sheep to the slaughter, and as a lamb before its shearer is silent, so he did not open his mouth (Acts 8:32). The good news is that all who trust in this sacrifice for their sins have peace through Christ, who is Lord of all (Acts 10:36). No longer should we trust in the worthless idols made by human hands. Rather, we may trust in Jesus, who is the exact representation of the living God, who made the heavens and the earth and the sea and everything in them (Acts 14:15). Though unbelievers accuse us of mindless babbling, evangelicals understand that Jesus’ resurrection is the only sure ground for hope (Acts 17:18). How beautiful are the feet of those who bear this good news, who proclaim peace, who bring good tidings, who proclaim salvation, who say to Zion, ‘Your God reigns!’ (Rom. 10:15; Isa. 52:7).

Evangelicals take criticism for adopting an essentially negative posture toward what the world regards as progress. It is true that evangelicals will side with Scripture when others bless moral behavior that God condemns. And the good news carries an initial bit of bad news that sin has broken the relationship between God and his creation. But evangelicals bear in their very name a message of the greatest joy imaginable. Though they sin, humans may be reconciled with their perfectly holy, perfectly powerful, perfectly loving Father. Through Jesus Christ, the Father adopts believers into his everlasting family, not based on anything they have done to earn his favor, but purely by his pleasure and will (Eph. 1:5). Wherever you may find them, whatever language they speak, evangelicals will gladly share this good news, the best news ever delivered.

Agreement and Ambiguity

Jesus’ first followers did not go by any one name in the New Testament. Those who were Jews did not necessarily feel compelled to adopt a new name, believing that Jesus Christ fulfilled the promises given to their forefathers. Persecutors, including the deadly Saul, pursued members of this group that became popularly known as the Way (Acts 9:2). Though ambiguous, the term was flexible enough to carry several meanings. Jesus had described himself as the way and the truth and the life (John 14:6). So it is possible that these followers of Jesus Christ were known for pointing the way to fellowship with the Father through his Son. Later, adopting the Greek term for the Hebrew Messiah, Jesus’ disciples were first known as Christians at Antioch (Acts 11:26).

Even though the Bible has much to say about the gospel, Christians did not begin calling themselves evangelical until the Reformation of the sixteenth century. Martin Luther, a pious, earnest German monk, underwent what his biographer Roland Bainton described as an evangelical experience while teaching the Psalms and epistles to the Galatians and Romans between 1513 and 1517. These studies proved to be for Luther the Damascus road, Bainton wrote, referring to Saul’s unexpected conversion after encountering the risen Jesus (Acts 9).² While pouring over these biblical texts, Luther read good news that he believed contemporary Roman Catholic teaching had obscured. He previously resented a God he understood as just and angry. But while dwelling on Romans 1:17, Luther suddenly understood that the justice of God is the righteousness by which through grace and sheer mercy God justifies us through faith. Luther felt as though he had been born again. The Scripture he had studied for so long took on a new meaning.

If you have a true faith that Christ is your Savior, then at once you have a gracious God, for faith leads you in and opens up God’s heart and will, that you should see pure grace and overflowing love, Luther wrote. This is to behold God in faith that you should look upon his fatherly, friendly heart, in which there is no anger nor ungraciousness. He who sees God as angry does not see him rightly but looks only on a curtain, as if a dark cloud had been drawn across his face.³

Luther and other Reformers who criticized the Roman Catholic Church came to be known as evangelicals. To this day, Lutherans incorporate this term in their official titles, even if their usage more closely corresponds to the English term Protestant. But Luther protested Roman Catholic practice and theology out of concern for the biblical gospel. So evangelical captures the appeal of the Reformers’ message and the beliefs that united them in a way that the negative Protestant does not.

Against the Reformation’s historical backdrop, one can understand the benefit of resuscitating this descriptor during a time of crisis and eclipse in American Protestantism. Throughout the eighteenth and especially the nineteenth century, European skeptical biblical scholarship made inroads among American ministers and other church leaders. Scholars from Luther’s native Germany in particular employed critical tools to cast doubt on the veracity of events recorded in Scripture. The so-called higher criticism changed the complexion of several American denominations. By the early twentieth century, many Protestants who defended the Bible felt besieged. Schools such as Princeton Seminary, once a bastion of conservative orthodoxy, was reorganized in 1929 to include scholars who professed diverse beliefs about the Bible’s authority and trustworthiness. Denominations such as the Methodist Episcopal Church, which had grown so rapidly in the nineteenth century through the tireless work of evangelists, now seemed more interested in advancing social causes such as prohibition.

Amid these changes, Christians united across denominational lines to reassert their belief in the fundamentals of the faith, including the veracity of biblical miracles such as the virgin birth and resurrection of Jesus. Some newer evangelical expressions, particularly Pentecostalism, thrived during the tumultuous years before World War II. But many evangelicals, now popularly known as fundamentalists, assumed a defensive posture that alienated them from the era’s crucial debates over theology and social issues. By the time World War II ended in 1945, a younger generation including Harold John Ockenga agitated to reengage Western society on several fronts. Adapting an earlier term, Ockenga described this movement as neo-evangelicalism. These evangelicals would retain much fundamentalist theology and prioritize evangelism while building broader coalitions to apply the gospel to contemporary social concerns.

Carl F. H. Henry wrote in his 1947 call to arms, The Uneasy Conscience of Modern Fundamentalism:

The evangelical task primarily is the preaching of the Gospel, in the interest of individual regeneration by the supernatural grace of God, in such a way that divine redemption can be recognized as the best solution of our problems, individual and social. This produces within history, through the regenerative work of the Holy Spirit, a divine society that transcends national and international lines. The corporate testimony of believers, in their purity of life, should provide for the world an example of the divine dynamic to overcome evils in every realm. The social problems of our day are much more complex than in apostolic times, but they do not on that account differ in principle. When the twentieth-century church begins to out-live its environment as the first-century church outreached its pagan neighbors, the modern mind, too, will stop casting about for other solutions.⁴

Henry and his allies had reason to believe the modern mind had indeed been intrigued by the gospel. Thousands turned out to hear evangelists such as Billy Graham during Youth for Christ rallies. Ockenga’s native Boston hosted Graham in 1950 for an evangelistic crusade that recalled George Whitefield’s visit at the dawn of the First Great Awakening in 1740. Yet by 1957, the nascent movement splintered, a divide that continues today as reflected in this book. Graham’s relationship with self-described fundamentalists such as Bob Jones Sr., who once saw so much promise in the young evangelist’s career, was already strained before he allied with the liberal Protestant Council of the City of New York for a 1957 crusade. But this decision led to a decisive break between the new evangelicals and fundamentalists.

It wasn’t long before other cracks began showing in the evangelical ranks. Even as he continued to minister in Boston, Ockenga commuted to Pasadena, California, where he served as president for the flagship evangelical graduate school, Fuller Theological Seminary, founded in 1947. Daniel Fuller, son of the seminary’s founder and who would become dean in 1963, argued to Ockenga in December 1962 that the Bible includes historical and scientific mistakes. His view carried the day as the seminary backed away from inerrancy, prompting several faculty members to leave. Despite the efforts of Ockenga, Graham, Henry, and others to forge unity through parachurch organizations, evangelicalism was tugged in sometimes competing directions. Though it was not much recognized at the time, historian George Marsden writes, American evangelicalism in the 1960s was a vast, largely disconnected conglomeration of widely diverse groups.⁵

While insiders foresaw looming problems, the watching public was just beginning to notice a resurgent evangelicalism. Graham continued to attract large crowds, but it took a peanut farmer from Georgia to convince mainstream media to recognize the broader evangelical movement. Jimmy Carter’s candidacy sent journalists on a hunt to understand what he meant by saying he was born again. As Carter marched on to victory over President Gerald Ford, Newsweek declared 1976 The Year of the Evangelical. Despite the positive press, controversy continued to flare within the camp. Harold Lindsell, a former Fuller faculty member who succeeded Henry as editor of Christianity Today, scorched Fuller with his book The Battle for the Bible. But even some of his closest allies chided Lindsell for making inerrancy a litmus test for evangelicalism. Henry later recalled that the evangelical movement

had emerged from obscurity to dramatic resurgence through a remarkable coalition of evangelical evangelism symbolized by Graham and of evangelical theology symbolized by Christianity Today, which had rallied an international, multi-denominational corps of scholars articulating conservative theology. But the sudden refocusing of all these issues on the criterion of biblical inerrancy—precisely at the peak of the movement’s public impact—exposed the evangelical cause as itself deeply split over the issue of religious authority.⁶

Retrospective on Our Roots

Looking back, we can see that evangelicalism has continued to shape public discourse, especially in the political realm, fulfilling Henry’s call to cultural relevance. Evangelicals unite across theological lines for cooperative evangelism and social activism. Institutions founded during the postwar period, including Fuller Theological Seminary and Christianity Today, endure. But so do the disputes over authority. Evangelicals recognize that Scripture trumps every human authority, yet they do not agree on the extent and nature of biblical authority. They do not regard every theological issue as equally clear-cut or crucial, yet they do not agree on which doctrines should be of first importance. To many the doctrine of justification by faith alone, shaped by Romans and Galatians in particular as understood by Luther, makes cooperation with the Roman Catholic Church impossible as long as they continue to recognize the authority of the Council of Trent. To others the 1994 declaration The Gift of Salvation, issued by Evangelicals and Catholics Together, signaled Catholic willingness to embrace the good news.

Other issues have likewise exposed evangelical division. That God knows, and even plans, the future is a matter of fundamental conviction to many evangelicals. Yet other theologians who have described themselves as evangelical, including John Sanders, Clark Pinnock, and Greg Boyd, have said that fidelity to Scripture compels them to believe that no one, including God, can know what has not yet happened. They argue that God is partly open to a future of possibilities contingent on our prayers and decisions. Likewise, many evangelicals believe that any gospel presentation that excludes the good news that Christ endured God’s wrath as a substitute for sinners does not explain the gospel at all. Yet other theories propose to explain Christ’s work on the cross, such as the belief that his primary triumph was to liberate sinners from evil. Is there any one privileged theory of the atonement? Or only many such theories? Do any of these theories fail to match the biblical evidence? Any gospel description depends on one’s answers to these questions.

This book’s four contributors offer their take on evangelicalism at its best and critique the movement at its worst. They present their own views on these matters before responding to one another. Division is evident, but we trust that open discussion will help us discern a way to navigate our differences and preserve the meaning and mission behind the name we each claim. Though assailed from many directions, evangelicals bear a name rich in biblical meaning and full of historical significance. It signifies unity around the core essentials of the Christian faith. May God bless us with conviction and courage and count us worthy of his calling (2 Thess. 1:11).

The four contributors are:

Kevin T. Bauder (fundamentalism)

R. Albert Mohler Jr. (confessional evangelicalism)

John G. Stackhouse Jr. (generic evangelicalism)

Roger E. Olson (postconservative evangelicalism)

Each seeks to define evangelicalism and locate his view in historical context. Since evangelicals describe themselves as people of the Book, each contributor discusses how he understands Scripture and its authority. For the purpose of clarity, we have asked each contributor to address three issues recently contested within evangelicalism. First, to explain their views on Christian cooperation, they will evaluate the Evangelicals and Catholics Together movement led by Charles Colson and the late Richard John Neuhaus, which started in the 1990s. They may also address the more recent Manhattan Declaration to clarify any differences between cooperating on theological and social issues. Second, to illustrate their views on doctrinal boundaries, they will address debates over open theism that roiled denominations, schools, and the Evangelical Theological Society during the last two decades. Finally, to illustrate their views on a key doctrinal issue related to the gospel, they will explain their views on penal substitutionary atonement, the belief that Christ took on God’s wrath meant for sinners. While many evangelicals regard this belief as the heart of the good news, others have described it as divine child abuse. And if there can be no agreement on the gospel among evangelicals, unity is a vain pursuit.

Coeditor Andy Naselli and I have not asked the contributors to write a full-orbed biblical defense of their views on any of these issues. Rather, we have asked them to use the limited space to ask what is good for evangelicalism. And what, if anything, is problematic about how evangelicals have discussed these issues? We trust that this approach will avoid merely abstract reflections in favor of dialogue and debate worked out in the crucible of real life with all the attendant consequences for evangelical unity and mission.

Notes

1. Indeed, some theologians, including David Wells, have wondered whether evangelicalism matches the criteria for a movement. "Movements must exhibit three characteristics: (1) there must be a commonly owned direction, (2) there must be a common basis on which that direction is owned, and (3) there must be an esprit that informs and motivates those who are thus joined in their common cause." No Place for Truth: or, Whatever Happened to Evangelical Theology? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 8.

2. Roland H. Bainton, Here I Stand: A Life of Martin Luther (New York: Meridian, 1955), 45–46.

3. Cited in ibid., 49–50.

4. Carl F. H. Henry, The Uneasy Conscience of Modern Fundamentalism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1947), 88–89.

5. George M. Marsden, Reforming Fundamentalism: Fuller Seminary and the New Evangelicalism. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 230.

6. Carl F. H. Henry, Confessions of a Theologian: An Autobiography (Waco, Tex: Word, 1986), 384.

CHAPTER ONE

FUNDAMENTALISM

KEVIN T. BAUDER

Imagine the difficulty of explaining fundamentalism in a book about evangelicalism. Fundamentalism is generally treated like the crypto-zoology of the theological world. It need not be argued against. It can simply be dismissed.¹

Part of the fault lies with fundamentalists themselves. For a generation or more, they have produced few sustained expositions of their ideas. Perhaps a certain amount of stereotyping is excusable, and maybe even unavoidable. No fundamentalist has produced a critical history of fundamentalism.² Nor is any sustained, scholarly, theological explanation of core fundamentalist ideas available.³ By virtue of its length, this essay can provide neither. Instead, it offers a very brief introduction to fundamentalism. No one can speak for all fundamentalists. Consequently, this essay reflects my own vision of fundamentalism. I occasionally indicate areas in which I believe most fundamentalists would agree with me.

I am primarily addressing people who have had limited exposure