I came across an article recently in The Wall Street Journal titled “What’s Wrong With the Teenage Mind?” It explores the cultural changes leading to a contemporary vision of “adolescence.” Of particular interest to me was the role of “apprenticeship” throughout history.

In gatherer-hunter and farming societies, childhood education involves formal and informal apprenticeship. Children have lots of chances to practice the skills that they need to accomplish their goals as adults, and so to become expert planners and actors. The cultural psychologist Barbara Rogoff studied this kind of informal education in a Guatemalan Indian society, where she found that apprenticeship allowed even young children to become adept at difficult and dangerous tasks like using a machete.

In the past, to become a good gatherer or hunter, cook or caregiver, you would actually practice gathering, hunting, cooking and taking care of children all through middle childhood and early adolescence—tuning up just the prefrontal wiring you’d need as an adult.

The article then pointed out the loss of this way of learning and its impact on society today:

Contemporary children have very little experience with the kinds of tasks that they’ll have to perform as grown-ups. Children have increasingly little chance to practice even basic skills like cooking and caregiving. Contemporary adolescents and pre-adolescents often don’t do much of anything except go to school. Even the paper route and the baby-sitting job have largely disappeared…

Of course, the author is not making the case that children today are less knowledgeable than children in previous generations. The results appear to be just the opposite. Still…

There are different ways of being smart. Knowing physics and chemistry is no help with a soufflé. Wide-ranging, flexible and broad learning, the kind we encourage in high-school and college, may actually be in tension with the ability to develop finely-honed, controlled, focused expertise in a particular skill, the kind of learning that once routinely took place in human societies. For most of our history, children have started their internships when they were seven, not 27.

The author concludes by pleading for the return of apprenticeship as a way of helping teenagers move forward into adulthood.

Instead of simply giving adolescents more and more school experiences—those extra hours of after-school classes and homework—we could try to arrange more opportunities for apprenticeship. AmeriCorps, the federal community-service program for youth, is an excellent example, since it provides both challenging real-life experiences and a degree of protection and supervision.

“Take your child to work” could become a routine practice rather than a single-day annual event, and college students could spend more time watching and helping scientists and scholars at work rather than just listening to their lectures. Summer enrichment activities like camp and travel, now so common for children whose parents have means, might be usefully alternated with summer jobs, with real responsibilities.

Evangelicals are talking a lot today about prolonged adolescence and the problems caused by this new phenomenon. I wonder, though, if the need for apprenticeship goes beyond application to teenagers and speaks to the very nature of discipleship in general.

If knowledge and learning in biblical times took place primarily through the role of teacher and apprentice, then perhaps when the New Testament authors place such a strong priority on teaching, they are not thinking merely in terms of lectures and sermons. Perhaps their vision of teaching also includes the idea of apprenticeship. If so, how should this affect our view of discipleship today?

I’m open to ideas. More on this tomorrow…

100 years ago today, Francis Schaeffer was born. Here are some blog posts and articles that celebrate his contribution to evangelicalism.

Biographical

Know Your Evangelicals: Francis Schaeffer

Remembering Francis Schaeffer: On the Occasion of His 100th Birthday

Impact

Francis Schaeffer Cried for the Culture 

The Dissatisfaction of Francis Schaeffer

Schaeffer in His Own Words

What Would Francis Schaeffer Say to the Gospel-Centered Movement?

A Christian Can Defeat Himself in Two Ways

On the Need for Divine Power

On the Early Christians’ Exclusive Claims

James MacDonald’s Elephant Room conference has stirred up celebration and consternation among evangelicals – and no wonder! MacDonald envisions a place where pastors and church leaders can bring private disagreements into the public eye, where leaders with varying theological viewpoints and ministry philosophies can come together and hash out their differences in light of the Scriptures. No easy feat.

I have decided to attend the upcoming Elephant Room conference on January 25, 2012, and then blog about the event. I will explain my reasons for accepting the invitation in a post tomorrow. But before considering the upcoming conference, I think it would be good to offer a few reflections about the first Elephant Room meeting. The conference took place on March 31, 2011, and featured eight conversations between seven pastors. (I collected some blog notes from each session here as well as various clips at the Elephant Room website and here.)

Debates and discussions have long had a place in the evangelical conversation, but the Elephant Room is different. Why? Because it captures so well the ethos of contemporary evangelicalism – for good and for ill. Here’s what I mean…

1. Evangelicals continue to affirm that the Scriptures are authoritative for church life and practice.

One of David Bebbington’s four characteristics of the evangelical movement is that we have a high regard for the authority of Scripture. This means that evangelicals seek to apply the authority of Scripture to all areas of church life and practice.

In the first Elephant Room, everyone at the table was united by the belief that when it comes to ministry practice, what the Bible says is most important. This is why, at the end of the day, evangelicals are unique in having these types of discussions. Many church leaders would shrug their shoulders at this event, having already dismissed the absolute authority of Scripture for all aspects of church life. Fundamentalists would avoid these conversations because their understanding of Scriptural authority would preclude them from associating with those who interpret the Scriptures in ways that lead to, in their view, aberrant ministry practices. The Elephant Room debates, however, make no sense apart from the underlying assumption that the Bible is the supreme authority for what we believe and what we practice.

You may be thinking, If evangelicals can and do have these discussions, what is unique about the Elephant Room? The simple answer is the face-to-face interaction. Whereas the leaders of different tribes within evangelicalism tend to talk at one another, it is rare to see leaders sitting down to talk and listen to one another. That brings us to the second snapshot.

2. Evangelicalism is not a tribe but a reservation where many tribes live.

A key assumption of the first Elephant Room is that tribalism is inevitable but not totally justifiable. In other words, it is normal for evangelicals to divide up into networks and tribes but unhealthy for our divisions to solidify to the point we no longer recognize other brothers and sisters who live on the same reservation (i.e., in agreement with the supreme authority of Scripture).

MacDonald uses the image of a family, a loud and opinionated group of people whose fierce arguments with one another are matched only by their fierce love and loyalty to one another. MacDonald believes that robust debate is healthy for brothers. Of course, the emphasis on brotherhood was the main reason why the upcoming Elephant Room became so controversial: MacDonald invited T. D. Jakes, a pastor who was raised as part of a denomination that denies the Trinity. I’ll address the Jakes issue tomorrow.

But for now, let me say in regard to the first Elephant Room that I appreciate James MacDonald’s willingness to host conversations with brothers who do things differently than he does. Contrary to what many think, the ability to sit down with believers from “outside your tribe” is not a sign of theological wobbliness but of steadfast conviction. It means you are firm enough in what you believe to be able to listen charitably to other points of view, even if you choose not to adopt those viewpoints.

3. Evangelical identity is contested, which leads to questions of association.

As a movement, evangelicalism is fragmenting. The notion of evangelical identity is contested and debated in books, blogs, and conferences. Many hope for a renewal of evangelicalism but disagree as to how to bring about that renewal.

1. One approach to renewing evangelical identity is that we embrace the diversity of theological options as part of the definition of being evangelical. This is the direction that leaders like Roger Olson would take us.
2. A second approach seeks to reclaim the center of evangelicalism (the gospel) by maintaining adherence to a core of theological convictions. The Gospel Coalition would be an example of “reclaiming the center.”
3. A third approach is to take prominent evangelical pastors with different philosophies of ministry and bring them together for conversation about their different methodologies. I place the Elephant Room in this category (and perhaps Catalyst and the Willow Creek Leadership Summit).

The Elephant Room approach differs from the first because it does not revel in diversity as being good in and of itself. Instead, the whole tenor of the discussion is that diversity should not be celebrated but challenged in light of the Scriptures.

This approach differs from the second by significantly broadening the core of what theological convictions and ministry practices must be held in common. Whereas the second approach takes pastoral associations very seriously, the third approach is less concerned with confessional identity and chooses instead to bring together pastors on the basis of a common commitment to the authority of the Bible, regardless of their methodological decisions.

What makes the Elephant Room interesting is that James MacDonald and other participants are official members of an organization that takes the “reclaim the center” confessional approach, even though the Elephant Room intends to influence a much wider swath of evangelicals. (This becomes even more clear when we consider the invitations for Elephant Room 2.) What does this mean? Put simply, options 1-3 are not necessarily incompatible options for renewal (though it’s rare to find people who agree with both 1 and 2). Participation in any of the three does not necessarily preclude participation in the others.

4. Evangelicals continue to unite around big personalities.

The proto-evangelicals of the Reformation and the Great Awakenings were attracted to big personalities. Just think of Luther, Whitefield, Wesley, and Spurgeon. The development of contemporary evangelicalism took place around key leaders like Billy Graham. Today, the Elephant Room reinforces the evangelical fascination with “big personality” preachers and teachers.

It’s interesting to note that one of the commonalities that united the pastors who participated in the first Elephant Room was that they all lead beyond their local churches. Each of them wields influence in movements that transcend their church contexts. Perhaps much of the camaraderie of the Elephant Room is based not in theological likemindedness but in a sort of “brotherhood of the trenches” – the ability to relate to one another and show the scars of being in leadership.

Have you ever noticed how former presidents (generally) refrain from attacking their successors and how presidents with radically different political views can be on such good terms once they are out of office? There is a bond among former presidents, perhaps because each of them knows firsthand the stress of being president. I wonder if the pastors who participate in the Elephant Room have a similar bond. They know what it is like to be shot at from all sides. (As an example, watch the reaction when Perry Noble mentions “internet bloggers,” and you see how quickly everyone is on the same page!)

The downside to this emphasis on big personalities was that the debates often steered toward entertaining conversation rather than substantive discussion. For example, David Platt laid out a view of money and possessions that James MacDonald affirmed. But then the conversation quickly turned to the soundbite issue of “giving kids goldfish crackers in church.” No longer was the conversation about the substance of Platt’s view but a caricature of his position. (My frustration with that segment led to this blog post.)

The same thing took place with the discussion on culture in the church. Driscoll and Noble were set opposite one another when it was clear that both are more alike than different on the issue of culture. And so the soundbite issue of using “Highway to Hell” in worship – an issue that illustrates the difference between ministry philosophies – took over the conversation.

5. Evangelicalism’s lack of ecclesiology leads to a divorce between theology and methodology.

When I watched the Elephant Room with church leaders, I was sharpened by the terrific conversations that followed. The videos were a springboard into discussions that pushed us to consider, in light of the Scriptures, why we do things the way we do them. What is the ministry philosophy that undergirds our methods?

The Elephant Room also made it harder to easily dismiss pastors who do not belong to our particular tribe. While no one changed their mind regarding ministry philosophy, everyone went away with new insight into the motivation behind the other approaches, even if they ultimately disagreed with those pastors’ choices. The Elephant Room took away some of our easy targets.

Watching the Elephant Room with laypeople was another experience entirely. Whereas church leaders took these debates as a springboard for robust conversation about ministry practice, church laypeople tended to relativize the discussion and see all methods as essentially equal, just different. I noticed that among laypeople, the Elephant Room discussions wound up legitimizing all the ministry philosophies represented, to the point that it didn’t matter what the choices were as long as the pastor’s heart was in the right place.

Frankly, I was surprised by this reaction to the Elephant Room, since the whole tenor of the discussion seemed to be these differences matter! So, I think the Elephant Room exposes a glaring weakness of evangelicalism in general, that our lack of ecclesiology leaves the door open for a total divorce between theology and ministry methodology. Instead of tracing the different methodologies back to the theology that gives rise to such distinctions, the Elephant Room makes it seem as if the theological core is sound and that the big issues relate to practice.

But if theology influences everything a church does, then there must be a stronger connection between theology and practice, between ecclesiology and ministry. It’s not that David Platt and Perry Noble disagree on practice alone; their theological convictions are what lead to differences in practice.

Conclusion

Too many times, when we disagree with a pastor’s actions, we judge his motives. We assume that brothers operating by a different philosophy of ministry must be motivated by numbers, by glory-seeking, or by theological ignorance. And while it is true that all of our hearts contain a mixture of conflicting motives – some pure and others sinful – we should assume the worst about ourselves and the best about our brothers. This is the strength of the Elephant Room. Listening to people from outside our own tribe should give us pause before launching into critique.

At the same time, assuming sincerity of heart and love for Jesus on the part of other church leaders does not mean that different ministry philosophies and methodologies are equally valid. At the end of the day, our faithfulness and service to the Lord will not be examined in light of our devotion to dynamic preacher personalities but by the actions we take in light of God’s revealed Word. Ideas have consequences. Ministry philosophy matters. People get hurt by bad theology and unwise practices.

So yes, theological humility reminds us that we do not have all the answers. But theological conviction reminds us that there is right and wrong, there are choices that are either wise or unwise, and that the Scriptures must guide how we think through these issues.

Tomorrow, I’ll offer a few reasons why I will be attending and blogging about the upcoming Elephant Room conference.

There are a variety of ways to read the whole Bible in a year. I have found it helpful to read the Bible chronologically in order to better understand the flow and framework of the Bible’s grand narrative.

Union University professor, George Guthrie, has developed the Read the Bible for Life Chronological plan. You can download the plan in a two-page format here for free. If you’d like to go ahead and get a Bible that is structured according to the plan, you can do so with the HCSB “Reading God’s Story” Bible. It comes with a companion piece written by Dr. Guthrie – summary paragraphs offering some guidance for each day’s reading.

There is also a free booklet version of the Read the Bible for Life 4+1 Reading Plan. The plan is similar to the Discipleship Journal plan, but in addition to reading in four different places in the Scriptures, you read a psalm a day and cycle through the psalms twice in the year. Also, the plan is semi-chronological, placing the prophets and the NT letters in rough chronological order. This plan can be downloaded in booklet form here.

For other options, check out 3 story-focused ways to read the Bible, as well as storied approaches to evangelism (including the excellent resource: The Story of Hope).

Francis Schaeffer (from Letters of Francis Schaeffer):

Marriage is wonderful, but unless both are children of God through faith in Christ, and unless both put Christ first as Lord in their lives, then a marriage can never be what the Lord meant marriage to be. This would always be true, but it is doubly true in a day such as our own which is so filled with confusion and tensions. It is only when each one puts Christ first that there can be a sufficient base. And though at first it might seem as though this would be disruptive to a marriage – to have even Christ put before the other one – yet it is not this way. This is so because, if we put Christ before the other person, we will then be able to love and be thoughtful of the other person in a way that would not be possible if that person was put first.

Tim Keller from The Meaning of Marriage:

As a pastor I have spoken to thousands of couples, some working on marriage-seeking, some working on marriage-sustaining, and some working on marriage-saving. I’ve heard them say over and over, “Love shouldn’t be this hard; it should come naturally.” In response, I always say something like, “Why believe that? Would someone who wants to play professional baseball say, ‘It shouldn’t be so hard to hit a fastball?’ Would someone who wants to write the greatest American novel of her generation say, ‘It shouldn’t be hard to create believable characters and compelling narrative?’”

Charles Spurgeon:

A well-matched couple carry a joyful life between them, as the two spies carried the cluster of Eshcol. They are a brace of birds of Paradise. They multiply their joys by sharing them, and lessen their troubles by dividing them: this is fine arithmetic…

Marriage was the last relic of paradise left among men, and Jesus hasted to honor it with his first miracle.

There’s been a lot of talk in the blogosphere this year about the rise of “celebrity pastors” with “rock-star status” and the larger-than-life influence of popular conference speakers whose sermons are downloaded by the thousands. Some have openly decried this development; others are glad that at least pastors are being celebrated. Most of us are somewhere in the middle.

There’s no doubt that certain pastors have attained a kind of “celebrity.” And yet we are wrong to assume that this has happened because these pastors have intentionally sought notoriety and fame. It’s one thing to say that we may have a problem here. It’s another thing to start blaming people left and right for it. (Furthermore, I find it ironic that many of the pastors and bloggers who condemn the celebrity culture could be considered “celebrities” themselves, albeit of the curmudgeonly variety!)

All that said, in a recent conversation with Robert George, Russ Moore described a recent shift in how students speak of pastoral influence. Here’s what he had to say:

When I am talking to young evangelicals, often who are in ministry, and I say, “Who has been really influential upon you in ministry and on learning to preach and to do the things of ministry?” ten years ago, most people would have given me the name of a local pastor who had mentored them and worked with them. Now they are mentioning a disembodied voice that they have heard on a podcast. That’s a very dangerous thing…

… We’ll just become this amorphous, non-ecclesial movement where everybody is just concerned about individual flights to heaven and move from church to church to church based upon what the music is like or what the preaching is like and then become identified with these celebrities…celebrity preachers. One of the things that we have happening in evangelicalism right now is this rash of preachers who are leaving their churches in order to expand their ministries, and what they mean by that is to go on the conference circuit and simply become these itinerate type of celebrities. That’s a very dangerous thing in evangelicalism, and unless you’ve got a renewal at the local church level where people really are accountable to people they know, evangelicalism is not going to survive.

Dr. Moore’s anecdotal evidence is distressing. To be sure, I’m thankful for the opportunity to glean biblical insights from the podcasts available from many popular pastors today. I’m also thankful to be able to read sermons from pastors throughout church history. (Chrysostom and Spurgeon are two of my favorites.)

And yet the popular preachers of this year or yesteryear are not the pastors who have influenced me most. It could be that my preaching is influenced by the preaching I listen to or the sermons I read, but a preacher on a podcast is not a pastor to me.

The Perfect Storm

I worry that two weather systems have formed and are coming together in a way that might harm the church. The first weather system is a drought caused by the fatherlessness of our current society. People are looking for fathers and their influence.

The second weather system is the heavy rain of pastoral resources available through technological advance. People can easily access terrific sermon content from especially gifted pastors.

Put drought conditions and heavy rain together, and we have a potential flood situation. Pastors and preachers whose messages connect with our generation are filling the fatherless void but in a way that leads to a distortion of what pastoral influence and fatherhood is supposed to be.

I remember reading Collin Hansen’s book on the “young, restless, and reformed” a few years ago and being disturbed by one woman’s description of John Piper as a “father” of sorts, even though they’d never met. Fathers image God. The fact that a young lady could express the concept of spiritual fatherhood in relation to Piper shows what her view of God the Father is. Far off. Transcendent. Powerful. Distant. If fatherhood can take place without ever meeting, then we must have missed something about the immanence of God that expresses itself in God’s condescension to us in Christ.

Let me reiterate that I’m not faulting John Piper or any other popular pastor for this development. It must be said that much pastoral “fame” is simply the accumulation of honor for a pastor who has proven faithful to God’s call over time.

But just because we cannot and should not point fingers at each other regarding the problem of celebrity does not mean that we shouldn’t carefully consider the ramifications of pastoral influence being mediated through technology instead of the local church. I offer these thoughts not as a point of criticism but as one of concern. And I’m open to suggestions as to how to lift up local church pastors and celebrate their influence and mentoring.

John Piper was right to remind us that we are not pastored by “professionals.” Perhaps it’s time we remembered that we are not pastored by podcasts either.

Iranian pastor, Youcef Nadarkhani will remain in prison:

In late September of this year, he was given four chances to recant his faith in court and refused each time. His case then was referred to the ayatollah. The American Center for Law and Justice reported one of his court exchanges.

“Repent means to return. What should I return to? To the blasphemy that I had before my faith in Christ?” Nadarkhani asked.

“To the religion of your ancestors, Islam,” the judge reportedly replied.

“I cannot,” the pastor responded.

Related: Youcef Nadarkhani’s Letter to His Church

As I recently read through Crossway’s collection of the Letters of Francis Schaeffer, I was struck by how applicable Schaeffer’s insights are today, particularly in regard to evangelical movements, leaders, and doctrine. His counsel deserves to be heeded by those of us in the “gospel-centered” stream of evangelicalism.

With this in mind, I have selected some favorite excerpts from these letters and woven them together creatively. Using Schaeffer’s own words, I am imagining out loud what counsel he might give us today.

What Francis Schaeffer Might Say to the Gospel-Centered Movement Today

1. Make sure your loyalty to Christ supersedes any loyalty you have for the “movement.”

[Brothers and sisters,] I see the need for Christians across the face of the earth who are indeed brothers in Christ, standing on the fundamentals of the faith and separated from unbelief, to come into personal fellowship one with the other to the praise of our Lord. And yet how quickly such a thing can grow into that which is merely cold, formal, and dead. The cry of my heart is that God may have mercy on us.

I increasingly see the dangers involved in organization, and I do think that most of us get the cart before the horse. That is, we organize first and then go forward, rather than growing close to one another through spiritual and personal contacts and then letting whatever organization grow naturally out of that-as the tree puts forth the leaf and then the bud and then the flower as the Lord leads.

I don’t think [that the deeper spiritual walk is] in antithesis to an organization. And yet, I must say that it does seem to me that so often organization becomes a means to an end in itself. So often it takes so much energy to turn over all the machinery that the work never gets finished. And so often we put the machinery in the place of the Holy Spirit, feeling that if we can just get organized enough then the thing is sure to go on and be successful.

Of course, this is all very wrong, and not only wrong but wicked. We must realize that it is only the Holy Spirit who can give the power, and we must realize that the only motivation which pleases our dear Lord is our love for Him. Merely keeping machinery turning, and getting all mixed up in the self-aggrandizement that so often goes with a large organization, completely casts aside this primary motive of love to the Lord and a dependence then on the one source of true Christian power-the Holy Spirit.

The problem is not one of loyalty or lack of loyalty to a “cause” or “movement.” [The problem is that] loyalty to organizations and movements have always tended over time to take the place of loyalty to the person of Christ… We must urge each other not even to give final authority to principles about Christ, but only to the person of Christ.

2. Don’t let your orthodox doctrine be disconnected from a living relationship with the living Christ.

Doctrinal rightness and rightness of ecclesiastical position are important, but only as a starting-point to go on into a living relationship – and not as ends in themselves.

[Take the Reformation, for example.] The Roman Catholic Church had come to teach the wrong doctrines. And I feel that most of the Reformation then let the pendulum swing and thought if only the right doctrines were taught that all would be automatically well. Thus, to a large extent, the Reformation concentrated almost exclusively on the “teaching ministry of the Church.”

In other words almost all the emphasis was placed on teaching the right doctrines. In this I feel the fatal error had already been made. It is not for a moment that we can begin to get anywhere until the right doctrines are taught. But the right doctrines mentally assented to are not an end in themselves, but should only be the vestibule to a personal and loving communion with God.

The danger of orthodoxy, even true orthodoxy, is in falling off the other side of the knife blade: that is, in stating the intellectual position and then placing a period. What we must ask the Lord for is a work of the Spirit . . . to stand on a very thin line: in other words, to state intellectually (as well as understand, though not completely) the intellectual reality of that which God is and what God has revealed in the objectively inspired Bible; and then to live moment by moment in the reality of a restored relationship with the God who is there, and to act in faith upon what we believe in our daily lives.

3. Live in a way that demonstrates the holiness and love of God.

We must exhibit simultaneously the holiness of God and the love of God. Anything else than this simultaneous exhibition presents a caricature of our God to the world rather than showing him forth.

We are in a day when evangelicals tend to let down the absolutes in the Word of God in doctrine and in life, and we must be careful not to contribute to this. On the other hand, we are in a day when other evangelicals are becoming more and more heartless, and we must be careful not to contribute to this as well.

The problem is in being those who insist upon the absolutes of God and yet show forth beauty to the world, which is strangling for the need of both absolutes and beauty. These things are beyond us in our own strength, but not in His strength as we allow Him to bring forth His fruits through us in this sinful and ugly world and generation.

May the Lord lead you that you not deny His existence through lack of faith, nor deny His character in either His holiness or His love.

4. Rely on the Spirit as you grow in your love for God.

[Remember that] the decisions of a growing work demand that the One who directs be constantly at hand.

It brings me increasingly to my knees – to ask that the Holy Spirit may have His way in my life; that I may not think just of justification and then the glories of Heaven (with merely a battle for separation between). [But that I may also think of] all the wonders of the present aspect of my salvation, and that they may be real to me in my life and ministry.

What a wonderful Lord we have, and how glorious it is to indeed have God as our Father, and to be united with Christ, and to be indwelt by the Holy Spirit. Oh, would to God that our ministry could be under His full direction, and in His power without reservation.

God really is there. He really does exist, and He made us for Himself. Knowing that He is there, and therefore that we do not live in a silent universe, changes everything. To know that we can speak and that there is Someone who will answer fills the vacuum of life that would otherwise be present. And then, when we realize His love for us as individuals – that Christ really did die for us as individuals, for us personally – life is entirely different.

You need not be afraid to enjoy God. The beautiful thing is that He uses us, but never in the way a soldier would use a gun only to throw it down and take another. He uses us, but He always fulfills us at the same time.

This week, I am summarizing and commenting on the arguments presented in an important new book: Four Views on the Spectrum of Evangelicalism. Editors Andy Naselli and Collin Hansen have asked four Christian leaders for their views on the spectrum of evangelical identity.

First, we looked at Kevin Bauder’s view (Fundamentalist). Then we worked our way through Al Mohler’s essay (Confessional Evangelical). Yesterday, we summarized John Stackhouse’s position (Generic Evangelical). Today, we wrap up this series with Roger Olson’s essay (Postconservative).

What Is an Evangelical? The Postconservative View

Representing the postconservative viewpoint is Roger Olson, professor of theology at Baylor University. Olson agrees with the rest of the contributors that “evangelical” and “evangelicalism” are contested concepts, but unlike the other contributors he believes the project to define these terms is futile. He explains:

…evangelicalism has no definable boundaries and cannot have them. An organization has boundaries; a movement does not. And without boundaries it is simply impossible to say with certainty who is and who is not evangelical insofar as he or she shares certain common commitments identified by historians of the movement. (163)

Olson likens evangelicalism to a centered set that “admits of degrees of membership where absolute limits of membership elude identification” (164). As a movement (as opposed to an organization), evangelicalism has no definite membership. Historically speaking, Olson writes:

…contemporary evangelicalism is an unstable compound composed of two incompatible traditions.  These joined together… to fight liberal theology’s takeover of Protestant institutions and to provide a conservative ecumenical alternative to the National Council of Churches. (166)

From a sociological standpoint, Olson is largely in agreement with Bebbington’s quadrilateral (conversionism, crucicentrism, biblicism, and activism). Olson adds a fifth hallmark: “respect for historic Christian orthodoxy” (176). After working his way through each of these common themes of evangelical identity, Olson declares that there is such a thing as evangelical unity:

All the foregoing is to say that in spite of the fact that evangelicalism is an essentially contested concept and in spite of the reality of evangelical diversity and in spite of the movement having no boundaries, evangelical unity does exist. What does not exist is evangelical uniformity. (178)

Olson spends the rest of his essay playing “unity” and “uniformity” against one another, arguing for a “broad tent” view of evangelicalism that “includes a great variety of people all facing toward the center” (179). He does not believe inerrancy should be imposed on others as a mark of evangelical identity. Nor should any one objective theory of the atonement take preeminence in these discussions. He explains:

I view evangelicalism as a broad and inclusive movement of people, churches, and organizations commonly committed to certain experiences and beliefs in varying degrees. As a movement, it is unified without uniformity. Its unity is found in certain historical and theological family resemblances; its diversity is found in interpretations of the core, unifying beliefs and experiences. The core or center of the movement is composed of five discernible commitments: conversionism, biblicism, crucicentrism, activism, and respect for the great tradition of Christian orthodoxy. Evangelicalism as we know it today grew out of revivalism and fundamentalism and has tried to take the best from both traditions while leaving their worst excesses behind. (186)

What separates Olson from the other three contributors is his attempt to define evangelicalism inductively. He begins with those who self-identify as “evangelicals,” and then he works his way backward to a definition that will include them all.

Responses to Roger Olson

Kevin Bauder disagrees with Olson’s attempt to define evangelicalism as a movement. Bauder believes we should begin with “evangelicalism as an idea.” By focusing on the evangel of evangelicalism, Bauder concludes:

No one who denies the evangel can be reckoned as an evangelical. It does not matter whether the denial comes in practice or in principle. It does not matter whether it is explicit or implicit. The gospel stands as the touchstone of any legitimate evangelicalism. (191)

Ultimately, Bauder disagrees with Olson because the “broad tent” view forces evangelical theology “to impute normative status to mutilations and monstrosities” (192).

Al Mohler believes the main problem with Olson’s desire for evangelicalism to be a “centered set” without visible boundaries is that “the center has to be defined” (196). Mohler concludes:

I believe that Roger, despite his best and most honest efforts, does see the need for some boundaries. Yet he does not want to devote much attention to these boundaries… (198)

John Stackhouse believes that Olson’s convictions are overwhelmed by his “empathy for those at the receiving end of doctrinal restrictiveness” (200). It’s clear that Stackhouse is uncomfortable with some of Olson’s conclusions. He writes:

So we stand in the Great Tradition, yes, but always under the supreme authority of Scripture that is itself an instrument in the hands of its divine Author, who continues to teach us from it in the context of all the other things God is teaching us through all the other media with which God has blessed the world… (204)

My Comments

The difficulty in defining “evangelicalism” is due largely to the various ways we can approach this question:

• The inductive approach, adopted by many historians and sociologists, asks, “Who claims to be evangelical?” and then seeks to find common themes that unite those who say they belong to the movement.
• The descriptive approach is slightly narrower, as it takes into consideration the fact that many who claim to be evangelical are not recognized by the majority of evangelicals as “authentic.”
• The prescriptive approach answers this question from a theological perspective and seeks to shore up essential evangelical commitments as a way to maintain the viability of genuine evangelicalism for the future.

Olson’s essay takes the inductive approach and then adds a prescriptive twist. In other words, Olson doesn’t stop at saying, “here is what evangelicalism is (unity without uniformity)”; he goes on to prescribe by saying, “unity without uniformity is what evangelicalism should be.”

The strength of the postconservative view is that it seeks to define “evangelicalism” in a way that includes every person who likes the label. From the inductive perspective, this makes perfect sense. I happen to like Olson’s description of evangelicalism as “a great variety of people all facing toward the center.”

The big problem, of course, is that evangelicals are not in agreement as to what “the center” is. And once you get into the nitty-gritty of defining the center, you necessarily exclude. It is simply impossible to have a centered set with no boundaries, because the very idea of a center implies the existence of boundaries. Otherwise, there is no way to determine what the center is.

It seems to me that Olson’s essay is a noble attempt to rescue evangelical identity from those who would be quick to exclude certain persons from the camp. The rush to exclusion is certainly a danger – one that fundamentalism is quite familiar with. But in his rush to condemn “uniformity,” it seems that Olson has undercut any chance of seeing a vibrant and unified evangelicalism.

If there is to be uniformity, it should concern the evangel that unites evangelicals. There is no evangelical unity apart from gospel uniformity. This does not mean that we must all define and describe the gospel exactly the same way or in exactly the same categories. But some level of uniformity is necessary if evangelicalism is to thrive in the next generation.

The center must be renewed if the center is to hold.

This week, I am summarizing and commenting on the arguments presented in an important new book: Four Views on the Spectrum of Evangelicalism. Editors Andy Naselli and Collin Hansen have asked four Christian leaders for their views on the spectrum of evangelical identity.

First, we looked at Kevin Bauder’s view (Fundamentalist). Yesterday, we worked our way through Al Mohler’s essay (Confessional Evangelical). Today, we’re taking a look at John Stackhouse’s position (Generic Evangelical).

What Is an Evangelical? The Generic Evangelical View

Representing the generic evangelical view is John Stackhouse, professor of theology and culture at Regent College. Stackhouse begins with a broad definition that conceives of evangelicalism in terms of ethos:

…to be evangelical literally by definition means to be grateful for, and necessarily involved in, both the tradition of the church and its ongoing life as it mediates, again with the help of God’s Spirit, the good news of Jesus to us and to the rest of the world. (117)

He unpacks the definition of this evangelical ethos by focusing on how it expresses itself in belief and practice:

Religious groups of any sort can be defined helpfully according to three components: tenets, affections, and practices – that is, what they believe, what they care about, and what they do. Evangelicalism has always been an initiative of renewal and mission. (117)

Stackhouse devotes significant attention to the theme of renewal as he works through the history of the movement and then speaks to our present situation. A major impetus for evangelicalism is the desire to make up for whatever deficiencies are present in the church at any given time. He writes:

Evangelicalism has thus been literally radical: concerned to (re) connect with the roots of genuine Christianity, to cut away all that hinders its vitality and to develop anything that will help it flourish… As a renewal movement, that is, evangelicalism would naturally seek to remedy what was deficient by a corresponding emphasis. (118)

This emphasis on renewal leads Stackhouse to affirm Bebbington’s quadilateral: crucicentrism, biblicism, conversionism, and activism. But Stackhouse goes beyond Bebbington by adding more qualifiers. He traces our evangelical identity to the historical movement (based on the eighteenth-century revivals), and he adds “transdenominational” and “orthodoxy and orthopraxy” as appropriate criteria (124).

Additional qualifiers aside, Stackhouse recognizes the difficulty of excluding people as “unorthodox” from the evangelical fold. He admits:

…since it is part of the very ethos of evangelicalism to recognize differences of opinion precisely about what the Bible does and doesn’t say about a host of issues, many of them quite consequential, then when it comes to the present discussion, it now appears that none of us can properly say, “Well, anyone who holds to X can’t be an evangelical, because the Bible clearly forbids X. And that’s that.” Yet there is something troublingly odd about having to recognize a heretic as an evangelical. (126)

Indeed. So Stackhouse turns toward cooperation as the fundamental unifier of evangelicalism. He explains:

…evangelicals don’t just happen to cooperate: evangelicalism is marked by cooperation, by transdenominational partnerships to further the mission of God and the church in the world. (128)

But this emphasis on cooperation doesn’t mean that, doctrinally speaking, anything goes. That’s why Stackhouse can affirm ECT (Evangelicals and Catholics Together) for what it signifies (if not for its doctrinal statements): “a willingness among evangelicals to undertake serious theological work with anyone who can help them do so, even as those evangelicals also hope to provide some benefit to their interlocutors” (129). And he can also maintain the traditional evangelical view of the atonement as essential to evangelical theology (136).

Still, the ultimate question comes back to how cooperation takes place. And that’s where Stackhouse advocates a fluid, utilitarian approach to evangelical fellowship:

For many evangelicals, the question of who is and who isn’t an evangelical isn’t particularly important. What matters is who can help us in a particular instance with a particular task we are undertaking in the work of the kingdom. (138)

It is within this framework of transdenominational partnership that Stackhouse advises a balance between preserving the past and pressing into the future:

…we evangelical Christians, like all Christians everywhere, ought in each situation to strike a good balance between conservation and discovery, between critique and creativity.  And evangelicalism will continue to be a vibrant and effective part of Christ’s church precisely as it is neither bellicosely conservative nor blithely innovative, but faithful in both senses:  to be loyal and to be effective. (142)

Responses to John Stackhouse

Kevin Bauder reiterates the point of his previous essay, that more important than determining who belongs to the evangelical movement is determining (based on the veracity of a person’s profession of faith) who is really evangelical (that is, simply Christian). He writes:

Fundamentalists are evangelical. We believe, however, that the definition of evangelicalism is being debated only because the founders of “generic evangelicalism” made bad choices about the evangel itself. Denying the gospel its rightful position as the boundary of Christian recognition and fellowship is the very thing that has produced the increase of theological and ecclesiastical flabbiness. (149)

Albert Mohler believes the shortcomings of Stackhouse’s position are evident in the way evangelicals are thus forced to “accept major divergences from the central commitments.” In other words, if charity is used as an excuse for “nourishing theological error,” eventually evangelicalism will no longer be a definable theological movement. He goes on:

I do not think John’s proposal identifies evangelicals in a way that ensures that all who bear that designation can be counted on to bear a true witness to the gospel of Jesus Christ. (154)

Roger Olson’s response focuses on the distinction between the evangelical ethos (Bebbington’s quadrilateral) and the evangelical movement (Stackhouse’s criterion of transdenominationalism, for example). In the end, however, Olson sees little difference between his own view and Stackhouse’s:

In most ways they are very much alike. The only substantial difference I can see is one of degree, not kind. (159)

My Comments

I believe John Stackhouse’s description of “generic evangelicalism” comes closest to defining what evangelicalism currently is as a movement and ethos. This doesn’t mean that I necessarily believe “generic evangelicalism” is the ideal or that this view is without its flaws. It simply means that I think Stackhouse has given us the best description of what the movement looks like at the present time.

In terms of trajectory, the evangelical movement appears to be moving from the generic position toward a broader, more open position in line with Olson’s “postconservative” view. Perhaps this is why I resonate both with Stackhouse’s description of the movement and Mohler’s critique.

Stackhouse has put his finger on evangelicalism’s biggest strength and weakness: its emphasis on cooperation. Cooperation is a strength because it is rooted in Christ’s desire for unity. Cooperation is a weakness because doctrinal unity is often compromised for the sake of continuing cooperation. And eventually, cooperation not based in truth leads to the dilution of a movement’s identity – even an identity that prioritizes cooperation.

There are times when the desire for theological purity has led to the sacrifice of unity. And there are times when the desire for unity has led to the sacrifice of purity. In Thinking. Loving. Doing., David Mathis writes:

Part and parcel of the central Christian message is an impulse toward purity and an impulse toward unity. The purity instinct resists the compromise of the message, while the unity instinct is eager to link arms with others also celebrating the biblical gospel.

The reason purity and unity are, in this way, ‘built into’ the gospel is that the God of the gospel is himself both a purifier and a unifier. No one cares more for the purity of the gospel — that his central message to humanity not be altered or tainted — than God himself. And, mark this, no one cares more for the unity of his church around her Savior, his own Son, than God himself. God is the great purifier and unifier.

So likewise, his gospel — which not only saves and sanctifies but is the richest, deepest, and fullest revelation of who God is — has both a purity impulse and a unity impulse ‘pre-packaged’ into it, as it were. It’s quite simple on paper and gets terribly messy in real life.

Messy indeed. That’s why there are no easy answers to the question of evangelical identity. The neo-evangelical movement came about during a time when the early fundamentalists were becoming increasingly insulated and unity was being sacrificed on the altar of ideological purity. Today the situation is reversed. Doctrinal purity is often dismissed for the sake of continued cooperation.

If the generic evangelical movement is to continue forward, it will need to lean more toward the confessional view in order to maintain a definite theological and ecclesiastical character about it. Otherwise, evangelicalism may eventually become so broad as to no longer be definable by distinctive elements at all.

Tomorrow, we’ll wrap up this series by looking at Roger Olson’s “postconservative” position.