Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Evangelical
Division in the evangelical house

Division in the evangelical house

Last updated on: August 18, 2011 at 7:28 pm by Roger E. Olson

Division in the evangelical house 2011-08-18T19:28:00-05:00 Roger E. Olson

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

In a recent post here I mentioned the division among evangelicals between those I call neo-fundamentalists and those I call postconservative evangelicals. I do not claim that all evangelicals must fall into one of these two camps. Rather, many of the leading evangelical theologians and biblical scholars fall into one of them.

I do NOT consider all “traditionalists” neo-fundamentalists. Neo-fundamentalism is NOT defined by beliefs held; it is defined by HOW beliefs are held and HOW disagreement is handled.

According to Marsden, Noll, Carpenter, Balmer and other leading historians of the evangelical movement in the 1940s and 1950s self-identified fundamentalists such as Carl McIntire and self-identified new evangelicals (the term Marsden uses for them) such as Harold John Ockenga and Carl F. H. Henry did not so much disagree about doctrines as about attitudes and behavior.

One major disagreement that led to division was over the “essentials category.” Ockenga and Henry MAY have agreed with the fundamentalists about matters such as premillennialism (I’m not sure they did, but that’s not the issue), but they disagreed with them about how important it is. Must one be premillennialist to be a Christian? Many fundamentalists were saying yes. The new evangelicals were saying no.

Also, the fundamentalists claimed Pentecostals cannot be evangelicals (and perhaps are not even Christians). The new evangelicals wanted a “bigger evangelical tent” that includes as many as evangelically committed Christians as possible.

In short, the fundamentalists were, from a new evangelical perspective, too narrow minded, mean-spirited, anti-intellectual (in terms of adapting to the “material facts” of science, for example), divisive and separatistic. Division within the evangelical house had to happen. The new evangelicals claimed the fundamentalists caused the division when they refused to join the NAE and by their caustic behavior toward fellow evangelicals.

The two evangelical movements went their separate ways for decades and there is still real division between self-identified fundamentalists and heirs of the new evangelicals. In my opinion, this was fully in display at the Pilgrims on the Sawdust Trail conference at Beeson Divinity School in 2001. A leading self-identified fundamentalist professor of theology spoke and rebuked new evangelicals such as those at Fuller Theological Seminary for compromising the true evangelical faith. And that AFTER Fuller Seminary president Rich Mouw gave a very conciliatory talk about the need for new evangelicals to rediscover and revalue their fundamentalist roots.

One plenary speaker condemned open theism as “just process theology.” I stood in line at the microphone for quite a while waiting my turn to ask him a question. When it was my turn I challenged his equation of open theism with process theology on the ground that open theism affirms God’s omnipotence and creatio ex nihilo. He did not even both to answer me. He just said “Olson, you and I are never going to agree on this so just sit down.” It was a public humiliation of both of us (but not intended as a humiliation of himself by the speaker, of course).

The man who told me to “just sit down,” refusing to engage in dialogue over this very important issue, is not a self-identified fundamentalist, but at that moment he was BEHAVING like one (as fundamentalist behavior was viewed by the new evangelicals of the 1940s and 1950s).

The organizers of the conference did not invite a single progressive or postconservative evangelical to speak. All the speakers were conservative evangelicals with the possible exception of Rich Mouw who, at least at that time, was rejecting the label “postconservative” and who published an article in Books & Culture describing himself as a conservative evangelicals. (I certainly do NOT consider Mouw a neo-fundamentalists, however.)

I observed my friend and co-author Stanley Grenz reach out to those I am calling neo-fundamentalists even as they were vilifying him in their talks and publications. For the most part, they refused to engage in dialogue with him. My friend Greg Boyd reached out to a leading conservative evangelical critic of open theism who was speaking in constituent churches misrepresenting open theism. The theologian refused to meet with him.

I attended a conference of conservative Reformed evangelicals. I thought we were going to have productive dialogue. That never happened. The members of the organization sponsoring the event refused even to sit with those of us they considered liberal or on our way toward liberalism at meals.

I could go on and on and on with many more examples. I’ll cite just one from personal experience. In 1998 an influential pastor, author and speaker called me to have lunch with him. He pastored a constituent church of the denomination controlling the institution where I taught. When I met him at his church he volunteered to drive to a restaurant for our lunch conversation. I had high hopes of productive dialogue because this pastor had been giving the college a very hard time about open theism and women in ministry.

The pastor said to me “This is not an inquisition; I just want to get to know you and find out what makes you tick.” He repeated his promise that this was not an inquisition several times. However, during lunch, it became clear to me it was an inquisition. He tried to get me to take a strong stand against open theism with him and when I refused he said he would get me fired. His words were “I won’t let you do that.” When I asked how he would stop me (from remaining friendly to open theism) he said “I’ll get you fired.”

When we parted ways in the parking lot of his church he said “Roger, should I tell the pastors who know we had lunch today….” and repeated back some of the things I said during our lunch conversation. That made clear it WAS an inquisition. He was not asking my permission; he was just wanting to make sure he told them what I said correctly. I considered this unethical behavior–an evangelical behaving badly.

I have a recording of two leading conservative evangelical theologians discussing open theism and Clark Pinnock specifically. They were carrying on this conversation in front of a live audience, but the recording does not make clear when or where. One of them declares Clark Pinnock “not a Christian,” his theology “pagan,” says Pinnock denied the omnipotence of God, and declares he would not have fellowship with Pinnock. (Of course, anyone who knew Clark knew he believed in God’s omnipotence.)

This is the problem–evangelicals behaving like fundamentalists (as the new evangelicals regarded fundamentalists in the 1940s and 1950s and after that). I do NOT say all self-identified fundamentalists are unethical. Rather, I am saying that using unfair tactics (misrepresentations, character assasination, heresy-hunting using questionable means) was, from the new evangelicals’ perspective, a flaw in much of the fundamentalist movement and the new evangelical movement needed to be purged of that bad behavior.

My argument is that something similar is happening now. A group of conservative evangelicals are behaving in the same ways as the fundamentalists of the 1940s and 1950s. (What does one make of a Baptist group requiring missionaries to sign statements that they do not speak in tongues even in private? [This particular Baptist group does not have a doctrinal statement forbidding speaking in tongues and never has had one.] To me, that’s the same attitude and behavior as the fundamentalists who refused to join the NAE because it included Pentecostals.)

From my perspective, SOME conservative evangelical theologians, denominational leaders, biblical scholars, etc., have DE FACTO already declared, by their behavior, the division between them and postconservative, progressive evangelicals who, generally speaking, believe in the same basic doctrines they believe in. (To his dying day Stan Grenz affirmed biblical inerrancy, but some of his critics insisted he didn’t mean it because in Theology for the Community of God he placed the doctrine of Scripture within the doctrine of the Holy Spirit!)

There comes a point when one has to give up and say “Okay, have it your way. We’re not part of the same movement anymore.” I am saying that. They may go their way and I and mine will go our way. We both use the label “evangelical,” but it is too general to cover all of us without qualification. To me, they are behaving like fundamentalists, so that’s what I’ll call them with “neo-” in front to distinguish them from Carl McIntire and the older, separatistic fundamentalist movement (that still exists but does not participate in evangelical endeavors).

The problem is, both sides of this divide want influence in evangelical parachurch organizations and sometimes in evangelical denominations. Many of the neo-fundamentalists are setting up their own, alternative institutions to rival more mainline, middle-of-the-road ones they suspect of being compromised theologically.

In many ways, it is the old fundamentalist/new evangelical split repeating itself. I have come to think it is permanent and there is no point in trying forever to reunite the two sides. It’s exhausting and one simply puts oneself at risk because some of the neo-fundamentalists, so long as they are given recognition as evangelicals, can do great damage to you. (Some of them have invented quotes and attributed them to me to damage my reputation and influence.)

REPEAT–I AM NOT saying that all conservative evangelicals are neo-fundamentalists. Some are and some are not. The neo-fundamentalists are recognizable among the conservatives by their aggressive behavior toward fellow evangelicals, their willingness sometimes to use underhanded means to “win,” their inclusion of non-essentials of doctrine among the essentials of Christian orthodoxy and their obsession with “evangelical boundaries” with the clear intention of excluding people from evangelicalism who grew up in it, have always been part of it, are influential within it, but whom they consider doctrinally unsound using extremely narrow definitions of doctrinal soundness.

Uncategorized

Previous Post

March 26, 2011

Billy Graham and inclusivism

Next Post

March 30, 2011 Great Comment re: evangelicals behaving badly

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Against Liberal Theology Uncategorized

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

I wanted a vineyard so badly that my wife arranged the owner's death through false witnesses. Who am I?

Select your answer to see how you score.

David Ahab Jezebel Naboth