Hardening of the categories and theological absolutism

Last updated on: August 18, 2011 at 7:27 pm by Roger E. Olson

Hardening of the categories and theological absolutism 2011-08-18T19:27:58-05:00 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.

Two diseases of disposition seem to infect and derail many good theological discussions: hardening of the categories and theological absolutism.

So many theological discussions become unnecessarily heated by failure to recognize that many of our dearest theological categories cannot be precisely pinned down. People assume a particular definition of, say “inclusivism,” and disallow anyone from thinking of it differently than they do. I’ve been reading in that subjective widely and deeply for years and find that there is no one, universally agreed on definition. It is an essentially contested concept and too flexible to mean much.

Basically, all it means is any view of the fate of the unevangelized other than restrictivism (by which I mean belief that a person who never hears the name “Jesus Christ” has no hope of salvation), pluralism (by which I mean belief that Jesus Christ is not the only Savior) and universalism (by which I mean belief that eventually everyone will be reconciled with God in such a way that hell will be empty).

In fact, my reading in the subject of the fate of the unevangelized has led me to think that all these categories are somewhat artificial. The fact is that virtually everyone who writes on this subject holds his or her own distinct view. In other words, they may SEEM to be saying the same as someone else, but difference inevitably appears in the details.

So, what we do is lump people who seem to be saying something like what other people are saying into a catch all category, label it, and then use it as shorthand for a spectrum of views.

I’m sure there are people who legitimately claim to be restrictivists who don’t fit my definition above perfectly. I know there are people who legitimately claim to be inclusivists who don’t fit any definition other than “not this and not that.” I’m sure there are pluralists who don’t exactly fit my definition above and I know there are universalists who don’t fit my definition precisely.

Most theological categories are like that–humanly constructed devices meant to be helpful rhetorically but they should not be confused with something real. It’s a mistake to reify them which is all too commonly done.

Of course, I’ve made clear here and elsewhere that this is how I think of “evangelical” –as a humanly constructed, flexible category about which it is not always possible to tell who is in and who is out.

But I keep running into people who think theological categories like these are somehow real–as if they have some kind of ontological being. That they are somehow or other “out there” and someone has the absolute, authoritative mental image of them.

Such people often insist on their meaning of a catgory to the exclusion of all others. I’m not claiming such categories are compatible with anything and everything. To think I’m saying that reveals a black-and-white mentality that rejects ambiguity. What I am saying is that one has to remain open to the possibility of meeting someone who doesn’t fit one’s image of a category perfectly but is “generally there.”

A great deal of worthless argument is spent on these categories. That appears when people discussing them are not interested in arriving at some kind of consensus but only in enforcing their own definition as if it had some kind of heavenly Platonic reality as a form. In fact, many theological categories (perhaps most) are evolving. As Wittgenstein would say, their meaning is in their use.

As a historian, I prefer, whenever possible, to go back to history to define a category. When and how was it first used? That’s often difficult to discover. When a category is being used so flexibly, especially by people with no knowledge of its historical roots and evolution (e.g., many journalists!), that it threatens to become meaningless, Ioften jump in to try to correct that with reference to history. But I recognize these categories are not real; defining and describing them is not like defining and describing a physical object.

I propose that when people find themselves embroiled in a debate over a theological category they lay all their cards on the table and say what they mean by it before the debate becomes too confusing and hopelessly bogged down. And I propose such participants in a debate or controversy not assume that everyone means the same thing by a category.

I admit I have not always followed these proposals; I will try to henceforth.

But my main point is that some people seem to be so allergic to ambiguity they simply cannot open their minds to flexible boundaries; they feel compelled to be able to know with absolute certainty who is “in” and who is “out” of a category. It’s simply not that simple in most cases.

I find that such people are what I call theological absolutists. There’s a category. What do I mean by it? By “theological absolutist” I mean someone who so identifies his or her theological concepts with revelation itself that they are unable even to consider the possibility they might be wrong. Such people also tend to hold theological categories as bounded sets when, in fact, they are centered sets without firm or definite boundaries.

My experience has been that when such people find themselves in a movement or organization they cannot rest until they have excluded everyone who disagrees with them. They aren’t usually completely successful, but they cause a great deal of consternation for others by pressing, lobbying, arguing for their boundaries until leaders slowly succumb to them–often just to bring about peace within the group. Of course, that peace is at the cost of someone(s) being excluded.

Years ago one of my favorite Christian writers, Joseph Bayly (author of numerous books and short stories and articles and columns) wrote an article in Eternity magazine entitled “Why the absolute absolutists always win.” As I recall, the article was occasioned by the firing of a Bible Institute professor ONLY because his wife wrote a book defending egalitarianism. (Fortunately the professor went on to greater things!) Bayly noted that this was the result of a small group of constituents putting tremendous pressure on the Bible Institute until it gave in and fired the professor. He decried the tendency of evangelical (and no doubt other) organizations to bow to “absolute absolutists” just because they are loud and insistent.

A historical example of absolute absolutism in theology is William Bell Riley, fundamentalist pastor of First Baptist Church of Minneapolis and organizer of the World Christian Fundamentals Association in 1919. He and his followers elevated premillennialism to the status of an essential of Christianity. I personally witnessed one of the effects of that in the 1980s. One of my very conservative, evangelical colleagues (at the college where I then taught) was an amillennialist. Neither the denomination nor the college had a statement of faith that included premillennialism. But some absolute absolutist constituents made my colleague’s life miserable over his denial of premillennialism. They mounted a campaign to get him fired for that. Fortunately, in that case, they didn’t win–EXCEPT in the sense that they made his life and our lives miserable off and on for years.

Now let me connect absolute absolutism with hardening of the categories. The two diseases are closely related. Premillennialism as a category is not something real; it is a humanly constructed category and it is somewhat flexible and contested. I have had students assume I’m a dispensationalist and “pre-tribber” just because I confess I’m a premillennialist. Many premillennialists (like the earliest church fathers) are not those. Jurgen Moltmann told me and a colleague he is a premillennialist. That challenges my preconceived notions of premillennialism!

Obviously I’m not suggesting that we throw away all categories and labels. What I am suggesting is that we prefer people’s own descriptions of what they believe to our tendencies to insist on putting them in or out of a category. And when we argue that someone is “in” or “out” of a category explain what we mean by it and admit our definition may not exhaust the category’s meaning.

Above all, let’s not treat theological categories as incorrigible as if they have some kind of transcendent essence like a Platonic form. And let’s resist the absolute absolutists who demonstrate by their disposition and actions a determination to use their hardened categories to demean, marginalize or expel people who disagree with them or don’t fit their categories perfectly.

Uncategorized

Previous Post

April 13, 2011

A good description of "postconservative evangelical"

Next Post

April 15, 2011 Generic Christianity and particularist commitments: on being transparent

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

In Revelation, what is the correct sequence of events in the End Times?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Dragon cast to earth, beast rises from sea, false prophet rises from earth, mark of the beast given False prophet rises, dragon cast to earth, beast rises from sea, mark of the beast given Mark of the beast given, dragon cast to earth, beast rises, false prophet rises Beast rises from sea, dragon cast to earth, mark of the beast given, false prophet rises