The Divide in Today's Evangelicalism

[Scott]

I don't know if many of you are aware of the divide that is taking place more and more within evangelicalism, or at least American evangelicalism or the wider evangelical church of the west. The polarization between two main groups of people. This has been going on for the better part of a couple of decades, but it has especially gathered some speed over the past few years.

 

What is this divide?

 

On one side, you have those of classical evangelicalism, or more definitively, neo-reformed evangelicalism. This group is represented by such people as John Piper, The Gospel Coalition, Justin Taylor, Kevin DeYoung, Al Mohler and possibly a few others.

 

On the opposite side, you have those who are becoming less tied to the traditional forms of evangelicalism, and specifically challenging the views of those of the neo-reformed perspective. Within this group, you will find a variety of names at the forefront, like N.T. Wright, Scot McKnight, Peter Enns, BioLogos and a few others.

 

The divide stands over issues such as these:

 

• What is the gospel?
• What is justification?
• What is hell?
• Is theistic evolution a viable Christian (or evangelical) option?

 

There might be other issues to consider, but those are very central in the divide.

 

The neo-reformed folk argue something like this for the 4-bullet points above: a) the gospel is about God's saving and forgiving of sinners through Jesus' atoning death on the cross, b) justification is another aspect of salvation in which God's righteousness is imputed (given) to unworthy sinners, c) hell is eternal conscious punishment-torment, and d) theistic evolution is a very dangerous approach to origins, as it can lead to the denial of very central Christian doctrines.

 

The 'new perspective' folk contend these positions: a) the gospel is about the coming of the kingdom rule of God in Jesus, as the fulfilment of Israel's story, b) justification is not so much about God's saving of sinners, but rather God's declaration upon those who are already his covenant people, with the righteousness of God being more about God's own faithfulness to his covenant purposes rather than something 'imputed' to believers, c) God's judgment upon sinners is that of actual, physical death, with the judgment fires of hell being about the consuming of non-believers, and d) theistic evolution is a very plausible, if not true, belief for Christians as to understanding our origins.

 

Some distinctions worth noting, right?

 

I find myself falling in line with the latter group, though I must admit I was very much in line with the former group only a few years ago. And I do also note that I learned quite a bit from more neo-reformed folks like John Piper, Wayne Grudem and those at the Gospel Coalition. I cut my theological teeth on the reformed stalwarts of our present day. And this became even more of a reality as I studied at one of the leading reformed-Presbyterian seminaries in America - Covenant Theological Seminary.

 

But as I became aware of other varying theological perspectives outside of the conservative, reformed (and American) point of reference, I was intrigued, drawn in to learn from others. I must admit, I longed for something fresh. And this is what I found as friends introduced me to N.T. Wright, Scot McKnight, Peter Enns, Kenton Sparks, J.R. Daniel Kirk, BioLogos and a few others.

 

This divide is practically expressed on quite a regular basis, like in such a recent review by the Gospel Coalition of N.T. Wright's newest book, How God Became King. I read the review and am very much perplexed at how such could have been written. I'm thinking they didn't read the same book as I (or, what really probably happened is that they headed into the book already knowing they couldn't agree with but 10% of anything said). Or I, myself, pick up Wright's newest work and frequently come across critical statements about neo-reformed evangelicalism and American politics. I, though being American myself, tend to also be critical of such perspectives. But I'm learning, at least slowly, to grow in grace and listen to and be gracious towards views not my own, though I might not still come to the same conclusions.

 

Being critical and challenging is not about bashing, nor adding in a little jab of snide remarks here or there. At times, it might be about strong rebuke and vigorous challenges (maybe like InternetMonk's robust challenge to the bashing of 'effeminate worship'). But I am wondering if, even longing for, this divide to lessen, to narrow, rather than keep heading towards an unimaginably wide chasm.

 

And that's my whole point in this article. It's not so much about arguing which view is better. Rather it is to both call out the divide that is taking place and share my desire to seem kind of closing of the gap through some efforts in reconciliation. Is there a way to better listen to one another, learn from one another, hold back snarky and overly-critical comments, for movement towards some kind expression of Christlike unity?

 

You know, when I read Wright's book, Justification: God's Plan and Paul's Vision, and then read Piper's book, The Future of Justification: A Response to N.T. Wright (this book actually came first, challenging Wright's previous works on Paul and justification), I really think there was a lot of common ground from which to work. But as Krish Kandiah, British church leader and blogger, notes: 'these men do tend to talk past each other when they engage'.

 

And this is true of many of those on opposite sides of this ever-increasing chasm.

 

I am not so much asking for people to change their theological perspectives. Well, I think it a worthy project to evaluate our theology and be open to the need for changes in our paradigms, as I've seen this become a reality in my own life the past few years. But I am asking for better talk across the table. I even imagine a day, in the not too distant future, where John Piper, Justin Taylor, Kevin DeYoung, Al Mohler and a few other neo-reformed folk will sit down with Tom Wright, Scot McKnight, Peter Enns, JR Daniel Kirk and a few others to have 2 or 3 days of deep dialogue and discussion of how the two groups can better understand one another and even how we might move forward together.

 

I know. Sounds a bit adventurous, maybe a bit too big. But I think it can be done. And I put forward my 'vote' to see it happen, all that the divide closes and we move more towards the kind of unity expressed in passages like Eph 4:11-16.

 

Is it possible?

[Marv]

Yup. And would you guys please have the courtesy to devise a label for yourself. More and more "evangelical" is not appropriate. You didn't specifically mention Perriman, though he unquestionably falls on your side of the ledger. As we have seen recently, he rejects the divinity of Christ, though he does offer up an amazingly equivocal substitute. And he is "evangelical." Evangelical but not orthodox???? Time for a new label.

 

Or those who see this diverse movement for the folly it is, let us have a name, if we must surrender "Evangelical" to mean whatever the (non)-h&#$ someone wants it to mean. These are not fundamentalists. But you have well identified two sides of a widening gap. If the far side wishes to retain "evangelical," I for one do not begrudge it them. It hardly has meaning now. But I call for some terminology.

 

But labels are divisive, I hear someone saying. No, they are clarifying. Divergent teaching is what is divisive--the side which seeks to reinvent, not the status quo side. So do it. Follow your conscience and reinvent, but let us not employ language in order to deceive. The only reason for eschewing drawing distinctions in terms of names is to create a FALSE sense of unity. Muddying waters, blurring borders is only a means of not SEEING the division that is there. A bit more honesty, please.

 

Scott, if you truly value unity, there are not seventeen ways to achieve this. Cease to widen this gap by pursuing ever divergent waves of doctrine. I don't say you must do this; I'm no judge of the servant of another. But if you value unity in truth, this is what you will do.

 

But merely to say let not the other side of the gap call attention to the gap--this has nothing to do with true unity. Worse yet, insisting that the other side of the gap watch and applaud and cease to caution or criticise those moving away is unreasonable at best--these are not small issues.

 

Not small issues at all, but "your" side will of necessity minimize them. Of course. If you think them incorrect, they will not be important. Understand then the true dynamic here. The opposite side is not exaggerating the importance of these doctrines--it is "your" side which is minimizing them. We are called to contend for the faith. Much of what is being done and said on "your" side truly is antagonistic to the faith, to the gospel, to sound doctrine. In a metaphorical sense, you understand, these are "fighting words." It does not belong to the utterer of "fighting words" to call for peace.

 

The solution here is opposite from what I take your stated objective to be. I don't begrudge anyone to believe what he/she chooses. Just don't use places of influence, lecturns, pulpits, etc. to mislead people. So pick a name. Ennites, for example. Or better, Wrightians. Whatever. Then reinvent, rethink, reformulate to your hearts' content.

 

Or "we" shall have to, to make clear the real and vital distinction. Actually, I rather suspect this will be the necessary step. I don't see any move toward clarity of lines on the far side of this widening gap. So what shall this side be called. Any suggestions?

[Scott]

Yup. And would you guys please have the courtesy to devise a label for yourself.

 

Heretics always has a nice ring to it. :D

[Marv]

I'm game. But unfortunately, that is not specific enough.

[Michael Ballai]

I just packed up a book I sold on the divisiveness in evangelicalism that was written years ago. It's really nothing new and will be with us until the Messiah declares game over and all our opinions get tossed out. Part of what makes this coincide with Ephesians 4 is that it's completely part and parcel of iron sharpening iron. If you aren't comfortable with conflict it's not going to easy to live in evangelicalism.

What does the Bible say about the opinion or opinions in question? Are we to be theologist centered or Messiah centered by being Bible centered?

Just my two cents on the evangelical-war-of-the-moment club.

[Scott]

Michael -

 

Yes, division over particular beliefs and practises is nothing new. I appreciate what you said about such being part and parcel to iron sharpening iron. But even that gives us common ground to work from - noting that we are brothers & sisters. I think we intellectually assent to this, but find it hard to live like. Though I'm still not sure if this all fits into Paul's vision in Eph 4:11-16, or the other passages around the vision of unity that I believe we are supposed to be headed. Personally, I am convinced Messiah will not come to marry us until the bride is a bit more prepared and unified. That seems a tad bit away, for now.

 

While I could take or leave some thoughts around justification, hell and evolution, I do believe that be Messiah-centred very much involves a biblical theology around the gospel. I'm not gonna brand anyone heretic, for any of these opposing beliefs (at least within this particular realm I mention in my article). But the gospel is pretty important. What I think is going on is that a) there is actually quite a bit of common ground but b) there is an inherent sense any many (including myself) to dismiss the other side because that aren't that interested in emphasising what the other beliefs is worth emphasising. For example, both sides believe in personal conversion-transformation. But one emphasises it over the other, one de-emphasises it somewhat to the benefit of the communal. Both hold to personal and communal, but one group, maybe in an effort to bring the pendulum back more centre, emphasises to the disturbance of the other group. There is common ground here. Maybe we can work for it here.

 

But, in all, I think we are to be headed towards the vision of unity presented in the Scripture. Again, I cannot imagine marriage to Messiah if we haven't properly prepared for such a time.

[Scott]

Marv -

 

A more thorough response to your comment.

 

I don't need to defend Perriman, though sometimes I do feel like commenting because I think a) people are not understanding his more 'academic' engagement and b) they don't even have a clue about his personal accountability. But he is a big boy and you can interact with what he says at his blog.

 

Technically, I think the word evangelical speaks very much for what it means. Finding the evangel central, in personally believing it, communally believing it and proclaiming it to others. I know evangelical has tended to take on other foundations, the main one centering in the inspired (inerrant?) and authoritative nature of Scripture. But that is also a 'problem', in one sense, in that we didn't see the necessity of a pope to tell us what the word was supposed to mean and who can and cannot be involved. I mean, some want to tell us what the word means, outside of what the actual word means. I mean, are the Chicagoans who crafted a specific statement supposed to tell us? I am ok not having a definer for this.

 

But let us be reminded that what it has meant to be Christian (or even now, evangelical), though always having very essential standards, has also had fluctuation on non-essentials. Of course, only now does it seem things like details on justification, hell and Genesis are becoming more non-essentials. I mean, they are non-essentials, I suppose we would agree. But they seemed second tier non-essentials, very close sisters of the essentials, only ever so slightly secondary, because if we don't have a proper evangelical view on these issues, well, then it must affect those essentials.

 

But they've always remained as non-essentials. Matter of fact, I suppose an annhilationist and OEC holder (quite easily identifiable within evangelicalism today) would have seemed quite "unevangelical" some 50 years ago. Things change, not because change is inherently wicked, though some see increase in cool points only because of change. But we are continually reshaped, challenged, and shift in our outlook. It is part and parcel to walking out our life in Christ. Again, Marv of 2012 would, I suppose, be quite out of place slotting into 1950's evangelicalism as a whole. But you are very satisfied with the Marv of 2012, as he pursues Jesus Christ. And I would say Marv of 2012 is very evangelical, though a generation before might smirk at such a suggestion. And imagine your great-grandparents. What a tragedy, what dishonour!

 

So using the term "evangelical" for someone like Wright or Enns or McKnight is not deceptive, AT ALL. Feel free to call such people progressive evangelicals, if it helps. But all 3 of those people profess there deep passion and desire for the evangel of Christ and his kingdom.

 

But merely to say let not the other side of the gap call attention to the gap--this has nothing to do with true unity. Worse yet, insisting that the other side of the gap watch and applaud and cease to caution or criticise those moving away is unreasonable at best--these are not small issues.

 

I actually spent the whole article calling attention to it. But I think movement towards seeing the gap closed starts not with more theological banter and proof-texting and saying that holding to A will lead to G and H, but being willing to listen and understand. Throwing out jabs here and there, or worse, which happens on both sides, will not help. But listening and even supporting in some sense will actually close the gap, and this being done both practically and theologically. If I encouragingly understand your OEC (or YEC?) standpoint and look to speak blessing to you, while also putting forth challenges as to why it isn't healthy (or biblical), such is going to help us think better together. Again, Piper and Wright actually have much more in common than not. No? And, though you might vomit at such a suggestion, Enns and OEC's have a lot in common. A LOT. And then we have to go and have someone like Tim Keller who works with both TGC and BioLogos. Stinking lukewarm Keller!

 

It's funny, the second sentence I quoted above. Yes, I suppose the one side needs to tell the other side how far they are drifting. But here is an opportunity for you to say, 'Hey, they actually think I might be too stuck in a particular paradigm that needs challenging. Let me at least listen, hear their thoughts without already concluding they are ludicrous.' And they the same. I'm not proposing happy clappy, kumbaya-ish Christianity. But I cannot even fathom the forcing out of Wright, McKnight, Enns and the like from evangelical Christianity. They, too, desire sound doctrine. To even suggest that these folk should be forced out, is, well, not worth engaging with that type of thinking whatsoever.

 

I still might try and bring a contingency of 3 or 4 people on both sides together for dialogue. Yeah, as if I could to that!

[Scott]

Well, now McKnight has announced this is his last semester at Northpark University. Tomorrow he announces where he will be transitioning into. Maybe something more liberal. :D

[Lisa Robinson]

I believe the latter group are classified as post-conservative. Right?

Also, here is something interesting regarding Wright's view of justification.  I've been taking a class this semester on Augustine and Augustinian theology.  Very similar to Wright, Augustine also held to a non-forensic form of justification.  Like Wright, he considered the trinitarian outworking on those who were justified (or being justified).   So the unification of the believer to Christ through the work of the Spirit is what justifies the believer, where grace has been imparted by the will of the Father so that one can respond appropriately to placing faith in the Son.   Now, I confess I am committed to seeing justification in forensic terms where Christ's imputation is afforded to us.  That is where my conviction lies.  But I have wrestled with Wright's non-forensic position, which really is closely aligned with Augustine's and it is faithful to God's work in trinity.  Why has nobody thrown Augustine under the bus? 

And I think this gets to your concern, Scott.  I can't help but see how influence and clout control what gets classified as in vs. out, or at least where this particular issue is concerned.

[David Armstrong]

Agreed, Scott. I'm actually pretty partial to the title "heretic," usually means I've got something right.

By the way, hi, everyone, been awhile.

[Lisa Robinson]

After re-reading this, I have to say I think a big part of the problem is how the latter group have been characterized by the former group, which tends towards sweeping generalizations.  When we use language that paints a picture of departure from the norms of the faith, the group is tossed out wholesale.  This is especially true of those with the loudest voices, i.e. Mohler and TGC.  So what happens is we get nervous just entertaining what the latter group actually has to say and consider anything worthiness in what they are advocating, lest we look like departing ones also.  Not only does it promote fear, but it's the proverbial baby and bath water throwing

I have learned well from my faculty advisor/internship mentor that each persons work and theories must be evaluated without allowing biases and broad sweeping characterizations against them to intrude on that evaluation.  Measure it against the historic witness of the faith, yes.  But measure fairly.   I have found what bubbles up is some things worth thinking about.  Like you, Scott, I have found that in some positions the divide really isn't that wide and is reconcilable.  But it can't be as long as influential groups castigate persons in the public square and paint them as departing from the faith.