Chp 2 of Roger Olson, Reformed and Always Reforming
He begins with conservative evangelicalism's identification of the essence, and here he sees an entry point in calling Cons Evang "post-fundamentalist evangelicals" (68). Both Joel Carpenter and George Marsden focused on showing how evangelicalism was a reform of fundamentalism. Postconservatives are doing the same: reforming evangelicalism.
Why? Because "there is no final stopping place in the process of ongoing correction and reform short of the return of Jesus Christ" (69). But, postcons think cons evangelicals are "too obsessed with the cognitive and intellectual sides of the gospel and of Christian existence" (69). I'd like you to read that carefully: it is not an either/or or a false dichotomy Olson is drawing here; instead, it is emphasis. Postcons want to correct this "one-sidedness."
And, of course, postcons have been accused of a slippery slope. Olson says back: "it is a vicious calumny unjustified by any fair reading of the works of postconservatives" (69).
Millard Erickson says the "doctrinal component is a major component of Christianity... [and it] will be regarded as the most important permanent element" (70). That is what Olson is talking about. Yes, Erickson and cons evangs do believe in transformation; and postcons believe in doctrine. The question is one of emphasis.
DA Carson is another example in Olson's illustrations of conservative evangelical emphasis on doctrinal content as the essence of Christianity. Carson: "the historic gospel is unavoidably cast as intellectual content that must be taught and proclaimed" (71). Again, he is fair with Carson: "Scripture's purpose is not simply to fill our heads with facts, but to bring us to the living God" (72). But, Olson thinks the burden of both Erickson and Carson -- do you think he is accurate here? -- "is to preserve and protect the cognitive doctrinal content of historic evangelicalism -- evangelical orthodoxy -- as its permanent, enduring, and unchanging essence" (72).
Is conservative evangelicalism's emphasis on doctrinal content? And is its emphasis an overemphasis?
Next post: postconservativism's "experiential impulse".
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
One observation: Olson is interacting with and critiquing other academics. But at a popular-level (i.e. in the life of its churches and parachurch movements), do conservative evangelicals over-emphasize doctrine? Many evangelical academics would say their churches don't emphasize doctrine enough!
This then explains why the academics are so concerned with doctrine: They are often driven by their view that the churches are NOT concerned enough with it, and so academic theologians view themselves as the de facto protectors of sound doctrine, filling a void in the church.
So as a critique of the evangelical academy, Olson makes some valid points. But evangelicalism is much more than the academy and when you take a broader view, does this "it's too concerned with doctrine" resonate? Perhaps you can make this critique of our most influential academic theologians, but can you make the same critique of our most influential churches?
The discussion makes me wonder- with reference to almost 2000 years of church history when has (does) doctrine become idolatry and is there anything within doctrine to prevent it?
Doug #38. Here is Alan Lewis, again in “Between Cross & Resurrection: A Theology of Holy Saturday” speaking to your concerns:
‘... there is another danger in the doctrinal enterprise. It is that theology will cease to recognize its limitations and penultimacy, so that dogmas, instead of being potential vehicles of doxology and self-surrendering intellectual humility, become instead arrogant claims to final, ultimate truth, more the objects of idolatry than expressions of worship. Doctrine, as such, we have argued, is a proper tool, at the churches service, helping it reflect and regulate, while acknowledging its own fallibility and partiality, its falling short of truth itself and thus its own need for further refinement and reform. But doctrine – and those who formulate it and have the authority to apply its authoritative norms – can sometimes lose sight of the limitations and penultimacy of theology, that inescapably human, finite science. Dogma can become fixed and static formulation, infallible propositions abstracted from the dynamic reality of the story of the story’s Subject into compendia of irreformable, lifeless and legalistic statements. They can then be applied authoritatively precisely not as invitation to reform and further thought, but as barriers to such, in their absoluteness and finality.’ p. 140
Hi Jim,
Thank you for your response. Lewis writes clearly enough, but the second part of my question still really bothers me- how can that "danger of doctrinal enterprise" be recognized and addressed? After reading all the "reforming" series and the "Pete Ennis WTS and CT" posts, I'm very discouraged.
I and some other students actually had a long talk with Dr. Vanhoozer about what label would best fit the model he describes and the area we should next broach theologically. He out and out rejected "post conservative" and "post evangelical" because he stated simply he is neither reacting against nor willing to get past either, instead he wants to take the good from both and build on them. He considers himself both Evangelical and conservative, but progressive as well.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.