Reforming 5

I think Olson has hit the nail on the head here. I certainly do think that conservative evangelicalism's emphasis is on doctrinal content, and it is extremely overemphasized. They are more concerned in minutia in their doctrinal statements than in experience and life. Like Olson, I by no means say that they don't believe that transformation is important, but they certainly overemphasize information.

Information is great. I'm at a seminary where I get information all the time, but when we emphasize this so much that we either neglect transformation or put it in the background, we completely miss the big picture. It's kind of like the Pharisees and their obsession with the Law. They were so caught up in information it wasn't even funny. They studied, examined, exegeted, memorized, and taught, but they completely missed the big picture, and Jesus had some of his most harsh words for this crowd...even though their intentions were great. They didn't see the intention behind the Law, and because of that one little discrepancy they completely rejected Christ when he tried to tell them the truth.

I fear the same for many conservative evangelicals. They are so caught up in protecting, defending, and preserving (hence conservative) creeds, confessions, and doctrinal statements, that they are missing the big picture in the process. I think the men Olson quotes in his book are certainly at the top of the list in conservative evangelicalism who believe this way(Grudem, Erickson, Carson...and I would probably add Piper too).

I fear Jesus would have the same words he spoke to the Pharisees to these people because of their overemphasis. Jesus is more interested in how we live than in what we know. Jesus is more interested that a person be transformed by the power of the Spirit than whether they can fully articulate the Trinity or believe in the inerrancy of Scriptures. Jesus is more interested that a person live right than if they believe in immutability or can articulate the hypostatic union or ascribe to a premillenial view of eschatology.

Some of these other things are certainly important, but orthopraxy must certainly be emphasized more so than orthodoxy, and quite frankly conservative evangelicals have this completely in reverse. Good stuff Scot

Remembering reading Kierkegaard once; he stated something that I knew to be true. In essence he wrote that a child can not fooled by his parent's lack of belief in God.( Perhapse Jesus was including that when He said " Unless you become like a little child...)

The Apostle Paul wrote to us ( as I understand it) that in whatever guise the Gospel is preached, at least it is preached.

We thank our Heavenly Father for the "gut" realization that He is at work among us, as us (Vine and branch), not only in the location of our present footprints but also in His realm of His Spirit where He is worshiped in truth, where according to the scripture )we can take pleasure in defending), we are one with Him. (He that is joined to the Lord is one Spirit.)

It is here, in His Spirit, that the ongoing finished work of Christ Jesus where the individual and the community is one with God is realized. It is here that Jesus knew what was in the minds of men. It is here that Jesus speaks of when refers to saying, "When you have done this to the least of these, you have done it unto me."

It is here that virtue is passed not only by words but by the touch of His garment. Our foundation is Spirit and truth, the person Jesus Christ whom by the Holy Spirit conforms and confirms us into His image by His risen eternal Life.

The foundation of self, builds upon itself, placing the cross above itself and out of reach of the promised rest which is the death of the self, that has to be the loss of the self, in order to find the new self who is Life.

I read many comments placed in Jesus Creed and realize that there is the art of placing words in such order with such detail that would leave many unable to participate in the ongoing structure of the ongoing conversation... Scripture is not our first Love...scripture did not bring us the Good news. The Good news Himself brought us the Good news.

I read this book a few months ago and it left me asking, how is it that we (those of us out of the Arminian, Holiness, Wesleyan, Lutheran Pietistic, Evangelical Covenant, or Anabaptist streams) are "post"-conservative if we were never really conservative in the first place? At least we were never conservative in the way that the definition has been formulated by modern Reformed orthodoxy.

That little nit-pick didn't stop me from ordering Roger Olson's next book in the series -- How to be Evangelical Without Being Conservative -- which is in the queue on my desk waiting for some free time.

Hurrah! Wolf Paul

Scot wrote: "Very little attention to Anabaptists etc..." (#8)

True. He does give a very slight tip of the hat to Anabaptist influence in chapter 1. He could have done more in that area -- but that's not really his background -- and Anabaptists emphasize some different elements of transformation. (He does give more direct attention to Anabaptists in the next book -- in the section on transforming culture without domination. But I suspect that since you wrote the forward to that book you are already well aware of what he says.) :-)

He does, however, frame the post-conservative movement as emerging out of the Pietistic and (surprise, surprise) Arminian streams. He contends that there have always been "two historical styles or approaches to evangelical faith."

I'd suggest that while there are some new players on the court and a few of them have some cool new moves, this isn't really all that new of a game.

Brad,

Good point. I do think the postconservative has discovered things that have been a significant element of the Anabaptist and European Free Church tradition, if not also Pietism, for a long time -- and not just part of the Pietistic stream of the evangelical movement deriving from the Wesleyan and Arminian traditions. This is an important supplement, if not correction, of the Olson thesis.

Dan,

No matter how hard Olson tries to say that it's a both-and for both cons evangs and postcons, and a matter of emphasis, the book will be used to show the experiential rules for postcons and the cognitive rules for the cons evangs. He is emphasizing the emphases, without making them polar opposites.

Scot,
I think a good parallel reading to this post about Olson's analysis is your CT article where you review Thiselton's book *Hermeneutics of Doctrine.*

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/marchweb-only/113-32.0.html

Scot,

I couldn't help but think of our discussion of what constitutes "orthodox" Christianity in reading this post. I'm still looking forward to your discussion with Tony Jones on this topic (or have I missed it somewhere?).

Regarding your last question, I'd say that is an accurate statement, certainly based on the actions of Carson, Piper, MacArthur, etc. toward ministries that differ over doctrinal issues (whether it's Calvinism, cessationism, the role of women, etc.)

As we discussed re: "orthodoxy", at least in my conservative circles, one's orthodoxy is almost entirely an issue of one's professed doctrines. It has little to do with how that gets lived out. Yes, both camps care about doctrine, both care about transformation, but it is completely fair to say that one of the characteristics of conservative evangelicalism is to emphasize the former, while posts (and Anabaptists) emphasize the latter.

I can't help but think that this emphasis is encouraged by our definitions of "orthodoxy" (or by the near complete swallowing of orthopraxy by orthodoxy). The so-called "essential" teachings of Christianity are almost exclusively facts about Jesus and the atonement instead of the teachings that Jesus himself prioritized. The practical result being that one can supposedly be practicing "orthodox" Christianity and do nothing that Jesus said to do (or at least nothing beyond what the pagans already do) if one will affirm the right list of facts about Jesus. We conservatives tend to produce more affirmers of facts about Jesus than people who do what he said to do.

Matt (#14),

You make some very important points. I liked this: "Maybe the conservative wing should focus on how reformed theology leads to concern for the poor. Maybe the postconservatives need to be more vocal about their beliefs and where the “boundary markers” of the faith lie."

On the conservative side, our total depravity, our real poverty, ought to and can become the basis of seeing ourselves as just like those in physical poverty. It can and should (and is intended to) be our basis for empathy, compassion, and action. Our total dependence on mercy ought to make us merciful, and it can. In fact, showing mercy is the only real proof of whether one really knows God to be merciful.

And on resurrection, those of us who say we trust in Christ's physical resurrection (and in ours to come), can't we, mustn't we, be leading the way in risky agape love, and in inviting the poor to dine with us? (It's a lot harder to do if there's no resurrection!) Let's judge one another's trust in the resurrection, if at all, by the extent of our love for each other--how much we risk and give of ourselves for our friends and enemies.

I too am looking forward to the discussion of what orthodoxy is, because I expect what are viewed as "essential" beliefs look quite different across Christendom. Re orthodoxy without orthopraxy. Living as Christ asked us to, regardless of doctrine is still a good thing, where as orthodoxy without orthopraxy is completely useless - worse than useless, really. I would say it better to err on the side of putting our efforts into right action. THe only way that we know whether we are on the right path is the fruit of our faith. Does our theology make us more loving, joyful, peaceful, patient, kind, compassionate, generous, faithful, gentle, and self-disciplined? As loving Christians do we suffer without complaint, do we rejoice in the good fortune of others, rather than being envious; are we self-effacing, polite, not easily provoked; do we set our minds on things that are honourable, truthful and good, rather that obsessing about sin and judging and gloating over the weaknesses of other; do we bear, believe, hope and endure all for the sake of our Lord? If a theology helps us become more Christlike, even in small and gradual steps, then it is a good theology.

Scot,

We need better acronyms. For the conservative evangelicals...how about CEV's?

for the Postcons....how about PCEV's? (or maybe just..."those guys that are right"...jk!)

blessings

From an outside perspective I think your posed question is right on. Conservative evangelicalism seems overly concerned with doctrine. This leaves a bad taste in the mouth of new Christians and unbelievers. Doctrine without transformation is dead.

However, as one who is reading Erickson's "Christian Theology" for class (all 1300 pages...ouch) there is a richness to doctrine that can take the believer to a new level of transformation. I just think we need to be careful with how important we make doctrine.

Ah - a good … no - a great question: Is conservative evangelicalism’s emphasis on doctrinal content? And is its emphasis an overemphasis? Beware - you’ve hit a real sore spot for me, and I may go off the deep end a bit.

It seems to me that conservative evangelicalism’s emphasis on doctrine is an overemphasis because, and only because, it is excessively selective in the definition of orthodox doctrine. The selection can vary from group to group - but nonetheless there is a distinct selection. To be blunt, I could not care less about defending the Baptist distinctives (and I am a Baptist), the Westminster confession, Calvin’s Institutes, Luther’s Catechism, the Chicago statement on inerrancy, or any other man-made attempt at definitive statement. If history has taught us anything - and we need to learn from and walk with our history in the great traditions of the church - it is that everyone must be getting/have gotten a fair bit of the detail wrong in the honest attempt to follow God and his gospel.

I agree with ChrisB on one important level - living as Christ taught is impossible without right doctrine. We can only love God with our minds if we wrestle with the nature of God and his action in the world. Wrestling with, thinking about, and discussing the doctrinal expression of the faith is of critical importance for many (all?) of us, because this is how we come to grips with what it means to be Christian - and follow the commands of Jesus (orthopraxy).

But we need humility in this process. If anyone thinks they’ve finally nailed it down for all of posterity - well that’s just stupid. Thinking that we’ve finally dotted the i’s and crossed the t’s and finished everything off with definitive finality seems dead wrong in the light of our many Godly forbearers and contemporaries who have held varying positions. When any conservative evangelical group uses the dotted i’s and crossed t’s to set boundaries, the emphasis is immediately an overemphasis.

When we are defined by boundaries - rather than by following the center, we may, dare I say we will, slide down a slippery slope to unloving legalism. Frankly, those boundaries are not worth defending. The value in the search for right doctrine comes in keeping us focused on the center.

Carson does not overemphasize orthodoxy versus orthopraxy, I find that the overemphasis lies in the approach to the unsaved. The world is to be Evangelized, not taken care of. I get the feeling that Luke's gospel is radically overlooked by many of the mainstays of Evangelicalism. When I taught the Intro to the NT for Bob Yarbrough, he asked me to teach on Luke's theology and literary issues. When I went through and taught the major issues as I saw them, I got some stunned expressions and even some Amens from the younger generation.

I get the feeling that it is not so much an emphasis on doctrine as it is a lack of emphasis on works in the world. The church is to be taken care of for sure, but it seems like the world is to be Evangelized or ignored.

Hooray for RJS for bringing out once again the value of centered-set versus bounded-set beliefs/practices. With this in mind, we can imagine Volf's "exclusion and embrace."

Every behavior expresses belief (of some kind). The old saw, "Show me how a person lives and I'll tell you what that person believes" holds true.

I appreciate Olson's intentional analysis that it is not an either/or but a both/and; and he is simply spotlighting the overemphases of each side, the CEVs and P-CEVs.

There is a tenacious content to evangelicalism: Trinitarian, Christocentric, Spirit-empowered community-based, eschatological and missional. When the CEVs say this is best and only expressed in Reformed thought and tradition, they have established some unnecessary, debatable boundaries.

In #11 you replied (to Dan) No matter how hard Olson tries to say that it's a both-and for both cons evangs and postcons, and a matter of emphasis, the book will be used to show the experiential rules for postcons and the cognitive rules for the cons evangs. He is emphasizing the emphases, without making them polar opposites.

If, in fact, the emphasis for P-CEVs is experiential and for CEVs is cognitive, I don't really know what to call myself. While experiential is of great importance – I would have to say, I think, that cognitive rules; both-and of course, but with emphasis, if we must specify emphasis, on cognitive. I just do not agree (at all) with the way that cognitive emphasis on doctrine works itself out in CEV bounded-set thinking.

It seems to me that conservative evangelicalism's emphasis on doctrinal content is an overemphasis, or perhaps more accurately a misdirected emphasis, because it is characterized by bounded-set thinking, not because doctrinal content is highly valued.

The problem,as I see it,is that Evangelicalism's "doctrines" that is wants to use to demarcate itself from others and define itself by are often not the catholic doctrines of the sort of the concilar decrees but of a lower order which often speak to arising from "party" disputes, which encourage more fissures and divisions.

I'm enjoying Olson's book, but, as generous as he's trying to be, I'm not sure I can buy into this particular distinction he's making. I know he's talking about emphasis and not a dichotomy, but it's still...

RJS wrote: If, in fact, the emphasis for P-CEVs is experiential and for CEVs is cognitive, I don’t really know what to call myself.

You and probably a whole lot of other evangelicals, myself included.

While experiential is of great importance – I would have to say, I think, that cognitive rules; both-and of course, but with emphasis, if we must specify emphasis, on cognitive. I just do not agree (at all) with the way that cognitive emphasis on doctrine works itself out in CEV bounded-set thinking.

Well said. It's easy to call out certain, more outspoken individuals like Carson and Piper and and knock their boundary drawing, and it's also easy to be critical of church communities that foster an over-developed passion for doctrinal purity (as they define it), and miss the point of transformed lives, the power of an indwelling Christ, etc.

However I learned about transformed lives, community and being conformed to Christ's image in the conservative evangelical communities in which I grew up, primarily in the 70's. These things were explained or positioned as the purpose of dispensing good doctrine, as God's desired effect of a mature, grown-up faith.

I think we'd all agree that you can't have transformation without information...transformation comes from acting on information. We are first hearer's (of something propositional or cognitive) and then doer's. It seems to me that information and sound doctrine are a means to an end (transformed lives, living communities), and it's a mistake to view them as ends in and of themselves.

It may be well be the case that dry, sterile doctrinal fetishes might more often characterize those who've gone off the rails in the conservative direction, while those similarly unhinged in the postconservative circle would suffer from unchecked and deceptive subjectivism due to an emphasis on experiences without the regulating influence of good doctrine (which, BTW, is just as sure a way to foster divisions and fissures as the other extreme).

I also continue to find Olson's categorization of Vanhoozer as a postconservative a bit of a stretch. I think that he's far more accurately put in the mediating category, because although there are definite postconservative aspects to his views (or his style of expressing them), his emphasis, even when talking about different Biblical literary genres, is our cognitive understanding of Scripture and doing good theology.

I suppose the best thing to do is wait for Kevin to respond in a book or an article, and at that point we'll see exactly how comfortable he is with being seated at this particular table.

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?

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

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.