In a time when the ecumenical Protestants are becoming closer to Roman Catholics, the rift within Protestantism is getting wider. The neo-orthodox and ecumenical movements, along with sharing in theological graduate education haven’t brought the two faiths to one another. The divide between conservatives and liberals and neo-orthodox is getting larger and more pronounced. The thing I find most troubling is that conservatives do not satisfy to be a single section of Protestantism, but claim the whole Reformation tradition. Their claim is far more imperialistic, in that using the word “evangelical,” they present themselves as the sole people who are Christian. In spite of all the debate concerning the importance of church membership numbers or the future direction of conservatism the increasing gap is an ideological divide that is a hallmark of American Christianity of the first order.
Theological debates are always difficult and can become deeply individual when one party stakes claim to a crucial term. The term “evangelical” is indispensable for Protestantism and in general to all Christians. The word “evangelical” is deeply troubling in a theological group that claims it the term “evangelical “represents the evangelical view of Christianity and also suggests that other movements aren’t evangelical. Because Christian theology is, by definition evangelical, it’s foolish and arrogant to assert that theology is only evangelical when it is a part of an orthodoxy. It might be worthwhile to consider the possibility of developing more modest ways of defining our own definitions of.
Competing Conservative Positions
The issue is more complicated due to the diversity of different positions taken by conservative Protestants. There isn’t any agreement with the so-called evangelicals. Words like fundamentalist theological orthodoxy Biblical Protestant, evangelical and conservative are often employed interchangeably, but in other instances, they convey subtle differences in the meaning.
Harold Ockenga has suggested that within the conservative tradition, there is a shift from fundamentalism, to neo-evangelicalism, and then to evangelicalism. My impression is that all these distinctions are distorted.
In essence, we’re discussing the conservative Protestantism within the United States, which is generally rooted in three different traditions: (1) conservative Lutheran and Calvinist groups, (2) the pietist tradition as well as (3) the indigenous American churches. The third and fourth of these are defined by the influence on the American frontier and revivalism. They also have a low-church style of liturgy and fundamentalism. Despite the distinct distinctions Christians of these faiths would create between themselves, there is likely to be one common stance on the Bible and certain fundamentals. A lot of attention is paid to the effort to move beyond fundamentalism. However, “new evangelical “new evangelical” theology still appears to be akin to either Protestant fundamentalism or scholasticism. Indeed, in a panel presentation, Harold O. J. Brown who was the former director of Christianity Today, admitted that Christians are “nothing but fundamentalists.”
There are several notable differences that I consider crucial. With regard to the Bible, a certain writing group attempted to disengage from the fundamentalist rigidity to an approach that is essentially similar to the neo-orthodox perspective. The writers acknowledge that there are mistakes in the Bible and the authority of each verse could be questioned. The historical relative position of the biblical writers is acknowledged, but without denying the difficulties that this poses to interpret. They solve the issue by using two carefully crafted affirmations. One affirms in the Bible that it’s Bible is inerrant when it addresses its subject matter in its own unique way and the other holds the inerrancy of Scripture and its infallibility are the real meaning that it is true that the Bible is reliable and trustworthy in relation to the gospel.
These proposals are clearly unclear. However, regardless of the intent, they skirt the most important issue, while using the key phrases of the conservative rhetoric. The first idea is troubling since it is merely a rehash of the issue. The second proposal is simply an attempt to return to the concept of having a canon inside the canon. The fact that these two options are even considered suggests a significant shift from the perspective of many conservatives to a more open interpretation of the Bible. However, it’s difficult to set out revisions to this perspective in light of the raging battles within conservatism as well as its prevailing rhetoric.
Opposition to Liberalism
The most complicated aspect of the debate is the fact that conservatism is alive and dies in opposition to liberalism, the contemporary Antichrist. Conservative religion is defined as contrast to Godlessness, and Skepticism associated with liberalism. All those who are left of conservatism is grouped together. Regardless of the many different gradations could be found in liberal Protestants The majority of them are considered to be one in the same and are compared to the skepticism and rationality of the Enlightenment. Neo-orthodoxy is considered to be a subcategory that is bankrupt. In fact, one should be surprised by the absence of terms used to describe the issue. On the one hand, we Christians stand confronted by liberals on the other.
For instance, Harold Lindsell states unequivocally: “Basically, we come to the Bible in one of two ways. Either we approach it with trust and belief or we come with suspicion and distrust.” John H. Gerstner would explain things by saying: “If the term evangelical can include Karl Barth as well as Carl Henry, Emil Brunner as well as Jonathan Edwards, Oscar Cullmann as well as John Wesley, then we must give it a definition so broad as to be somewhat meaningless.”
Check out the titles of some articles that are pretty common to Christianity Today: “The Desires of Modern Theology” as well as “Six Modern Christologies: Doing Away with the God-Man.”
It is quite disturbing to discover an entire theological perspective written in a polemic tone in which the faithful are assured that conservatism is the only greatest hope for Christianity. One example comes from Harold O. J. Brown in his critique of Jurgen Moltmann’s The Crucified God (Christianity Today, March 14, 1975):
Much like the majority of works written by men who are of his caliber, it is innovative but unreliable and fundamentally flawed. There’s plenty in it that evangelicals should consider seriously but it is characterized by a bizarre refusal to acknowledge the authoritative Biblical witness, without first exposing it to existentialist or other historically modified modifications.
Anyone who is shocked by these statements should ask if Neo-orthodox Protestants for example have the same ferocity and hostility to conservatives, liberals Catholics as well as secularists. In the near future everyone is going to be paying for our over-the-top rhetoric and for the ways we denigrate our adversaries in an effort to make strawmen or perpetuate the racial warfare that goes across the world between opposing theological views. In the near future, the theological agenda should be a part of the process of laying the foundations to allow for reconciliation of the two camps.
The Reformation and Authority
The problem with conservative theology is not in its dedication to the evangelical call and, in fact, to the extent that it’s founded on Jesus Christ and in the search to find the true religion throughout every Christian community, it is always a powerful and positive power. Instead, the problem is in the tendency to connect the gospel with traits of the conservative mind-set as well as an atypical view of Christian faith. This is which is a particularly dangerous tendency in context of the problematic aspects of this view.
In defining what we consider the term “evangelical” to signify, I take the view of Luther and Calvin who interpret their interpretation of the New Testament through the ecumenical creeds and the influence of Augustine. The Reformers declared the sovereign power in the name of God could be both a decisive declaration against the world as well as an act of grace to deliver. The declaration of God’s sovereignty, as well as the concept of salvation by grace caused a series of criticisms of the various worldly authorities who claim to overrule the authority of God regardless of whether it was an authority-based church or an infallible Bible, or an automated sacrament which offered salvation in a simple way.
Although the Lutheran-Calvinist Reformation acknowledged the credibility of Scripture however, it also emphasized that faith must always be directed towards the work of salvation performed by God through Jesus Christ. It was not willing to interpret the Bible in an inherently mechanical or simplistic way. For instance, the emphasis on a canon in the canon Luther’s response to Anabaptists concerning the issue of infant baptism, as in the two Reformers insisting on the fact that God’s Word always stands in opposition to faith, and neither can be accomplished without the intervention by the Holy Spirit.
The genius was in both Luther as well as Calvin to stress that the proof of our salvation lies with God and not with any human institution, nor any claims regarding the sacrament, or the Bible. The bridge that connects Heaven and Earth is nothing less that Jesus Christ and the new covenant, which brings together in God’s peace God believers from all nations. The believer is before the divine work that is God in Christ by relying on the grace of God. They have put aside all faith in themselves or on worldly power including the authority in religious establishments. In the presence of the supreme God, they reject any authority that is not the faith in the eternal Word. For certain believers are edified and fed by sacraments, churches, and the Bible, but they cannot be the source of our devotional love.
It is that at this point conservative Protestantism and American free churches have not been able to fully accept the reforms that was enacted by Luther or Calvin. Although they have embraced the assault on an oppressive church and the removal of sacraments that are effective as a whole but they have been adamant about the Reformation method as it applies to doctrine and the Bible. This resistance is due to the problematic nature of theology that is conservative, and it comes in three types.
First, there is a tendency to replace doctrine with the salvation work of God by Christ as the basis for faith and trust. This happens when confessional statements or an entire set of fundamentals are considered to constitute the sole norm that defines the Christian faith. There is no doubt it is rational about a doctrinal test that if there are fundamentals of the Christian faith and we are in a position to declare the essentials. In general, it is right to look for the limits of faith, especially when faced with a truly heretical assertion. The early church century bridged gaps between the possibility and real doctrinal tests several times. However, it is important to keep in mind that these creeds refer primarily towards the teachings of God and to the Christ as Christ. The ecumenical church didn’t adopt a position on anthropology as well as sin, Christ’s work, Christ the church, sacraments and church.
While logic would suggest that the gap could be closed, it is best to be aware of the dangers that are involved. Every test of confessional faith is the result of a particular tradition and historical context. To make absolute assertions about these doctrinal assertions gives too much weight to certain doctrines. Furthermore, the establishing of doctrine-based tests is a result of an intellectualization of faith and being reduced to just doctrinal acceptance. Because faith is the result of faith and trust to God It cannot be reduced down to the doctrinal test, since they deflect it, and thus divert the view away from to the One that is the foundation of all faith. However, the tradition of conservatives to base their faith on doctrinal test results raises the issue of whether they are in agreement with the Reformers who insist that the church must accept the verdict of God and should beware of an authoritarian and imperial attitude.
Faith, the Bible and Salvation
The other issue has to do with the desire to substitute an actual Word of God the Bible as an inerrant and infallible work. Much of the discussion concerning this topic is whether or not the Bible is actually an inerrant, infallible book. However, greater attention needs to be paid to the theological issue of whether the Bible is able to support such claims. The view that is conservative of the Bible isn’t one that is conceived following historical-critical research, rather one believed to be held prior to such study. This is a theological precept about the faith’s certainty. Conservatives believe that the Bible is absolute. If God is absolute The Bible itself has to be absolute. The definition that this concept. From the perspective of a believer, is the following: If faith is meant to be absolute, it has to have an absolute certainty as to its foundation, that, according to the conservative on, must be the Bible.
It is not clear that, since God can be absolute and absolute in his word, then every single detail of the Bible and evidence of God’s revelations is infallible. It is also not clear that since faith is an element of certainty, then the Bible must be that foundation because it is infallible. The syllogisms mentioned above have a docetic sound. They presume that the absolute is able to enter our worlds in a manner that is unambiguous (i.e., that it is unmistakable or hidden from view, and is self-evident and easily verified). They assume that humans can be a keeper of the God of heaven and claim to be an indestructible bridge between the heavens and the earth. Additionally, the use of the term “absolute” is itself problematic because it introduces the distinction between finite and absolute which has significant Hellenistic influence.
The use of such language is beneficial when one believes in the contradiction as a resolution of the conflict between finite and absolute. In the conservative interpretation of Scripture However, there is no contradiction; written words are essentially God’s Word. God regardless of the intervention by the Holy Spirit within our hearts. (It is ironic how the Roman Catholic tradition uses the same reasoning as the conservative tradition of Protestantism but only to defend the infallibility of the church. Conservatives are bold enough to oppose such an unjust conclusion regarding the Church, yet not with regards with Scripture. Bible.) Once the battle line has been drawn in the direction of the Bible conservatives must now replete its theories and explanations as to why it is that the Bible is not just impervious to error, but can actually in fact, if read correctly confirm all the new theories that have been discovered in the current age.
The third option is to consider faith itself a work of salvation. This is probably the most offensive characteristic that is characteristic of this particular American freedom-church movement. Faith has evolved into an all-powerful mechanical action that guarantees our salvation. Billy Graham can declare to an audience at a revival that you receive Jesus Christ in the easiest way. Just as the polio vaccine is given in a wafer, one is able to receive Jesus Christ by coming to the stage.
For some, faith is the healing power that will eliminate all physical issues. It’s the reason for a variety of claims that claim to solve every single one of our personal challenges and attaining world-wide success. The Christian faith seeks to reduce the ability that is God to a human process. A promotional ad in Graham’s most recent publications, How to Be Born Again, refers to “the simple steps to being spiritually reborn.” The faith of this kind is not the answer to the faith-based person in front of the divine words from God in Christ it is the foundation of faith and the force that saves. It is a work in ex operae opere. In this way, these actions are full circled and start to resemble the main ritual adversary of Protestantism that is, the mechanical perspective of rituals that are that is attributed to an ancient tradition.
The Risks of Faith
The author of Fundamentalism (Westminster 1978) James Barr states that fundamentalism results from the emergence of a particular religion which is the result of the spiritual experience of conversion, and the profoundly personal acknowledgment by Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. The experience of a fundamentalist is always under the shade of an organized church that appears to have lost the essence of religious beliefs. Barr’s thesis is a wealth of insights, it does not provide a reason for the conservative mindset. Because not every personal changes result in fundamentalist views of the Bible and the Bible, it is preferred to highlight an underlying trend that is the root of the religious zeal and the human desire to be certain.
I am not saying that a reductionist psychological view is the most important factor in understanding conservatives. Rather I would like to draw on the pursuit of certainty, which is born out of human anxiety and a sense of finitude. Conservative religion is flawed since it does not accept our insanity and the risks of faith. It is possible to say that the need for an absolute doctrine, an infallible text or a miracle-working faith is a method of seeking for signs and a search for an absolute certainty that can be verified and controlled by the human mind and rationality. It is actually evidence of God’s existence which is far more powerful than natural theology. Instead of focusing on faith as an action of a faith-filled heart that is directed towards God and God, it is the appearance of a certainty as a verifiable bridge that links heaven and earth.
This attitude from conservatives is particularly incongruous because they are known for their belief that Christianity is a personal relationship between the Christian and Jesus Christ. Therefore, one would expect conservatives to use this biblical base as the basis for their theology. The insistence on the Bible or doctrine as the sole source of theology is a breach of the Christological basis of faith. To declare the God’s sovereignty God and the grace of God implies that there is an infallible, self-evident link between the heavens and the earth apart from God’s work of salvation through Israel in the Old Testament and Jesus Christ. (Here we should be aware that the evangelical theology from Luther and Calvin challenge both the Catholics “infallible church” as well as the Bible that conservatives consider to be infallible.)
In the midst of the conflict between competing Protestant groups, it is necessary to have an understanding of the conflicts. The conservative and liberal mind-sets are polarized within Protestantism. If the liberal kind of person is less influenced to the Bible as well as creeds, creeds and traditions and is more focused on the demands of modernity and the modern world the conservative one tends to be the reverse. The conflict between conservative and liberal groups can be easily observed throughout the past three centuries. The same way, it is possible to trace a mediatorial theology that has been a part of the conflict between rival factions. The mediators of our times are the traditional and neo-orthodox theologies. This ambiguous middle ground is exactly the place where ecumenical Protestants ought to be. To exist in that space requires us to be able to claim the evangelical tradition that was the Reformation.
If we are to do this there are two aspects that are crucial. The first is that churches within the ecumenical centers must resist the temptation to emulate the traditional theology and the style, on the assumption that this is the only way to be successful. A strategy like this will cause confusion for the public as well as us. We do not need imitation, but the affirmation of our own culture as a valid way to identify and renew ourselves.
The third requirement is the growth of our own style of worship that is consistent with biblical and Reformation tradition. We’ve gone through a time when we sought to put service and mission at the forefront. It is now evident that this can’t be accomplished without a congregation that is grounded by the pursuit of Scripture as well as in worship and fellowship and in the taking care of souls. The church can’t answer the question of actions until it is clear about its existence in in the covenant that was made by Jesus Christ. This is the most fundamental challenge to conservatism: to remain solid in our adherence to a kind of piety rooted in Bible and creeds, yet is a beacon of faith that goes beyond them to God, the Lord over all.
