In an interesting new e-book by Carl Trueman called The Real Scandal of the Evangelical Mind, Trueman revisits the question originally posed by Mark Noll, but with an emphasis not on the mind of the evangelical, but with the term evangelical itself. Trueman writes,
For there to be a scandal of the evangelical mind, there must not be just a mind, but also a readily identifiable thing called ‘evangelical’ and a movement called ‘evangelicalism’–and the existence of such is increasingly in doubt.
In evangelical churches today, a great deal of ministry focus is grounded in what we call the doctrinal essentials because these essentials have historically been the foundation for the meaning of evangelical. These essentials include personal conversion, sharing the gospel, biblical authority and inerrancy, and the death and resurrection of Jesus.
Among these essentials, is there truly agreement on those who identify as evangelicals? At the most basic level, while there is agreement on the need for salvation, how salvation occurs is the never-ending debate. Surely we can come to some agreement on the doctrine of election and the age-of-accountability…or can we?
This will definitely be a topic of discussion among evangelicals and non-evangelicals for some time, but it raises an important question for us as a church that we need to consider now. How important are doctrinal distinctives among Christians? Does it matter what we believe about baptism, the meaning of communion, or when/if Christians will be raptured? I believe that by not answering the question, we are answering the question: doctrinal distinctives are of little importance. While these are complicated doctrinal questions, we run the risk of not standing for anything at all as 21st century, not evangelicals, but Christians. Perhaps the term “evangelical” has served as an umbrella term to provide unity among Christ followers, but has actually been a detriment and caused us to compromise our doctrinal reality.
February 7th, 2011 | 9:48 am | #1
I love the word Christian. It’s a good word. But many use that word, and it doesn’t mean what it means because someone says, “I’m a Christian. I accepted Christ.” Barak Obama has said this, and yet is he a genuine Christian? He seems to be a pluralistic naminal Christian at best.
I don’t use the word evangelical. Maybe I should.
I’ll have to ponder your post a little more.
Thanks.
February 7th, 2011 | 2:39 pm | #2
Richard Pratt uses the device of a “cone of certainty” containing all one’s beliefs. As one moves up the cone from the wider base to the smaller point, one’s certainty about the issue rises and the number of issues present decreases.
For instance, he said he’d put infant baptism, which he practices, somewhere in the middle of the cone, which means, he said, he believes it but is not willing to die for that belief. The trinity on the other hand is nearer the top and is something he thinks is worth dying for.
Perhaps this model can help us navigate divergent traditions and beliefs with a common core.
February 7th, 2011 | 2:47 pm | #3
When it comes to “evangelical” here we’re not dealing so much with the term but with the abuse of the term in popular circles. There are many who use the term but whose doctrine violates the reformation principle which gave it the meaning we would like to preserve. In that light, and borrowing from MF, perhaps we need a cone of shame for Benny Hinn, Karl Barth, Tony Campolo, and all others whose various errors and heresies abrogate the historic depth of the term.
February 8th, 2011 | 4:53 am | #4
“perhaps we need a cone of shame for Benny Hinn, Karl Barth, Tony Campolo, and all others whose various errors and heresies abrogate the historic depth of the term.”
Benny Hinn – Cone of shame. Okay. (Although doesn’t he run in Dale Coulter’s circles?)
Tony Campolo – Cone of shame. Okay.
Karl Barth – Cone of shame. Okay with me.
But lots of people wax highly in their praise of Barth, saying things like he was the greatest theologian of the 20th century and so forth.
Anyways, I was rather surprised and pleased to see that Collin recommended Barth for the cone of shame. There are plenty of folks who would strongly disagree with Collin on that one.
February 8th, 2011 | 10:09 am | #5
I, for one, find it astonishing that Collin appeals to a “reformation principle” and proceeds to denounce Karl Barth. Could one find a more thoroughly Reformational theologian (in that he draws on both Calvin and Luther – not to mention countless other Reformers and Protestant scholastics)? I’ll chalk that up to ignorance on Collin’s part, and move on (unless, of course, he prefers to offer a smidgen of evidence for his accusation of “errors and heresies” – generally a good idea when one makes those kinds of accusations).
Benny Hinn? Sure. I remember something about three trinities or something.
Tony Campolo? I’ll just guess that this is because he’s a Democrat (at least I think so?). If you want evangelicalism to be a bunch of US Republicans who watch Fox News, go for it. I’ll be outside your little tent, along with millions of others who believe in Jesus Christ. (I’m not a Democrat; I’m just opposed to these political witch-hunts to which right-wing evangelicals seem prone.)
February 8th, 2011 | 1:04 pm | #6
Stephen,
This is a theological question, not a political one. I go after Barth and Campolo for their dialectical error. While some defend Barth on this matter, it is at least worthy of conversation whether his work should properly be termed “dialectical” or merely “post-enlightenment” theology. It is nevertheless seriously tainted.
February 8th, 2011 | 2:22 pm | #7
I have no problem with Collin yanking Barth out of the bus driver’s seat and throwing him under the bus.
“No more bus driving for you, Dr. Barth!”
February 8th, 2011 | 2:55 pm | #8
Collin,
I’m familiar with something like 73 different uses of the word ‘dialectical,’ and none of them that I can recall directly pertain to heresy. Could you be more clear as to Barth’s doctrinal error?
I’m not in full agreement with Barth’s theology, and I’m certainly not a follower of Campolo; I merely think that these sorts of accusations need to be backed with at least some evidence. As of right now, you might as well have called these people ‘poopyheads’ or ‘loserfaces’ with the lack of substantive critique (or even a hint of such) that has been demonstrated thus far.
February 9th, 2011 | 5:46 pm | #9
Stephen,
If you are honestly familiar with the theology of Barth then I would also assume that you are familiar with the controversies. But apparently that is not the case. And I take it your “73″ is a hyperbolic reference to Heinz catsup. His dualistic issue is certainly nothing immediately like Marx and Hegel, or even like a scientific analytical approach. Still, with those two fascinating Germans in his immediate past, one cannot help but see him hang on to something of their dualistic method, to clearly not to their conclusions.
Barth,as I understand it, disliked the term “dialectical” as representing an accurate description of his approach. That is why I allowed what I think is a more accurate categorization — post-enlightenmentz — to describe his dualisms. And that is the problem. It goes to how he approaches God. His paradoxical approach creates an issue for it seems he just cannot fully escape (at least not methodologically) the historicism which he rejected. Instead of fully rejecting the error of his contemporaries he proceeds to introduce this new dualistic method, contrary to historical theology. This is Barth’s new orthodoxy, a system which he imposed upon Scripture. That is his error and heresy.
February 10th, 2011 | 11:27 am | #10
Collin,
I only say that they are 73 kinds of ‘dialectic’ as a hyperbolic reference to just how many there are. It’s one of those words that says almost nothing these days.
As for Barth, I am familiar with the term ‘dialectic’ being opposed to Balthasar’s use of ‘analogy,’ but I suspect that you would rather not let Barth become Catholic or anything by letting go of ‘dialectic’ in that sense; so I couldn’t believe that that was what you were talking about. As for it being a system that dictates his reading of Scripture, it is pretty much entirely derived from Luther and Kierkegaard, who I suspect you don’t accuse of errors and heresies. Speaking of such systems, surely you’ve heard of Law and Gospel? Also, I would never have called Barth “historicist.” I’m not sure what that even means (or what connection at all there is between Barth and Marx, other than the fact that Barth was a socialist).
And I have to admit that I find it a bit rude of you to accuse me of not knowing about Barth because I didn’t understand a very vague insinuation about ‘dialectic.’ I’ve read a few volumes of the Church Dogmatics as well as secondary authors including McCormack, Hunsinger, Webster, etc.; and your assumed notion of ‘dialectic’ being opposed to Scripture just doesn’t line up with anything I’ve read there. I suspect that you’re bluffing to cover up an ill-advised accusation about Barth.
February 10th, 2011 | 2:11 pm | #11
Collin,
Thank you for finally saying something instead of lobbing unproven accusations. To be honest, I think you’re a bit out of your depth in criticizing Barth. I am familiar with two main ways in which Barth can be read “dialectically”: Against Balthasar’s notion of analogy and with McCormack’s reading of the veiledness/unveiledness aspect of Barth’s crucicentric Christology. I’d suspect that you’re referring to something like what McCormack discusses, but I am surprised that, as one who holds to a “reformation principle” you would attack an essentially Lutheran position on revelation.
Also, if you don’t think that systems should be used to read Scripture, what do you do with Law and Gospel? But, you might protest, that is there in Scripture! So, Barth would contend, is his own “system” insofar as he has one (though I’m fairly shocked that you would call Barth of all theologians systematic – something that he tried to avoid being).
By the way, please don’t assume that the fact that people don’t understand your own vague and unconventional use of terms means that they are just ignorant. See, for instance, Michael Beintker’s claim (discussed in McCormack’s Karl Barth’s Critically Realistic Dialectical Theology) that there are 4 distinct kinds of “dialectic” that one can find in the second edition of Barth’s Romans commentary alone. So shouting “dialectic” over and over again is not helpful and only leads me to think that you’re bluffing because you have no actual argument and didn’t expect anyone to call you out on it.
February 10th, 2011 | 7:34 pm | #12
Stephen,
It is tough to avoid vagueness and generalizations in blog comments. They are not, after all, places for substantive essays.
What I’m observing here is that you are reading Barth from within Barth, and not with external criticism in mind. It also appears that you are unwilling to accept that I clarified the term dialectic with something which I suspect many might deem more appropriate.
Yes, the simple generalization of “dialectical” is insufficient. I’ve not read McCormack, but enough of Barth and enough of historic orthodoxy to understand the problem.
Am I out of my league to suggest that Barth’s dualisms resulted in his unique and problematic view of inspiration? To suggest that inspiration is merely subjective ought to be problematic, and would certainly have been so to the reformers, likely even more than to us.
Perhaps it is you who might consider a cessation from presumption.
February 10th, 2011 | 8:06 pm | #13
So you refer me to an article that insists that Barth AND Calvin (and the entire Reformed tradition!?) are unorthodox in their view of Scripture? Who exactly has ever been orthodox enough, then (other than, presumably, Jesus, Martin Luther, and the writers of Scripture – oh yeah, and Ken Schurb)?
Also, you should have just said that your problem was with Barth’s doctrine of Scriptural inspiration, rather than with “dialectic.” It didn’t make you seem more knowledgeable to use a big word like that instead of being direct. I wasn’t objecting to your explanation of what you meant by “dialectic” when you finally offered it, but only to the fact that you acted as if it was my fault for not understanding you right away.
Finally, I’ll just note that I am not a Barthian by any means (so I’m not stuck within some system of his), even though I see a lot of value in some of his dogmatic theology; I’m just a bit shocked that you would claim that he is guilty of “errors and heresies.”
February 10th, 2011 | 10:08 pm | #14
Who said I agreed with everything in that post? Sheeesh. Even Origen defended against Arianism, iirc.
No. My problem, as I stated clearly, is *first* with his dualistic approach. One of the results of that is his messed up doctrine of inspiration. So please learn to read.
(It’s not that you did not understand right away. It’s that you bypassed some clear statements. I offered an alternative right away ["post-enlightenment"] and more in the next. But ignoring these seems to be convenient.)
You’re shocked that these would be classed as errors and heresies? I do wonder if you have read much evangelical analysis of Barth. Much at all, else you would not be at all shocked to hear this. Unless of course, you perhaps see inspiration as relatively unimportant.
February 11th, 2011 | 9:07 am | #15
No, the thing is, Calvin DOES have a very similar perspective to Barth on inspiration. For that matter, so did Origen. And Aquinas. And Augustine. If some evangelical critics think that Barth is outside the mainstream of historic orthodoxy by reading Scripture both literally and spiritually (“objectively” and “subjectively,” as you might put it – or, both “historical-grammatically” and “theologically,” as he does throughout the Church Dogmatics), then they are wrong.
To be more precise, Barth followed Origen’s three-fold account of the Word of God: It is Jesus Christ, the Bible, and the preached word. Only the last of those is, for us, fully the word of God, and that is the word of God to us now in “preaching” (contemporaneous with us, as Kierkegaard would say – not necessarily literally preached). In this way, the Holy Spirit makes Jesus present to us, especially ethically, Barth taught.
Also, as critics of NT Wright have pointed out, there are about 73 (I know, that number again) different kinds of “dualism” – mind-body, spirit-nature, good-evil, God-world, human-animal – among others. So, no, dualism didn’t explain anything either.
And what does “post-enlightenment” explain? It could mean anything from DA Carson to Jacques Derrida to Thomas Jefferson to Marshall McLuhan, depending on what you mean by it.
February 11th, 2011 | 10:52 am | #16
Stephen,
You have now made the terminology so broad as to be meaningless. So when I point out a specific dualistic issue with Barth, you retreat to an obfuscation on the definition of dualism and the historic understanding of an objective revelation as though that is equivalent to Barth’s subjective one. The idea that the Word takes effect with preaching is different that it becoming the Word when preached. That’s a problem for Barthians. To suggest otherwise is to not understand theology very well.
Did you not see that the appeal to dualisms in the “post-enlightment” term? Perhaps the influence of other German thinkers of the era (Kant/Hegel) escapes you. Barth’s type of spiritual actualization is very consistent with Hegel’s view of freedom, especially as expressed in Maslow’s hierarchy, a plainly Hegelian construct. (Another example of why his is a “post-enlightenment” method rather than an historically Christian theological framing.)
February 11th, 2011 | 12:06 pm | #17
Collin,
I was merely pointing out why I didn’t understand what you were talking about at first (and why you were being unnecessarily condescending), not saying that you didn’t explain yourself later on.
Also, I don’t think that you have encountered much of any sympathetic analysis of Barth, given that you are using Maslow to explain him. And I have no idea why “post-enlightenment” and “historically-Christian” are mutually exclusive categories. Was Augustine not historically Christian because he was a bit of a Platonist? It’s not that there can’t be a legitimate critique of Barth; I just think that you’re trying to turn a molehill into a mountain and undercutting your attempted critique by doing so.
February 12th, 2011 | 6:06 pm | #18
Condescending? Really? If you say so.
So again advance your point through obfuscation.
It is neither difficult nor inconsistent to insist that the acquisition of secular philosophy taints theology. Augustine, as I’m certain you know, went through various phases in his understanding of Scripture. His quasi-Platonism was absolutely problematic. But his view on God’s sovereignty is consistent with the plain teaching of the Bible. There are parts which fall in line with Biblical theology while there are others which fall outside. It is not always a b&w issue. Barth’s view of inspiration falls outside historic theology despite your assertions.
Perhaps you are not familiar with the leading post-enlightenment philosophers and theologians in Germany during the 19th c. Whether we begin with Schleiermacher or Kant (arbitrarily, of course, as there are others earlier available for the same purpose) the problem of dualistic thinking was “in the air” as they say. Many of the problems faced in Germany in the 19th & 20th centuries are a direct result of these theological and philosophical constructs.
Plenty of critiques of Barth center on his dualitic errors. I’m certainly not alone.
February 12th, 2011 | 10:50 pm | #19
“[T]he acquisition of secular philosophy taints theology”!?
I’m sorry, but anyone who says that sort of thing and then lumps all “leading” 19th century German philosophers and theologians into the category “post-enlightenment” in order to reject them without critically appraising individual thinkers really confuses me. (Not to mention that your rejection of Plato would make the writings of the Fathers look like Jefferson’s Bible). I thought we were coming from somewhere somewhat similar, but that seems to not be the case, so I have to give up on this attempt at dialogue regarding Barth. My apologies.
February 13th, 2011 | 1:35 pm | #20
Stephen,
Oh, I could delve into Ritchl’s dualistic ethical construct (kingdom v life), or Kant’s Platonistic heritage, or Schleiermacher’s similar system, Hegel’s social dualisms, or the materialistic dualism of Marx/Engels. Such would clarify the point easily. And I assumed such knowledge available to you and even known, given your apparent knowledge base, unless …
It really is amazing to me that you know so much about Barth and his critics. I could easily surmise that you are involved in some level of church leadership or are in education. But the lack of sophistication in your defense suggests that you’ve never succeeded as you wish, so you instead argue through obfuscation to make your points.
… unless of course your whole purpose is to bait me and somehow make me appear uneducated, rash, or otherwise foolish. In either case this thread has run its course and should end.
February 17th, 2011 | 7:36 pm | #21
“Perhaps the term “evangelical” has served as an umbrella term to provide unity among Christ followers, but has actually been a detriment and caused us to compromise our doctrinal reality.”
I don’t know. Perhaps you are right. I have noticed that some folks take pains to emphasize that they are “Reform Christians” or “Reform Evangelicals” to differentiate themselves away from the generic “Evangelical.”
February 18th, 2011 | 8:37 am | #22
There’s a debate breaking out over whether the Mormon religion can be classified and defined as a Christian religion.
Mormons want the word or term Christian to be identified with them. Generally, Protestants, Catholics, and Eastern Orthodoxers don’t want to extend the word or term Christian to Mormons.
What I’m learning is that fighting for language, fighting for words, fighting for definitions, fighting for meaning, fighting for objective meaning … really, really matters!
Eg., the fight over the term or word or concept of marriage.
Linguistic or semantic fisticuffs is necessary, and dare I say it, even good.
Look at the fights over the Bible and what it means, what the original authors mean, what the proper hermeneutic is, and on and on and on.
Shepherds and wolves have to fight. True shepherds and false shepherds have to fight. Fighting is okay. Have you ever heard the phrase: “Fight the Good Fight”?
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact