Imagining the Evangelical and Evangelical Positioning

The term “evangelical” like the Gospel, is the common property of all Christians. As I come to this conversation, I am thinking about Wolfhart Pannenberg’s prediction for the 21st century: Christianity will be made up primarily of three groupings: Orthodox, Catholic and Evangelical. When Pannenberg chose these broadest Christian categories two basic orientations were in mind: essential Christian identity markers and that “evangelical” had come to mean something which is both modern and orthodox. This latter was in contrast to the declining liberal theology and ecclesiology that was so defining of Protestantism over the past two centuries. In contrast to evangelical theology, liberal theology had more or less abandoned the reality of revelation through Christ as either completely contested, de-centered and anthropocentric or only part of the historic symbology of the Christian religion and nothing more

“Evangelical” stands next to Orthodox and Catholic (each of which stand for highly diverse communities and are, “lower case” distinct adjectives for Christianity itself). But I am resistant, I must confess, to the term “evangelicalism” – as used in the titles of all proposed seven topics to be addressed in this conversation. It is the -ism part of this term that causes me pause, as I hope it does on the part of many of my contemporaries in Evangelical theology. Let us be clear, in common educational parlance, the “-ism” suffix denotes a certain constellation of “modern” categories that do not at all overlap with what theology does vis-à-vis the church and the world  when scripture is exposited in the pursuit of Christian living.  This matter points as well to the very tricky tradition of “Christian apologetics” at the liminal spaces between theology and philosophy, or, as some might more negatively assert, in the spaces of cultural warfare and cultural popularity contests. In some cases, the apologetics’ bent is so passionate that it risks further devolution into the territory of banal ideology and even personality cult in the pursuit of truth for the public square. In addition, “-isms” are too frequently about political validation and utility; the vying for social privilege and offerings to power of justificatory arguments at a religious level – you can’t get any higher approbation than God’s for your political party or nation state. “Evangelicalism” simultaneously over- and under- determines what the term could mean. Orthodox or Catholic would not use the term “evangelicalism”, but gladly use “Evangelical” as appropriate for their own traditions. On its face the term is inadequate much like the now infrequently used, “Catholicism”, and the impossible “Orthodox-ism”. No self-respecting Protestant ought to use the term. What we look might look for is Christianity as the Evangel; along with the Evangelical Church(es), Evangelical Theology, Evangelical Christianity. With the –ism, “evangelical” seems to become terminological and ill-fated; much like the appropriation of “supernaturalism” and the “supernatural” – in spite of a modern attempt to “naturalize” the terms to Christian affirmation. Like supernaturalism with its origins in literary circles, “evangelicalism” is neither confessional nor ecclesiological and merits a gradual retirement from the scene.

The title of this contribution, “Imaging the Evangelical…”, risks making a little reminder that while Evangelical, Orthodox and Catholic may be the order of priority for evangelical identity, theologizing is always a tertiary, multidimensional task, radically grounded in our lived moments, even if we are couching our formulations in the most traditionalist frameworks. There are many products of the imagination as a fundamental feature of mental life and rationality – all the way from the critical formation of scientific propositions to elaborate myths of culture. Christian theology has always had exponents who held that the wedding of faith and reason practices a kind of science that responds cognitively to the revelation of God in Christ. This is certainly what Thomas Aquinas had in mind as did Thomas F. Torrance of blessed memory. Karl Barth, “The Evangelical Church Father”, was emphatic about any ascription to “myth” regarding what proper theology does as always pejorative, let alone in any referencing at all to the biblical text. Indeed, it is precisely at points where Barth is most emphatically “evangelical” that his Reformed theology continues to be contested: denied, by those who are insistent to appropriate him on their own terms and propounded, by those who are insistent upon necessary corrections and advancements afforded by the Reformation.

By use of the term, “Positioning”, the title also denotes a diverse spectrum of Christianity or “Christianities” as some might prefer. Modern evangelicals, particularly of the American kind, have played out their own doctrinal polemic in their generations of opposition to theological “liberalism” (the fitting term juxtaposed to “evangelicalism”) – an opposition that has been entirely mutual. It has been often noted that the singularly most decisive contribution of J. Gresham Machen to modern theology is his book: Christianity and Liberalism (1923) which proffered the judgment that “liberal Christianity” was an altogether different religion than historic Christianity. Since the first half of the 20^th century with all its fundamentalist / modernist splits, the massive creation of parachurch organizations after 1945 and the continuing commitment to evangelization, by the 1970’s, a new ecumenism became evident with the appearing of many Roman Catholic / Evangelical and Orthodox / Evangelical alliances. Mainline Protestantism had been precipitously declining in terms of mission and theological leadership: imploding more from within than from critical debate with the too often separatist evangelicals as they too often policed only their own ranks. Nothing quite illustrates this latter better than Harold Lindsell’s Battle for the Bible (1978); a struggle within that continues to claim victims and trophies. Evangelicalism suffers terribly often by what it rejects than what it affirms – or at least so it appears. Not ecclesiologically hierarchical as Catholicism and Orthodoxy, evangelicals and their movements are actually quite attentive to confessional norms in theology. Are evangelical lay persons any more biblically illiterate than their Catholic or Orthodox counterparts? Probably not and there is certainly a great deal of cross-fertilization of biblical and traditional theologies amongst them. Evangelicals, whether Reformed or Wesleyan (is it necessary to add “Baptist” and “Pentecostal”?), more and more position themselves alongside Catholic and Orthodox while retaining some kind of essential hold to the Reformation with its concentration on essentials of soteriology.

Finally, for the moment, I would like to conclude this little position paper with reference to soteriology. Luther’s original query: “How can I get a gracious God?” is still the central evangelical question. Vitally connected to this question are the “five sola’s” of the epoch: Christ alone, grace alone, scripture alone, faith alone, to God alone be the glory. This pattern, and a multitude of variants, is a theological hermeneutic that is distinctly evangelical and hard to dismiss, even from Catholic and Orthodox perspectives. It is driven by a soteriological priority where the ground of revelation is Christ and Christ is known through the revelation that is scripture. The traditions of evangelical theology and mission are dizzyingly varied and often regarded as destructive of Christian unity. More and more, my tendency is to see the different ways in which diversity is dealt with across the three major expressions of Christianity. I like the sociological assessment of monotheism’s diversity in the history of human civilizations by Rodney Stark – its immense diversity is anthropological evidence of its persuasiveness.