Recently, two gentlemen (who I happily count as friends) shared on their blogs a bit of – what I will term – their journey ex evangelica (See here: Collin Cornell and Kevin Hughes). I found both of their
reflections challenging and insightful as they assessed some of the
difficulties they see native to the current Evangelical church and why those
issues, positive or negative, have caused them to ideologically separate
themselves to whatever degree seems best to them. As I joined them both on their separate but overlapping journeys of
rising theological awareness, I found myself questioning my own position and wondering
where I in fact stand in relation to all of these important issues.
What follows are some
of my own modest reflections on why I am not yet ready to make the exact same
move as they have:
First, for me the only true
theological project comes down to a search for truth. Insofar as any purported
theological system fails to sufficiently account for the variety of “real”
things, then that system fails as an adequate lens through which to see the
world. However, insofar as a given system is succeeds in cohering with the
“real” world, those tenets must be kept or we are at risk of fallaciously
disregarding truth merely for association with error - a grievous error indeed. Now, that being said,
Evangelical dogma certainly has had its difficulty in in recent years
accounting for a variety of things presented to it by left-wing
scholarship. Nevertheless, it doesn't seem prudent to ditch the whole Evangelical project because it's failure to interact with new ideas. I think there is truth, beautiful
truth found within the Evangelical ethos and I am as committed to believing that truth as I am to believing the truth found in liberal theology.
A second reason why I
am hesitant to sever ties with Evangelicalism stems from an epistemological
intuition. Very often I find that non-evangelical theologies bring along with them
a conspicuously unpalatable stance on the human acquisition of knowledge. More often
than not they seem to be dominated by a commitment to a post-Kantian dismissal
of knowing the real world per se.
For a number of reasons – not the least of which a basic intuition – an
approach to knowledge from this presupposition is difficult for me to swallow
and I cannot justify it for myself.
A third reason why I
cannot yet comfortably reject Evangelicalism comes from the tenuous nature of
modern theology. In a world where innovation is the name of the game, liberal
theology struggles to retain a clear definition. If I were to “convert”, then
to what would I convert? The liberation theology of Leonardo Boff? The
existential theology of Bultmann? The feminist theology of McFague? It all
seems a systematically confused to me. As far as I can tell, until another
theological system comes along that convincingly coheres, then it behooves me
to operate within the bounds I have been sovereignly given.
With these reflections
on the table, I am also prepared to make several concessions to the
non-evangelical:
First, it seems to me
that many liberal theological positions seek to do a better job of interacting
with the facts of the world than Evangelicalism does. I laud them for this and
happily grant that they in fact raise important awareness to this blind-spot in
the Evangelical camp. In fact, their chastisement of the Evangelical tendency
to hide and defend is duly noted and should be accepted without complaint. When
has the true message of Christianity ever been to run from new ideas and build
a wall for Jesus to hide behind? Never! If anything, true Christianity calls a
person deep into the fight! The essence of Christianity is not a list of ten
“fundamentals” to believe, it is a genuine expression of Jesus in us
interacting with messiness of the real world. I think that many liberal
theologies get this and Evangelicals would do well to pay attention to their
insight.
Second, and relatedly,
I admit that something desperately needs to be done with Evangelicalism. For
some damned reason, Evangelicalism seems to still want to fight the battles of
yesteryear. Unfortunately, whether we like it or not, it is not the 1940’s and
50’s anymore. It is time to wake up and see what life looks like in the modern
world. What does it mean to charitably deal with the issues of homosexuality,
female leadership in the church, secularism, etc.? The answer given today
cannot be the answer given to the Billy Graham generation. This is a new world
that needs theological answers for it’s specific questions. Let’s stop trying
to jam a square peg into a circle hole. No matter how hard you hit it, it’s not
going to go in.
Clearly, much more needs to be said and I do not anticipate these reflections will cause any of you to remain or become an Evangelical. But that was not my intention. If anything comes of this, I hope that my reflections give us all pause on our journey towards, away from, around, behind, through, or on top of Evangelicalism, so that the conclusions we come to are satisfactory in the long run and not disappointingly trendy or watered-down.
2 comments:
First, a few words of clarification: My account was not ex evangelica. I have not, in your words, “ditch[ed] the whole Evangelical project because it's failure to interact with new ideas.” I hope to pursue a version of evangelical that is more responsive to “new ideas” while also being true to its own best convictions.
Second, what in your view makes an epistemology “unpalatable”? Evangelicalism is a post-Enlightenment phenomenon, and all versions of it on offer today have made decisions methodologically and epistemically that are distinctively post-Kantian. This is not to say Kantian, but definitely all are in reaction to him.
Similarly, you credit liberal theology with “doing a better job of interacting with the facts of the world” than evangelical theology. But again, it seems to me that all theologies available at present interact with present facts – and do it differently. So what facts are you talking about?
Third, I am curious what in your view is so “tenuous” about “modern theology” (as over against evangelicalism, which you have once again absented, ahistorically, from this category)? In what way is evangelical theology more robust? In comprehensiveness? Methodological purity? Biblicism?
And what are you counting as “evangelical theology”? Machen? Grudem? Thielicke? Barth?
Collin, thanks for responding! I appreciate the clarification of your perspective as pursuing “a version of evangelical[ism] that is more responsive to ‘new ideas’ while also being true to its own best convictions.” Indeed, I understood you to intend this and I thoroughly appreciate your calculated, rigorous approach to developing a theological perspective. I apologize if my language failed to capture this nuance of your particular stance. I credit my lack of precision to attempting to deconstruct a broad spectrum of thought into manageable categories. Nevertheless, I stand by my chosen term (ex evangelica – out of evangelicalism) because it does seem to capture some of the essence of your journey. I don’t mean this term to be derogatory; merely descriptive.
Now, regarding my statement about the unpalatable nature of some epistemologies, I hear what you are saying regarding how – at this point in history anyway – all epistemologies are “post-Kantian” to some degree. Sure. I won’t disagree that anything that comes after Kant is “post-Kant.” But that seems like an uncharitable read of what I am actually saying. I am directly concerned with those theological systems that seem to adopt Kantian presuppositions into their epistemological approach. Again, this is just an intuition, but I am not yet comfortable buying into those sorts of systems because I sense in them a fatal flaw; namely, the inaccessibility of the real world and, in some way, inaccessibility to God. Call me crazy, but that seems like an anemic approach to the world.
I credit liberal theology with “doing a better job of interacting with the facts of the world” because it seems to me that these theological camps – however eddied they are – seem to be trying to address those new cultural, sociological, scientific, etc. parts of reality that a lot of Evangelicals seem hesitant to engage with. I assume that you would concur with me when I say that shying away from these delicate topics or not answering them with well-thought out, relevant answers could be considered “not interacting with the facts of the world.”
Third, I find much of modern theology to be “tenuous” due to its ever-evolving nature. Granted, all theology ebbs and flows with the changing tides of culture (and all that goes in hand with culture) and, as you point out, Evangelical theology cannot be justifiably “absented” from this reality. However, it does seem to me that much of modern theology has left the mooring of historical orthodoxy in one way or another and this is what I find to be so distasteful. At least right now, I cannot imagine a complete restructuring of theology to fit with a modern world, but a careful reappropriation of historic Christian thought for a new generation. I think that – at least for now – evangelicalism seems to retain more of this essential, orthodox Christianity and that is why I find it more robust. Now, as I said, Evangelicalism needs to be more comprehensive, which is where up and coming theologians will find their task.
Finally, I don’t know that I am prepared right now to label the evangelical theology I speak of with a particular theologians name. You and I both know the complexities of that decision and how one person will inevitably fail to perfectly exemplify what it means to be an evangelical.
Post a Comment