I have been assured this will be published in the next issue of First Things.

To the Editor, First Things:

If Gerald McDermott is right, Martin Luther is the person ultimately responsible for liberal theology (“Evangelicals divided,” April, 2011).  Like those evangelicals McDermott labels “meliorists” (a term none of us use!), Luther dared to challenge time honored and settled traditions.  Of course, I disagree with McDermott that fresh and faithful biblical research that challenges traditional doctrinal formulations inclines toward liberalism.  True liberalism is, according to nineteenth century theology scholar Claude Welch, “maximal accommodation to the claims of modernity.”

McDermott’s meliorists (postconservative evangelicals) are the true Biblicists in the divide among evangelicals that he describes.  We do not advocate accommodation to culture; we regard Scripture as the sole ultimate norm for doctrine and practice.  For us that means everything outside of Scripture is at least in principle open to revision if fresh and faithful interpretation of Scripture demands it.

I reject McDermott’s characterizations of my approach to theology as I’m sure most, if not all, of those he calls meliorists do for theirs.  In fact, as a committed Protestant, I can only regard his elevation of tradition to functional infallibility an accommodation to Catholic theology.

Roger E. Olson

Professor of Theology

George W. Truett Theological Seminary

Baylor University

Waco, TX 76798

Read “Evangelicals Divided” by Gerald McDermott in the April (2011) issue of First Things.  Here is what I posted in the discussion following the article at First Things’ web site:

“Ken Collins speaks for me on this particular issue.  McDermott is delivering a most ungenerous and even distorted representation of my postconservative evangelical approach to theology.  I have told him and written that for me and other postconservatives the Bible is our ultimate standard and rule for faith and practice and what I fear is that the traditionalists are functionally adding some version of tradition to Scripture.  From where I stand this looks like the Catholic approach to tradition and Scripture more than like true Protestantism.  I am not anxious to revise tradition, but when fresh and faithful biblical research requires it, I’m open to that.  The door is not absolutely closed.  I, for one, at least, most emphatically do NOT believe theology should be accommodated to culture.  In none of my writings have I even suggested such.  I have always argued that Scripture is that to which we must be constantly accommodated and accommodating in theology.  The conflict within evangelicalism is not between traditionalists and fledgling liberals (which is what McDermott thinks postconservatives are) but between those who elevate tradition to a level of authority equal with Scripture and those who view Scripture as always standing above tradition and tradition as open to revision insofar as fresh and faithful biblical research requires it.”