A few comments responding to my post about the label “evangelical” and why I can’t give it up have stimulated me to think about and attempt to explain the importance of understanding people’s contexts.
I’ve often wondered why some people I admire and consider fellow postconservative evangelicals eschew that label and even sometimes criticize me and other postconservatives or progressives among evangelicals. I’m thinking of one person in particular. I won’t name him here. But he is a very well known progressive evangelical president of an evangelical seminary.
I’ve read him and heard him speak and I know his career well. The seminary he heads is noted as a progressive evangelical institution and his writings have demonstrated that he is open to new ways of thinking and often defends progressive evangelical thinkers like Rob Bell.
But he was adamantly opposed to our Word Made Fresh manifesto (about which I blogged recently and posted at my old blog). He wrote a column for Books & Culture saying we should drop the “post-” and just be conservative evangelicals. When we invited him to our first annual meeeting of the Word Made Fresh Forum he refused to sign the statement and criticized Stan Grenz and others of us who were trying to carve out some space for fresh and faithful evangelical theological reflection.
I had a hard time with that. And he’s not the only one. But when I sat back and tried very hard to understand I realized something. He’s a member of a mainline Protestant denomination that is drifting far to the left politically and theologically. As I thought about others who I consider progressive evangelicals who seem ambivalent and ambigous about their commitments I realized every one of them–people I think of as open and progessive among evangelicals but at the same time take very conservative positions publicly–I realized they ALL belong to mainline denominations that are dying out because of their liberalism (read “nominal Christianity”).
On the other hand, I have worked my entire career in contexts where fundamentalism is the main threat–not mainline wishy-washy-ness. I and some of my friends have to look over our shoulders for the heresy hunters who would love nothing better than to ruin our reputations as evangelicals–sometimes by lying about us. (Yes, as I’ve explained before, that has happened to me many times.)
Those other folks, who I think are, for the most part, right where I am theologically but refuse to join any movement to promote openness among evangelicals, are all looking over their shoulders at the ruins of their mainline denominations being destroyed by liberal theology. (By “liberal” here I mean like the mainline Protestant seminary president who I heard give a paper title “God and her survival in a nuclear age” at the end of which she said she didn’t really know anything about God. She was clearly using “God” as a cipher for nature to give a religious sound to her politically-driven agenda.)
I will name on person as an example of what I’m talking about. One of my theological heroes, someone who died recently and to whom I am dedicating a book, was Donald Bloesch. He was my mentor “from afar.” That is, when I was wavering theologically, reading him rescued me. He showed me how to be both evangelical and progressive. However, late in his life and career Bloesch took a turn–not away from his progressive evangelical project but toward outspokenness against radical religious feminism (including inclusive language about God) and panentheism, process theology, etc.
Why? I think because he saw his own denomination, the United Church of Christ, going down the tubes, so to speak, into vapid liberal mushyness. At least that’s how I think he saw it. He wasn’t very concerned about fundamentalism as it was no threat to him. He taught his entire career at a mainline Protestant seminary. Without giving up any of his progressive evangelical openness (e.g., authority of Scripture without inerrancy and a “big tent” view of evangelicalism), his main concern became the danger of liberal theology in mainline denominations. That was his context.
Others of us have found ourselves in total agreement with Bloesch and other progressive evangelical theologians and leaders but having different concerns because of different contexts. I got to know Don Bloesch toward the end of his career and we thought very much alike. But I didn’t share his passion to fight radical feminism because it didn’t exist in my context. And he didn’t share my passion to promote biblical egalitarianism, although he embraced it, because his context was way, way beyond that.
My thesis is that there are very many progressive, even postconservative evangelicals who won’t jump on that bandwagon or get with our program because they are mainly concerned with fighting extreme liberalism and radical theology in their mainline denominations. In other words, THEIR “conservative evangelicalism” is virtually synonymous with my “postconservative evangelicalism” but we are facing opposite directions in terms of the dangers we face.
In the overall scheme of things, meaning in the wider world of so-called “mainline Protestantism” (which should probably really be called “old line Protestantism” as Martin Marty says), I AM VERY CONSERVATIVE! Yes, you heard that right. I’m conservative. But context determines what those labels mean. I’M NOT CONSERVATIVE compared to the neo-fundamentalists in my religious social context. I AM CONSERVATIVE compared to the liberals and radicals so populous in the so-called mainline academy and denominational hierarchies. For God’s sake (I mean that literally)–I believe in the supernatural. I believe in the Trinity. I believe in the deity of Jesus Christ. I believe in the resurrection. I believe in hell! All that makes me a dinosaur among mainline Protestants. But just because I don’t wave the inerrancy banner high and believe in women in ministry I’m a “liberal” or “post-evangelical” among neo-fundamentalists in the Southern Baptist Convention and other conservative evangelical contexts.
So when I say I’m “postconservative” I MEAN among evangelicals who I see as having swung dramatically to the right in recent decades. I DON’T MEAN I’m not conservative at all. In certain professional societies, for example, I stick out like a sore thumb as what many of them would consider a fundamentalist! I mean I can no longer consider myself a conservative within my own religious milieu which is evangelicalism because the center has shifted so dramatically to the right since I was in a centrist evangelical seminary.
For goodness sakes, people! I’m a premillennialist! 
Ben Witherington makes some very similar observations regarding context in his The Living Word of God: Rethinking the theology of the Bible.
Ah, great minds think alike. On the other hand, as the old Russian proverb says “Where two think alike, one is superfluous.” I guess it would be me. Oh, wait, I can think of one think (at least) that Ben and I disagree about.
Or as my mom used to tell me, “. . . and small minds seldom differ.”
You are very perceptive here. I consider myself an evangelical, though I am a United Methodist. I know enough to count myself as what you would call “post conservative,” but in my political setting such a designation is meaningless.
When I first came to faith in Christ (in high school) I was aware of two ways of being Christian: the nominal Christianity of my family’s church and fundamentalism. I knew I didn’t want the nominal version, so I slipped into the latter by default. Doing my undergraduate work at a denominational school made me more conservative as I rebelled against the liberal “orthodoxy” of the faculty. At the same time, however, I became aware of the resources of the broader Christian tradition, especially the Wesleyan origins of my own United Methodism. My MDiv at Asbury then solidified me in that direction, while PhD studies with Nancey Murphy deepened my view further. Now, relative to my ecclesial location, I usually feel an alien and stranger.
Hi Roger,
I think this kind of contextualizing is good and self-reflective. What I find strange is I don’t identify myself with post-conservatve at all even though I totally fit your description from orthodox beliefs to the problems of innerancy to women can be ministers. I quess I was a postmodern and postliberal theologically for long enough that “progressive evangelical” or “post-conservative” simply doesn’t fit with how I see my own identity shaping.
My view is Evangelicalism is drifting to the left that the center of tommorow will the left today. And much of your orthodoxy has been shaped by the church fathers whether you have qualms with how that should work out theologically today as mine has been shaped by them. I also remember a group that called themselves post-evangelicals which for many of them, was the last gasp before they turned away from Evangelicalism. I quess in the end, I applaud your staying power with Evangelical indentity and feel your frustration that you have some post-conservatives that are also problematic for you. So I guess we both may be Evangelicals to the end . . .
I really understand what you are saying here. I am Nazarene pastor who worked for a while for the Scottish Episcopal Church, a church noted for its liberalism and high church worship. In that context many viewed me with suspicion as a “fundamentalist” because I was part of an evangelical Wesleyan church.
Within the church of the Nazarene I know many view me with suspicion too but for the opposite reason, for going liberal due to my work the SEC and also our ecclesiology of our new church plant which meets mainly in homes and not necessarily at 11am on a Sunday morning.
Context is indeed everything!
You speak of how the center of evangelicalism “has shifted so dramatically to the right.” In my opinion that happened when several evangelical “leaders” decided to move strongly into politics by merging evangelicalism with the Republican Party. The dynamics of excluding people who are not on message in the political realm seem to be identical to the ways people like you are slammed for not conforming to certain expectations.
In my opinion, the attempt — largely successful — to use evangelical churches to accomplish political goals is one of the worst things that ever happened to the church in America. The politics of division is ugly and has no place in the church. Labels such as you are discussing are commonly used to serve the ends of such politics, not theology and faith.
-Barry
My only question is this: “What will we call things after post-conservative” or “post-modern”? I’ve always wondered that.
I think this is a great question . . . I have seen a few people call themselves post-postmodern and even “post-post-post modern.” This maybe shows some problem I have with the term “post.” I commend Roger for earlier articles I have read clearly defining and laying out a definition for post-conservative. I just for one simply don’t find these designations meaningful anymore (maybe for similar reasons like definition of innerancy that end in the end, die a death of a thousand qualifications).
Do we need definitions and labels or designations? Sure we do. I just wonder how useful or helpful some of our contemporary labels really are?
Here is a thought . . . Let’s say Jesus was a post-conservative. Even if that was true, does the term post-conservative really aid the discussion? I quess as one who has been trained in all this philosophical and theological language, I am amazed not only how Scripture is less theological in its terminology than us but even more, how unchurched people either could care less or don’t identity at all with what seems to them at “christianeaze.”
I see from your e-mail address, though, that you like the label “paleo-orthodox.” how many unchurched people would care about or understand that? Of course, often, when we are talking about labels we mean within a certain context. I only use “postconservative evangelical” within contexts where there is some understanding of “evangelical” and I need to distinguish myself from conservative evangelicals who are really neo-fundamentalists (in my opinion but not mine alone).
And I am with you on that Roger (distinguishing between varous froms of Evangelicals)
I will also add I am also questioning the use of the term paleo-orthodox as well :–) It may be a part of my email designation but I am not sure how helpful that term is anymore either . . .
I think this is helpful toward understanding people. Anyone who can’t accept that there are shades of difference probably dwells at one or the other radical end of the spectrum.
Do you ever hesitate to jump on some bandwagons you think are going in the right direction for fear of giving aid and comfort to either liberalism neo-fundamentalism?
Yes, to be sure. I worry that announcing to the world that I’m premillennial will give aid and comfort to dispensational fundamentalism. (I know a lot of people who don’t know there’s such a thing as “historic premillennialism” or that the likes of Jurgen Moltmann can be premillennial!) But I also worry that being supportive of open theism (as not heresy) will give aid and comfort to process theology (many people fail to see the important differences). But I don’t worry too much about these things. I want the world to know that the nice, neat little categories just don’t really work to explain the whole religious and even Christian world. Many of us don’t fix into their presupposed boxes.
Dr Olson, I would love to hear your thoughts sometime on the differences between open theism and process theology.
Simple. Open theists believe in God’s omnipotence. Process theologians deny it. There are other differences, of course, but that one serves clearly to distinguish between them. If you want more, see the book edited by Pinnock and Cobb Searching for an Adequate God.
You are so right, in the 70′s I attended a Nazarene college and was surprised to hear Charismatics described as liberal. I was surprised becuase I came from a Methodist setting were the Charismatics were considered conservative.
That’s hilarious! Who thought charismatics were “liberal.” But I’m not really surprised. I find many people who think “liberal Christian” means someone who likes contemporary worship.
There was a time when anyone who didn’t sign up to our little book’s rules on dress and behaviour were regarded as “liberal” whatever their theology
Right. I find it interesting that in the evangelicalism I grew up in a sure sign that someone was NOT evangelical was that they drank alcoho (even a glass of wine with dinner) or smoked. When I attended a symposium put on by a conservative Reformed group during which much was said about who is really evangelical (with non-Reformed people being excluded from being authentically evangelical) most of those leading the symposium went out to a local bar for “drinks” after the evening meetings. Among the evangelicals I grew up with they would thereby automatically exclude themselves from being truly evangelical.
Never mind the lunatics taking over the asylum, the Pharisees took over the church
You have a great point. So many times we think we’re disagreeing with each other when we’re really taking slightly different perspectives. Our context helps determine how much attention we pay to those differences.
Good post Roger.
In many ways I like what you are attempting to do in attempting to name a branch of evangelicalism that is separate from right wing evangelicalism. However my opinion is that a name not involving evangelical will ultimately be necessary. The media by making fundamentalist a dirty word seems to have caused many fundamentalists to rebrand themselves as evangelicals. But I expect that in a few years the media will refer to terrorists not as fundamentalist terrorists but as evangelical terrorists and the whole process will begin again. I’d also expect that the right wing evangelicals to define the term evangelical so as to exclude those not in agreement with themselves. For me one of the key characteristics of the old evangelicalism was a generous orthodoxy and not a separatistic movement, though of course I know of some exceptions and regret them. I don’t like giving up an identity that I have had for a long time but it seems necessary.
Dave W
Our only disagreement is about whether giving up the label evangelical is necessary. I’m just too stubborn (and invested in the label) to let the neo-fundamentalists have it.
Great post. As a former SBC Seminary student of 2 yrs and later one year at Bloesch’s Seminary, I understand the context thing real well. Bloesch is my theological cornerstone as a progressive evangelical but the SBC Seminary I once attended is now essentially a fundementalist school and would hang Bloesch for heresy.
When I attended it was not so and the Prof’s were pretty much moderates and good scholars and teachers.
Where you sit is where you stand. In my denomination, the UPUSA I can feel this from that side of the fence but having been in the SBC back in the 70′s I know what it’s like from the right.
Is this crazy or what?