Previously I confessed that I can no longer call myself an \u201cevangelical\u201d without qualification.\u00a0 The term has been so sullied by the media and by fundamentalists within the evangelical movement (insofar as that even exists anymore!) that I find it necessary to say that I am some particular kind of evangelical to distance myself from the popular perceptions promoted by the media and also from many self-appointed spokesmen for evangelicalism.<\/p>\n
Some years ago (around 1998) I adopted the adjective \u201cpostconservative\u201d to qualify my \u201cevangelical\u201d identity.\u00a0 Of course, as with any relatively new and unfamiliar term, people have misunderstood it and some have (I believe sometimes) intentionally misrepresented it.\u00a0 (A few critics have claimed it means unfettered theological experimentation.)<\/p>\n
Here and in some future posts I will explain what being \u201cpostconservative evangelical\u201d means to me.\u00a0<\/p>\n
First, the main label is \u201cevangelical\u201d (in this phrase): \u201cpostconservative\u201d modifies it.\u00a0 By no means does \u201cpostconservative evangelical\u201d mean \u201cpostevangelical\u201d (a la Dave Tomlinson and others).\u00a0 I am an evangelical first (after Christian, of course) and postconservative after that.<\/p>\n
Sidebar: A word about the origin of the term \u201cpostconservative.\u201d\u00a0 When I first used it in Christian Century magazine in about 1998 I was not aware of anyone having used it before me.\u00a0 Later I found that Clark Pinnock had used the term earlier, but in a different way.\u00a0 Then I began to wonder about something.\u00a0 One of the books that influenced me most during my seminary years was a little theological autobiography by Fuller Seminary professor Jack Rogers entitled \u201cConfessions of a Conservative Evangelical.\u201d\u00a0 The title never made sense to me since the book is his story of emergence from fundamentalism.\u00a0 So I called Jack at his home in California and asked him what the original title was\u2013suspecting it may have been \u201cConfessions of a Postconservative Evangelical.\u201d\u00a0 (Publishers choose titles and authors are often not very happy with what ends up on the front cover of their books.\u00a0 Theologian Bernard Ramm once told me he hated the title \u201cAfter Fundamentalism.\u201d\u00a0 The title he gave his manuscript was what the publisher made its subtitle: \u201cThe Future of Evangelical Theology.\u201d)\u00a0 Rogers confirmed my suspicion.\u00a0 His original title for the book was \u201cConfessions of\u00a0a Postconservative Evangelical.\u201d\u00a0 The publisher, he said, dropped the \u201cpost\u201d and left the book with the confusing title.<\/p>\n
Second, \u201cpostconservative\u201d DOES NOT MEAN \u201canti-conservative.\u201d\u00a0 When someone puts \u201cpost\u201d in front of a label they do not mean \u201canti-\u201d or else they would have used \u201canti-.\u201d\u00a0 The prefix \u201cpost\u201d means what philosopher Hegel called \u201csublation\u201d (in German \u201cAufhebung\u201d which has no good English translation).\u00a0 It means something like \u201ctaking the good and leaving the bad.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n
I am most decidedly NOT \u201canti-conservative.\u201d\u00a0 But I can\u2019t call myself simply conservative, either.\u00a0 In today\u2019s evangelical movement \u201cconservative evangelical\u201d usually equates with a new form of fundamentalism that insists on biblical inerrancy (for authentic evangelical faith) and tends to privilege one of two magisterial traditions in theological work: either the ancient ecumenical consensus (a la Oden and Dan Williams) or the \u201creceived evangelical tradition\u201d (a la Millard Erickson and others).<\/p>\n
I respect those traditions, but I do not regard them as incorrigible; like all human traditions they are open to revision in the light of faithful and fresh biblical scholarship.\u00a0 To me, this is simply what sola scriptura means and I fear many conservative evangelicals have given up on sola scriptura out of fear of unfettered theological experimentation and have adopted a theological method that is implicitly more Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic\u2013with tradition (however identified) serving alongside Scripture as its necessary means of interpretation.<\/p>\n
Third, the main point, the heart of, postconservative evangelicalism is the idea that \u201cGod always has new light to break forth from his Word\u201d (Puritan John Robinson\u2019s statement to his congregation as they left for New England).\u00a0 In other words, the constructive task of theology is never finished.\u00a0 Whereas, I believe, most conservative evangelicals see the constructive task of theology as finished and the only continuing task being critical.<\/p>\n
An example is the (primarily) post-WW2 emphasis in much Christian theology on the suffering of God.\u00a0 The idea that God could suffer was almost unheard of before WW2; God\u2019s \u201csuffering\u201d was only in and through the incarnation.\u00a0 Only the Son of God in his incarnate state could suffer.\u00a0 God himself could not suffer.\u00a0 This was orthodox doctrine.\u00a0 After WW2, however, many otherwise orthodox Christians began to question the biblical status of the doctrine of God\u2019s impassibility.\u00a0 According to theologian Ron Goetz, the suffering of God became the \u201cnew orthodoxy.\u201d\u00a0 I wouldn\u2019t go that far.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Even evangelicals began to question whether perhaps the traditional doctrine of God\u2019s impassibility is unbiblical in light of the scriptural narrative that identifies God as suffering the rejection of his people and Jesus crying over Lazarus\u2019 death, etc.\u00a0 Dietrich Bonhoeffer wrote in one of his letters from prison \u201cOnly the suffering God can help.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n
This is a prime example of the constructive task of theology in action as the reconstruction of a traditional dogma.\u00a0 German theologian Juergen Moltmann has probably done more than anyone else to build on this idea; he has let it deconstruct and reconstruct the whole framework of traditional Christian theism in books like The Crucified God.<\/p>\n
I do not believe in rushing to deconstruct and reconstruct traditional Christian doctrines.\u00a0 Not at all.\u00a0 The newness of open theism is perhaps the main reason I hesitate to embrace it.\u00a0 BUT I will embrace it if I become convinced it is more biblical than the traditional view of God\u2019s foreknowledge.\u00a0 That\u2019s what makes me postconservative\u2013openness to new ways of theological thinking on the basis of fresh and faithful biblical research.<\/p>\n
Many evangelicals have been more than hesitant to apply my label \u201cpostconservative\u201d to themselves even when they are models of that approach to evangelical theology.\u00a0 My friend Stan Grenz was a model of it, but he refused to apply it to himself.\u00a0 An evangelical reviewer of my book Reformed and Always Reforming in Christianity Today slammed the label which I thought was ironic as, in my opinion, anyway, he fit the profile of a postconservative evangelical very well.<\/p>\n
So, may only I will apply the label to myself.\u00a0 That\u2019s fine.\u00a0 But I find it necessary to say something about what kind of evangelical I am and \u201cpostconservative\u201d fits very well.\u00a0 Most importantly, I cannot call myself a \u201cconservative evangelical\u201d because that would put me in the same camp as those who are unwilling to reconsider traditional doctrinal formulations.\u00a0 I can say that I am in some sense conservative because I have respect for the Great Tradition of Christian doctrine, but I cannot simply apply \u201cconservative\u201d without qualification because my respect does not extend to slavish adherence or uncritical defense of everything contained in the Great Tradition.<\/p>\n
More to come\u2026.<\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Previously I confessed that I can no longer call myself an \u201cevangelical\u201d without qualification.\u00a0 The term has been so sullied by the media and by fundamentalists within the evangelical movement (insofar as that even exists anymore!) that I find it necessary to say that I am some particular kind of evangelical to distance myself from […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":58,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-68","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"yoast_head":"\n