Can Two Walk Together

Can two walk together, unless they are agreed? Agreed on what?

It is nothing new that people are questioning the evangelical movement; there have been an assortment of books and articles questioning the boundaries of the evangelical movement, and now there is at least one Southern Baptist seminary professor who refuses to be called an evangelical. For those of you who know about RPG (formerly RPS; formerly, formerly RATS), one of our main goals is to critique the evangelical movement in order to show its unbiblical foundation and ineffectual impact on the culture. (Our other main goal is tightly related to this; namely, to promote the philosophical system known as Scripturalism, which is really just the solution to the problems of evangelicalism).

While many people recognize that evangelicalism faces many problems, the movement against the evangelical movement is actually fractured and divided. There are so many varied levels of dissatisfaction amongst those who have a complaint against evangelicalism. For instance, one of the divides within the camp is between traditional evangelicals and postconservatives. This was brought to the forefront a few years ago when Roger Nicole pushed to have Open Theists Clark Pinnock and John Sanders removed from the Evangelical Theological Society. Many traditionalists believed that this particular strand of postconservatism was, to borrow a phrase from John Piper, beyond the bounds of evangelicalism.

In his reply to Nicole's charges, Pinnock reminded all that this was not merely a fight over Open Theism. That is, some of Nicole's supporters (e.g., Wayne Grudem) did not merely want to remove Open Theists from ETS, but egalitarians as well. The problem was that Nicole is an egalitarian; Pinnock's question is, "Where does this stop?" One may push further: Wayne Grudem is a charismatic, and there are many who believe that this violates Sola Scriptura. Many of these would claim that one cannot be an evangelical and reject Sola Scriptura. Shall the society kick Grudem out after Nicole and Pinnock? (Obviously there is a difference between ETS and the evangelical movement as a whole, but one might suppose that ETS is a microcosm of the movement as a whole).

Other postconservative issues that are dividing evangelicalism are narrative theology, inclusivism versus exclusivism, the doctrine of hell, the doctrine of scripture, and etc. As I argued just above, the dividing lines are not necessarily split between traditionalists and postconservatives. There is also the phenomena known as the emergent church. There seems to be no centralized set of doctrine associated with this movement (in fact, many within the movement refuse to call it a movement). Some are more emergent than others; some appear to reject any traditional notion of epistemology and systematic theology. Others seem to embrace some traditional notions of philosophy and theology while embracing certain emergent fads. The emergent church is not exclusively a problem for the evangelical movement; that is, they think the evangelical movement is too narrow. It doesn't appear that they want to reject the traditions in toto, but want to embrace other traditions (such as the Romish and Eastern Orthodox traditions) along with some traditional evangelical traditions.

This seems to reduce down to the following: some claim that evangelicalism has been the victim of modernism and Enlightenment philosophical categories; anything that believes in absolute truth that can be known seems to be labeled modernism (this is, of course, forgetting that this concept was around well before "modernism"). Others think that evangelicalism has bowed down at the alter of postmodernism; though I am not convinced most people know exactly what postmodernism is--I certainly don't have a clear concept of it, and I think that's because there is no clear concept of it. Anything that smacks of relativism is labeled postmodernism (though, again, this concept was around well before postmodernism).

Still others claim that evangelicalism has bowed down to pagan philosophies, but it has nothing to do with the notion of relativism versus confidence in one's epistemology (i.e., what many called modernism). I would say that evangelicalism has not consistently held to Sola Scriptura; we have followed the way of Aristotle and forgetting that "eye has not seen nor has ear heard." We have rejected the unique Christian axiom of "The Bible alone is the Word of God." We have whored ourselves over to "science" (which, itself, is the paragon of pseudo-science); we think our attempts at archeology or biology is more authoritative than God's Word. But God could find no one greater to swear by, so He swore by Himself. What a pity for God that He did not realize that He could have sworn by modern science. We have adopted the pagan presuppositions and theories of science thinking that we can use them for our own purposes; but what fellowship does light have with darkness? Too many Christians do not understand that to take realist approach to modern scientific theories is to explicitly reject essentials of our faith.

Evangelicalism has also embraced irrationality in the name of "mystery". We fail to realize that a mystery in the Bible is not something that is ineffable or incomprehensible; it is something that is perfectly intelligible but something that God has not revealed. Our notion of saving faith is led askew because men like Professor Strange at Mid-America Reformed Seminary state that the sine qua non of faith is ineffable and unintelligible. The church rejects Christianity as a God-given intellectualism (see, knowledge puffs up, but love builds up); they embrace Kierkegaard, Schleiermacher, or Barth (though, of course, not knowing who any of these men are) and speak of some nebulous "personal relationship" with Jesus. While I might do another post on what the Bible says this "personal relationship" with Jesus is, I am left with the distinct impression that the church does not know what it means; after all, the sine qua non of faith is inherently irrational. I've heard a pastor in a conservative PCA church say from the pulpit: "Christianity is not rational. You cannot be completely logical and still be a Christian." I've heard a pastor from a conservative SBC church say while teaching: "God is totally Other. There are no words we can use that accurately describe Him."

Of course, there are the groups who embrace this irrationalism has a sign of piety; "We don't want your elitism!" While very few groups completely reject any intellectual aspect of Christianity, it is deprecated to the point where one must chant the neo-orthodox mantra: "Faith must curb logic." The Auburn Avenue heretics admit in their book, The Federal Vision, that their doctrine is inconsistent with itself; the only solution is to abandon logic. Logic can only take you so far; you must then take a leap of faith. Well, let the lemmings leap off the cliff; perhaps, in time, it will, to use a Darwinian metaphor, filter the evangelical gene pool.

There are other flash points as well: churches abandon sound doctrine and confidence in the sovereign grace of a sovereign God. They adopt church growth strategies and preach psycho-babble instead of the Word of God. We forget that the Scriptures plainly teach that we are not to stray to the right side or the left side of what God has commanded. Youth groups, Sunday School, and women's bible study groups are adopted en masse because they seem "to work". While pragmatism might be an acceptable philosophical commitment in the realm of opinion, our worship to God is not a matter of opinion. However, there are those (e.g., John Piper) who reject the regulative principle and say that anything we can do to magnify Jesus and draw people to Him is acceptable. With high-sounding drivel like that, who could disagree? Well, I can. One could also mention the Romish hold-over of a professional clergy and other such infelicities, but I must draw the line somewhere.

The point is this: evangelicalism is hopelessly fractured. It is not that the movement is fractured like a two-dimensional pie chart where all of these controversies are represented by a slice of the pie. It is much more chaotic. Two men may agree that Open Theism is bad, but disagree on the topic of gender roles. Two other men may agree that the church's committment to pragmatism is bad, but disagree about whether rationality is good or bad. There are so many layers to this problem. And we are brought back to the verse I quoted at the beginning: Can two walk together, unless they are agreed? Agreed on what?

I am suggesting that it is inherent to the evangelical experiment that we all agree on the least common theological demoninator. For instance, ETS started out with only a requirement of a belief in the inerrancy of the Scriptures (only later was a clause about the Trinity added). Some leaders like Al Mohler speak of primary, secondary and even tertiary truths in the Scriptures. Primary truths are essential; secondary may cause some major discussions; tertiary aren't really that important at all. But how does one determine this hierarchy of truth? Can one even justify this hierarchy? Did Paul consider himself clean of the blood of all men because he preached the primary and some secondary truths? Or did he consider himself clean of the blood of all men because he preached the whole counsel of the Word of God? It is, without a doubt, the latter.

Is it any wonder that the church finds itself impotent to combat heresy within the church, to oppose evils without the church, and to maintain its identity? We have taken the God-given wisdom of the Scriptures (which, Paul tells us, are the very thoughts of Christ) and castrated it so that it is but a shell of its former glory. It seems that one doesn't even have to believe in justification by faith alone for evangelical leaders to consider him deeply Christian (see my post about Al Mohler). The Scriptures nowhere speak of being sanctified by primary (as opposed to secondary and tertiary) truths or being united around primary (as opposed to secondary and tertiary) truths. This is not to say that all who disagree with us are unbelievers, but what they are promoting is less than Christianity. We say that evangelicalism has failed because it must fail. It is theological schizophrenia; it cannot radically oppose the anti-Christian culture because it takes out most of the vaccine from the vial. Can two walk together, unless they are agreed? No, they cannot; and this is why the evangelical experiment will fail.