Thursday, November 3, 2011
Confessionalism and the Spectrum of Evangelicalism
Well, I've finished the book, and like many others I have concluded that there are two basic views represented here: inerrancy-emphatic evangelicalism and inerrancy-ambivalent evangelicalism. The funny thing, though, is that I'm not sure I find myself represented--not because I have any reservations about the inerrancy-emphatic part, but because I've become a bit disillusioned about self-identifying as an evangelical.
For me, the most reflection-inducing observation in this whole book comes in John Stackhouse's reply to Mohler's essay, "Confessional Evangelicalism" (pp. 104ff). Stackhouse sagely observes that in the history of evangelicalism, the movement has never been confessional, and that, in fact, Mohler proves this point nicely by failing to cite any evangelical confessions in the whole of his essay.
It is of course true that evangelicals have advanced a variety of doctrinal subscription points throughout the history of the movement (the fundamentals, the ETS statement on inerrancy, the content of the Gospel, the spread of the Gospel, etc.), but there has been no trans-generational evangelical agreement about what those points should be, and there has also been a persistent undercurrent of evangelicals who don't like the idea of subscription at all. It's hard to see confessionalism in all of this. This is not to say that one cannot be a confessionalist who is irenic toward evangelicals or an evangelical who is irenic toward confessionalists. But the idea of confessional evangelicalism, Stackhouse observes, has no historical precedent and no true representatives. As such, he concludes that "confessional evangelicalism" is an oxymoronic empty set.
If Stackhouse is right (and at least on this occasion, I think he is), then it seems we have in "confessional evangelicalism" a pair of polar interests tugging the subject simultaneously: the ecclesiastical stability of confessional/denominational identity and the para-ecclesiastical/ecumenical appeal of evangelical/transdenominational unity. And in the end, one or the other will hold sway.
The one major representative approach of orthodox Christians that appears to have been excluded in this book, then, is unqualified confessionalism. The book includes three separate adjectival evangelicalisms (confessional, generic, and post conservative) and also fundamentalism (interestingly, Bauder's position is labeled "fundamentalism" rather than "fundamentalist evangelicalism," which I think is a good move). Left out in the cold, though, is the confessionalist remnant that doesn't self-identify (as Mohler does) with the evangelical movement. And that was the essay I most wanted to read.
That is why I was quite excited to read in my newly arrived program for the 63rd annual meeting of the ETS that Carl Trueman, an unqualified confessionalist, will be appearing with Kevin Bauder and Al Mohler (who, interestingly, now represents conservative rather than confessional evangelicalism) for a series of presentations and a panel discussion. The exchange will take place on Thursday, November 17th from 3:00-6:10 PM. Perhaps I can get my itch scratched more fully then. Kudos to Andy Naselli for arranging this postscript.
MAS
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
About Me
- Mark Snoeberger
- After growing up in the great state of Pennsylvania, I settled down in 1994 with my new bride, Heather, in Allen Park, Michigan, and have been here at Detroit Baptist Seminary ever since (with a bit of time away for doctoral work). Since 2007 I have been privileged to be a part of the systematic theology faculty here. I love teaching, researching and writing, hunting with my two boys, and enjoying any little bit of God's unadulterated creation I can find (which means I occasionally have to get out of Detroit). But all these things matter to me only because theology matters. For it is God himself who gives all men life and breath and everything else (Acts 17:25).
9 comments:
But isn't part, if not most, of the problem here caused my Mohler's wrong labeling of his own position. As I remember, he has said he did not want to call his position "conservative evangelicalism" because of the political connotation of the phrase. But conservative evangelical more correctly describes what he is. And historically, wasn't it true that those who used the term "confessional" to describe themselves, 50 or more years ago, did not wish to call themselves evangelicals. There was an article in the WTJ some years ago making that point, I believe.
Bill, yes, I think you are right on all counts. Probably the best published diatribe against the new evangelicalism in its day was Van Til's Case for Calvinism, which directly targeted the confessional minimalism of Carnell's model. Darryl Hart's Deconstructing Evangelicalism is a more recent example of this kind of argumentation.
Hart continues to offer aggressive confessional critiques of evangelicalism over at oldlife.org.
Regrettably, this seems to be a fading minority approach.
I think the book would have been far more interesting and entertaining to have a 5th view, that being the majority of fundamentalism (hyper, cultural, etc). Bauder does well to say that is not where he is and that he is the minority of fundamentalism in general. I think it would have made the book more interesting to read the responses of Olson and Stackhouse to whoever would be brave enough to write that chapter.
Though confessionalism and evangelicalism may have different pulls, isn't it possible to have a confessional evangelicalism of sorts? For example, wouldn't Trueman still qualify as an evangelical? Maybe evangelical confessionalism would be a better description, with the emphasis being on confessionalism and the evangelical descriptor noting that there is a willingness to interact outside of one's confession.
As far as the 5th view of hyper fundamentalism--I don't think bravery would be the quality lacking in the author of that chapter.
Ben
Ben, I suppose that ultimately depends on what an evangelical is in the first place. Marsden opines that the requisite characteristic of a "card-carrying" evangelical is a strong transdenominational identity that exists irrespective of one's denominational affiliation. If that's true, then being confessional and being evangelical tend in some sense to be polar concepts. Confessionalists rally around denominational loyalty and doctrinal subscription, whereas "card-carrying" evangelicals tend to minimize these for the sake of transdenominational unity.
I recognize that the label evangelical can be defined otherwise, but that's just the point. If it can be qualified to include everybody in its scope, it becomes something of a useless label--a wax nose.
It reminds me of something I read in the introduction to Barth's commentary on Romans. He wrote, "I accept [the label 'Biblicist'] provided I am allowed to explain what I mean by 'Biblicism.'" I suppose I'll add my voice to Barth's just this once: I'll accept the label evangelical provided I am allowed to explain what I mean by evangelical. But my zeal for the label is not particularly great.
MAS
"wouldn't Trueman still qualify as an evangelical? "
He does not like to be known as one, and that is even more true for D. G. Hart. Trueman is going to the next T4G, but he sort of apologizes for it every time he mentions it.
I think Hart is probably more of a confessionalist than Trueman, so I'm not sure he would qualify as an "evangelical confessionalist". And I agree that Trueman would tend to emphasize the confessional aspect while downplaying the evangelical one (that's why I chose evangelical confessionalism). But Trueman is participating in this discussion at the "Evangelical" Theological Society, not the Presbyterian or Westminster one. That, his willingness to participate in T4G (even if he feels guilty about it!), and other activities shows he has some evangelical tendencies.
I think that's the difference between Mohler and Trueman. Mohler does adhere to a confession (Baptist Faith and Message), so is confessional to a degree. However, he would place greater emphasis on the evangelical part (which is why I think he didn't want to appeal to any particular confession in his chapter). Trueman may be willing to interact in "evangelical" type ways, but places greater emphasis on his confessionalism.
Ben
I'd be interested to hear your thoughts reconciling your sympathies of an unqualified confessionalism with being an independent Baptist. It would seem that independent Baptists have been (and continue to be) decidedly non-confessional (e.g. no standard for doctrinal statements, ordination procedures, etc).
David, I've been anticipating that question, and unfortunately have a somewhat weak answer. There are, of course, Baptist confessions (Philadelphia, New Hampshire, Baptist Faith & Message, etc.), but as you perceptively observe, there is little emphasis on subscription, especially among independent Baptists.
Part of the issue is the fact of local church autonomy that is a hallmark of Baptist life. This results in somewhat local doctrinal standards. We have these, of course, at ICBC and DBTS, and I subscribe to these annually. That's very important to me.
I'd like to think these could be shared more broadly, but there's no way to mandate this in Baptist life. I suppose in some ways I'm a confessionalist wannabe in a non-confessional world.
Post a Comment