REFORMIST EVANGELICALISM:
A CENTER WITHOUT A CIRCUMFERENCE
By R. Albert Mohler, Jr.
Reform has always been central to the self-understanding of American
evangelicalism. Ambition to reform American Protestantism was the energizing
dynamic and motivating cause for the emergence of the so-called “new
evangelicalism” as it burst upon the national scene in the 1940s and ‘50s. Outraged
by the encroachments of liberalism, evangelicals sought to salvage the mainline
denominations. At the same time, however, the evangelicals were frustrated with
their own historical roots in fundamentalism.
As the title of George Marsden’s history of Fuller Theological Seminary suggest, a
central aim of the evangelicals was Reforming Fundamentalism.1 These early
evangelicals wanted to forge a new evangelical identity and tradition, leaving behind
the vestiges of the older fundamentalism. Now, as a new century begins, some
evangelicals seek to reform evangelical theology in the same manner. These
“reformist evangelicals” are seeking nothing less than a total realignment of
evangelical theology in a direction more in keeping with postmodern thought. Their
success or failure will determine the future of evangelicalism as a movement—and
may mean the end of the evangelical movement altogether.
The history of American evangelicalism is one long narrative of a search for
identity. It seems that every decade or so evangelicals involve themselves in a new
fit of identity crisis. In the early days, pioneering founders such as Harold John
Ockenga and Carl F. H. Henry established the identity of evangelicalism. This early
understanding of evangelicalism rooted its identity in orthodox Protestantism
without separatistic fundamentalism. The founders conceptualized this movement,
known as the “new evangelicalism,” with a focus on both the center and the
boundaries of the incipient movement. The structures of this essay takes as a
foundational understanding a mathematical model of “set theory” which identifies
several different types of sets. Some sets are bounded, that is, they are identified
by the definitional issues at the boundary—who is in and who is out. Other sets are
defined as “centered sets,” and take their definition from core commitments. Some
sets are both centered and boundaried. Then there is the “fuzzy set,” which
mathematicians describe as the set not well identified either at the center or the
periphery.
The early evangelicals in the movement suggested that fundamentalists had made
three critical mistakes that these new evangelicals would correct. The first mistake
was withdrawal, represented by the fundamentalist doctrine of separatism.
Fundamentalist separatism, a quite interesting phenomenon, is still with us in some
forms. For instance, some fundamentalist manuals on separation offer a series of
test questions on the topic. Some of these questions—such as, “Is it allowable for
you to ride with a Southern Baptist pastor to a Bill Gothard seminar?”—are
discovered to be trick questions for, as it turns out, one should neither be going to
a Bill Gothard seminar nor be in the car with a Southern Baptist!
The mistake of withdrawal was accompanied by a second mistake, the restriction
of theological concern. In the view of the new evangelicals, the fundamentalists had
severely restricted their theological vision. The evangelicals joined the
fundamentalists in their advocacy of biblical inerrancy, Chalcedonian Christology,
and substitutionary atonement. Nevertheless, in the view of the evangelicals, the
fundamentalists were missing some of the most significant theological battles of
the era.
The third fundamentalist mistake was the elevation of secondary matters to an
unwarranted primacy, illustrated most centrally in the elevation of dispensational
eschatology to a place of first-order significance. The evangelicals were determined
neither to divide nor to dissipate their theological energy over such issues.
The early evangelicals were at pains to define their differences with fundamentalism
without conceding the high ground of biblical authority and theological integrity. The
question was how inclusive this movement should be. This was an early concern,
and it endures. One way of understanding how the founders handled this issue is to
look at the history of Christianity Today under its founding editor Carl F. H. Henry.
One of the early debates on the board of Christianity Today came at Hendry’s
insistence that scholars such as F. F. Bruce and G. K. Berkouwer be included on the
contributing board of the magazine. Neither of these figures affirmed biblical
inerrancy, and yet Henry argued that both were basically cobelligerents on the
conservative side of the great theological battle.2
Henry’s goal was to rally “an international, multi-denominational corps of scholars
articulating conservative theology.”3 The objective of these founders was to
establish a firm center, and yet the boundaries were kept less clear. The pressing
energies of a fight against liberalism and the hope for a larger culture-shaping
coalition formed and forged these early evangelical leaders in such a way that they
put a primary emphasis upon the center while acknowledging the task of
boundary-making. But they were never quite clear about where the boundaries
should lie. As a result they achieved the coalition, and over the next twenty-five
years what George Marsden calls an “evangelical denomination” came together.4
This evangelical empire, centered first in Wheaton, Illinois, then in Colorado Springs,
and now perhaps in Orlando, is seen in its institutional embodiment in such
organizations as the National Association of Evangelicals, the virtual empire of
publishing houses, journals, magazines, schools, colleges, and seminaries, and an
entire universe of parachurch ministries.
Coalition always come at a price. In this case, the price was a loss of theological
precision and unity. One of the early and urgently publicized themes of the new
evangelicalism was its diversity. Looking back at the primary sources, an observer
is struck again and again by how diversity was trumpeted as one of the hallmarks
of the evangelical movement.
Behind all of this was the desire to build a great evangelical coalition. In 1967,
Henry warned that if evangelicals did not settle the identity issue and, in doing so,
coalesce, “They may well become by the year 2000 a wilderness cult in a secular
society with no more public significance than the ancient Essenes in their Dead Sea
caves.”5
By the 1960s, this awkward but growing coalition was showing signs of strain. This
led in the ‘70s to fissures that openly threatened the survival of the movement. A
younger generation of evangelicals shaped by the cultural context of the ‘60s
pushed for a new evangelical direction. At the same time, the evangelical coalition
seemed to be missing some important partners. Carl Henry lamented the Southern
Baptist failure to join the National Association of Evangelicals.6 At the same time,
the doctrine of biblical inerrancy was becoming a flash point. In the Southern
Baptist Convention and among other evangelicals, inerrancy itself was never a
naked issue.7 It always represented something far larger in scope as well as
significance. The foundational issue is, and ever will be, the nature of truth—the
understanding of divine revelation.
As this fissure became ever more open, and as the flash point grew to the point of
explosion, the issue of inerrancy became a virtual crusade, a very important
defining issue. In this controversy, Francis Schaeffer became the pamphleteer,
Harold Lindsell became the pathologist, and Carl Henry served as the professor.
They sought to bring evangelicalism back to a clear affirmation of biblical inerrancy.
In hindsight the effort came too late to salvage the evangelical coalition on a unified
understanding of Scripture. The movement would not be saved from itself and
reclaim the high ground of the total truthfulness of Scripture.
In Henry’s God, Revelation and Authority, his massive magnum opus, the professor
sought to lay it all out in a magisterial form.8 Even so, the result was not to bring
evangelicals together in a unified affirmation of biblical inerrancy. The differences
were already too dramatic. William Abraham, for instance, responded to God,
Revelation and Authority by saying that it was not the wave of the future, but
“3,000 pages of turgid scholasticism.”9
In the 1970s, Fuller Theological Seminary rewrote its confession of faith,
eliminating an affirmation of biblical inerrancy. Christianity Today moved ever
further to the left, simultaneously shifting from a more scholarly perspective to a
kind of middlebrow view (and now to a popular perspective) with pragmatic
psychotherapeutic concerns gaining primacy.10 Like wise, many of the colleges and
seminaries of the evangelical denominations and coalition continued to move
toward theological accommodation with modernity.
By the 1980s, James Davison Hunter could trace the pattern of “cognitive
bargaining” among the rising generation of evangelicals, suggesting that this
generation was both making and justifying theological concessions in light of the
demands of modernity.11 Again, while the inerrancy controversy itself was a flash
point, it was hardly a conclusive battle. Interestingly enough, the inerrancy
controversy produced significant victories in only two denominations, neither
closely identified with the National Association of Evangelicals: the Lutheran
Church—Missouri Synod and the Southern Baptist Convention.
Hunter identified three primary areas of doctrinal decline or accommodation: the
doctrine of revelation, th