Although
rather limited in scope, Roger Olson has written a helpful introduction for
initiating a conversation between conservative and postconservative
evangelicals. Initially, the mere
fact that the author immediately limits the conversation to evangelicals makes
the reader doubt the relevance of the book for herself. Why would someone want to limit a
conversation on theology to evangelicalism? However, as the conversation is unpacked and divulged, the
reader comes to understand that the conversation is indeed relevant and
important, even if only in a sense to understand the contemporary
conversation. Therefore, we will
begin our response by coming to an understanding of what the book actually
says, then we will move to provide personal observations of what Olson is
arguing for, finally we will discuss whether or not Olson is truly convincing
in his argument.
Of
course the title of the book is a telling description of the position that
Olson takes, although perhaps not for the reasons expected. His basic thesis is that if evangelical
theology is going to be true to the instructive orientating roots laid down by
the early reformers, theology needs to be an ongoing task lead by the Holy
Spirit and established from Scripture.
Obviously, Olson is not proposing such silly notions as the radical
reformers suggest in doing away with tradition entirely, but to hold tradition, a secondary human established tradition as truly that, secondary. Throughout the book Olson continues to
reflect on the concerning direction conservative evangelicals have taken, that
they have ultimately made reformed theology a static finalized issue and that
the task of modern theologians, in the mind of conservatives, is to reestablish
propositional doctrine decided upon by the original reformers, a notion that
would be antithetical to those original reformed theologians.
Olson
explores those characteristics by which conservative evangelical theologians
are distinguished, and provides constructive alternatives that seem to be more in
tune with historical evangelical thought.
Olson begins by explaining the roots of the evangelical movement mainly
deriving from two streams of thought, Pietism and Puritanism. The movement finds itself coming from
these two different, but not mutually exclusive approaches and concepts of
Christianity, both being responses to the Enlightenment of the 18th
century. One is rooted in
opposition to the empiricism of enlightenment approach by revisiting the
transformational imperative in response to the Gospel of Christ, the other
being a response of submission to a basic propositional, empirical approach to truth. While in essence, both responses are
brought about by an earnest desire to reorient Christianity to the person of
Christ as communicated through the Gospel in Scripture, modern evangelicalism
finds itself almost enslaved to the latter totalitarian like position while
shying away from the former, a disservice that brings evangelicalism focusing
more on the doctrinal development of the church (or lack thereof), instead of
establishing doctrine for the furthering of transformation through relationship
with this God man Jesus. As an
alternative, Olson proposes the movement of postconservative evangelical
thought which seeks to reorient the evangelical church towards a more balanced
restatement of the reformed tradition by grafting the Pietist concept of
transformation through relation back onto the branch of evangelical
thought. If we understand the
evangelical movement as a tree that has two natures, the one side is mostly
coniferous in nature with its static preserving attributes of upholding its
characteristics throughout all seasons being the puritanical side. Olson encourages the evangelical
movement to re-graft a deciduous branch, one that constantly changes and adapts
to the seasons it finds itself in.
Without both qualities and natures of the evangelical movement, it
simply ceases to become the evangelical movement and instead is merely
Puritanism.
Throughout
the book, Olson provides various ways in which conservative evangelicals have
typically approached the task of the church. He begins by explaining how conservatives see Scripture as
primarily a propositional document critical for a Christian to properly understand
their faith, a notion introduced by the Charles Hodge who was influenced by
Scottish philosophical empiricism.
Hodge’s continuation of this philosophical notion was to insist that
everything in the Bible was true and must therefore be taken literally. This has become a type of flagship for
some evangelicals. Since the Bible
is everything for an evangelical, and everything in the Bible is literal, it
follows that if you do not believe every word in the Bible is literal, you are
not a Christian, or at least, you are not an evangelical. What follows from this basic assumption
is that theology then becomes a mere statement of what the Bible says, in that
there is no critical thought needed to understand what the passages are
saying. There also comes a natural
defense against any thought contrary to empirical truth, resulting in an
orthodoxy that is rigid and exclusive.
The Bible becomes that which holds the information needed to be known
for proper indoctrination to occur.
The way things have always been done become the only way things should
be done, or at least the new way things have always been done since the
enlightenment. This is a rather
perturbing picture that is painted by Olson especially if taken to mean that
one must throw out entirely this approach to “The Way”. It cannot be reiterated enough that
this is not what Olson is saying.
Rather, that within these approaches there lays a truly legitimate way
of thinking of Christian life and purpose if it is supplemented not with
philosophical principals but with Pietistic realities, those realities that
have shaped the church for many centuries.
Instead
of dismissing entirely the conservative approach to these various concerns,
Olson supplements the evangelical mind with a call to understanding the essence
of Christianity as the Bible, but not by flogging Scripture for empirical
scientific data and propositional statements, rather by understanding the
transformational realities of the narrative nature of Scripture. From this fountainhead, Olson unpacks
the Postconservative approach to theology. At its most rudimentary, Postconservative evangelical
theology suggests that the work of reformed theology is a never ending task,
and that conservative evangelicals have become too tied down by the tradition
and the doctrine that has resulted from the Reformation. Rather than throwing the baby out with
the bath water, Olson suggests that we reaffirm the secondary influence of
tradition, while returning to an understanding of Scripture as primary through
the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
This allows evangelical theology to break free from the constraints of
the type of rigidity doctrinal orthodoxy has found itself in, and engage with
the surrounding culture in new and formative ways such as in the issue of
divine gender. All of these
directional suggestions are helpful to the reader even if only to sketch out
the contemporary discussion.
However, there are a number of observations that came to mind throughout
the reading of the book that are not necessarily particularly crucial to
Olson’s point, but may be helpful to mention.
First, although
Olson is offering a theological position that is drastically different from
that of conservative evangelicals, his approach does not seem to be so
different. In fact, it is one of
the more perturbing aspects of the book, especially in the earlier
chapters. The way that the book
sets out comes off as rather polemical and not in any way that is benefiting
Olson. The way that Olson
establishes the boundaries of each side sets up a definitive firing line that
does more to alienate those who appreciate the authors and theologians
mentioned on the opposed conservative side and exclude those who might find
themselves on the more Postconservative side of the coin. It appears as if Olson is in fact not
interested in calling the evangelical community to correction at all but rather
continuing to drive the wedge between conservatives and the rest of the
believing community of Christ.
William Placher's writing style, sets a fairly good example of mending the
wounds while tearing down the fence instead of Olson’s approach of tearing
through wounds and building fences higher. For example, in his introduction, Olson mentions that “the
task of evangelical theologians is to correct those who misunderstand and
misrepresent our label; it is not to give up.”[1] Why? Why does this have to be a part of the task of evangelical
theology? If Olson is truly hoping
to encourage fruitful discussion and beneficial interaction, perhaps his method
is not the best way to go about it.
The means is the message, as they say.
Second, along with
Olson’s polemical approach to theology comes a rather typical mindset of people
offering postmodern alternatives to problems, what I will refer to as a white
knight complex. The concept is simple
enough and rather easy to find, it is when someone offers a solution to a
problem in a fashion that makes them look as though they are riding onto the
scene and finally putting an end to all the ridiculousness that has transpired
while the world was waiting for them to come to realization. Obviously, this is a rather facetious
caricature of the problem, and Olson is nowhere near to being so overt about
his offered observations on the matter however, what Olson is saying is not so
drastically different from what a lot of people were saying well before he came on the scene. That is, the point of the
gospel is not to be found in the doctrines established by men but in the
Scriptures, which are impossible to interpret exhaustively. Almost remind you of the reformation
does it not?
Third, there seems
to be confusion, even if only slight, of orthodox and reformed theology. It appears as though Olson uses the two
terms interchangeably, which can lead to a muddying of the two very different
concepts. There were a few times
when I couldn’t distinguish what he actually meant. “That is, if being evangelical necessarily includes being
orthodox, how can orthodoxy itself be reformed by evangelicals?”[2] “… The burden of Carson’s book, … is to
preserve and protect the cognitive doctrinal content of historical evangelicalism
- evangelical orthodoxy.”[3] “They tend to forget that there was
authentic Christianity before there was orthodoxy. And orthodoxy changes.”[4] Continuing to provide examples would be
a moot. If Olson really is
referring to Orthodoxy in its true sense being the creedal confessions coming
out of the end of post apostolic period and being a broad summation of what
Christians generally believe, then he will have a harder battle to be picking
than perhaps he realizes. However,
if he is only referring to the reformed small ‘o’ orthodoxy, then perhaps he
has a point. In his third chapter
he does have a conversation about paleo-orthodoxy, which is a start, but it is
not the whole of the issue. It is
one thing to argue against the idea that all important theological topics have
been settled in the first few ecumenical councils, it is another thing to argue
against the concepts that were established in those councils themselves. In the council of Nicea, it became
acknowledged that Jesus really did have two natures; he was both divine and
human. Although I do not think
that Olson is trying to argue against these types of established dogmas, rather
he is establishing a call to continue the task of theology. Perhaps part of my unrest comes with
the ambiguity he wields when he says things like “‘Respect for the past does
not require closed-mindedness’ to future corrections and reformulations.”[5]
Or, “New situations call for new steps and dialogue and action.”[6] It makes me uncomfortable, his
suggesting reform and change when I do not know what he is intending to reform
and change. If he were speaking
out of a medieval theological context (forgive the anachronism), he would
simply be labeled as a heretic since in those days, new theological ideas
were simply heretical, especially when involving points already established,
such as the duality of Christ’s nature.
Perhaps this merely reflects my tendencies toward a ‘paleo-orthodoxical’
understanding of theology, but I think I would be less skeptical if Olson did
not leave the summation of his arguments to the very end of the book.
Finally, I have a
bit of a confession to make, the Evangelical Covenant Church of Canada, which
is the conference I associate with, has its roots in pietism. However, not in the vein of pietism
associated with John Wesley, but in the German pietism of Philipp Spener and
August Francke. Much of what Olson
discusses are ideas already held by the Covenant church, probably due to the
lack of influence of Puritanism in our vein of evangelicalism. When I first began to read the book,
the posture Olson was taking towards the debunking of more traditional
evangelical approaches of theological discussion were borderline offensive. As I read on however, I realized that much
of what he was meaning to convey was actually not as offensive as I had
originally thought. In fact I
found myself with every chapter coming to appreciate the things he said. What Olson is
suggesting, I began to realize, is in fact what the original Pietists suggested
in Germany. After the reformation,
the Lutheran church quickly became statically concerned with upholding right
Lutheran doctrine; church authorities forgot their recent escape from the
magisterial iron grip of the unreformed Catholic Church. The concern with the freedom in the
church being led by the Spirit switched to the shackles of confessional
Lutheranism in an attempt to crystallize the beliefs of the ‘one true church’. Spener and Francke shepherded a vein of
the German church through a rather complicated generational shift from Lutheran
orthodoxy to transformational pietism.
Even so, this shift is not something new, even for the pietistic church
of Germany and Scandanavia; this type of amendment has been going on since the
Pharisees. It is not simply a
matter of right understanding, but about an encounter with the creator of the
universe come in the man Jesus the Nazarene. As ridiculous as it sounds, the words of princess Leia come
to mind, “The more you tighten your grip, … the more star systems will slip
through your fingers.”[7] The more aggressive the attempt to
solidify and systematize the beliefs of the church into immovable dead doctrine, the further away the church
gets from being the church.
Emphases switch from God to man, from being formed by the life of Christ
to knowing about the life of Christ, from the proclamation of freedom to the
pronouncement of judgment.
When it comes down
to it, Olson does a good job of explaining the position of the postconservative
theological movement. He does a
good job of falling in line with those who have come before him, who have paved
the way for the church to return to the call Christ has issued. He has done an adequate job of
articulating what I have been thinking for the past couple of years.[8]
Even if I am not convinced by his
particular arguments, I stand in agreement with him on a number of issues.
In
conclusion, although Olson’s style of argument is rather conservative in
method, his argument stands in unison with many who have come before him. Olson in and of himself is not the
savior of Christian theology, Jesus is.
I disagree with his decision to subvert orthodoxy by equating it with
reformed theology, I think there is more value in holding to a living orthodoxy
than what he presents. Although he
seems to confuse some of the topics, I non-the-less agree with the trajectory
of his thesis. I hope that the
rest of the postconservative community follows him in focusing some of their
energy on developing fruitful discussion on pietism and the influence it has
had in the life of the church.
Opere Citato
International
Movie Database, Memorable Quotes for Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope quote
page, http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0076759/quotes?qt=qt0440688
[accessed September 24, 2012].
Olson,
Roger. Reformed and Always
reforming: The Postconservative Approach to Evangelical Theology. Grand Rapids: Baker Academics, 2007.
[1] Roger Olson, Reformed and Always reforming: The Postconservative
Approach to Evangelical Theology
[Grand Rapids: Baker Academics, 2007], 14.
[2] Ibid., 39.
[3] Ibid., 72.
[4] Ibid., 94.
[5] Ibid., 110.
[6] Ibid., 120.
[7] International Movie Database, Memorable Quotes for
Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope quote page, http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0076759/quotes?qt=qt0440688
[accessed September 24, 2012].
[8] It is important for me to note that I am not placing
any value on my personal opinion regarding the topics Olson is discussing, he
is not correct on the matter because I agree. Rather, I am extending appreciation for Olson’s ability to
articulate what has been on my mind the past little while.
