Four Views on the Spectrum of Evangelicalism compares and contrasts four distinct positions on the current fundamentalist-evangelical spectrum in light of the history of American fundamentalism and evangelicalism. The contributors each state their case for one of four views on the spectrum of evangelicalism: -Kevin T. Bauder: Fundamentalism -R. Albert Mohler Jr.: Conservative/confessional evangelicalism -John G. Stackhouse Jr.: Generic evangelicalism -Roger E. Olson: Postconservative evangelicalism Each author explains his position, which is critiqued by the other three authors. The interactive and fair-minded nature of the Counterpoints format allows the reader to consider the strengths and weaknesses of each view and draw informed, personal conclusions. The Counterpoints series provides a forum for comparison and critique of different views on issues important to Christians. Counterpoints books address two categories: Church Life and Bible & Theology. Complete your library with other books in the Counterpoints series.
Four Views on the Spectrum of Evangelicalism
and over one million other books are available for Amazon Kindle. Learn more
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Browse our Bookshelf Favorites store for big savings on popular fiction, nonfiction, children's books, and more. |
Book Description
Frequently Bought Together
Editorial Reviews
About the Author
Andrew David Naselli (PhD, Bob Jones University; PhD, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School) is research manager for D. A. Carson and administrator of the journal Themelios. He has taught New Testament Greek at the undergraduate and graduate levels, and he currently teaches exegesis and theology as adjunct faculty at several seminaries. He is the author of Let Go and Let God? A Survey and Analysis of Keswick Theology.
Collin Hansen (MDiv, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School) is editorial director for the Gospel Coalition. Formerly an associate editor for Christianity Today, he is the author of Young, Restless, Reformed and co-author with John Woodbridge of A God-Sized Vision. He has written for Books andamp; Culture, Tabletalk, Leadership, and Christian History andamp; Biography. He has appeared as a commentator on Fox News, and his work has been featured in Time magazine.
Kevin T. Bauder (DMin, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School; PhD, Dallas Theological Seminary) is past president of and current research professor of systematic and historical theology at Central Baptist Theological Seminary, Minneapolis. He is a general editor of One Bible Only? Examining Exclusive Claims for the King James Bible.
R. Albert Mohler, Jr. (Ph.D., Southern Baptist Theological Seminary), is president and Joseph Emerson Brown Professor of Christian Theology at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. He is the author of several books, including Words from the Fire: Hearing the Voice of God in the 10 Commandments, and is a contributor to Is Hell for Real: Or Does Everyone Go to Heaven?
John G. Stackhouse Jr. (PhD, University of Chicago) is the Sangwoo Youtong Chee Professor of Theology and Culture at Regent College. He is the author or editor of eleven books, including Making the Best of It: Following Christ in the Real World. He is a former president of the Canadian Evangelical Theological Association.
Roger E. Olson (PhD, Rice University) is professor of theology at George W. Truett Theological Seminary of Baylor University. He is the author of many books, including Questions to All Your Answers: The Journey from Folk Religion to Examined Faith, Reformed and Always Reforming: The Postconservative Approach to Evangelical Theology, and How to Be Evangelical without Being Conservative.
Collin Hansen (MDiv, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School) is editorial director for the Gospel Coalition. Formerly an associate editor for Christianity Today, he is the author of Young, Restless, Reformed and co-author with John Woodbridge of A God-Sized Vision. He has written for Books andamp; Culture, Tabletalk, Leadership, and Christian History andamp; Biography. He has appeared as a commentator on Fox News, and his work has been featured in Time magazine.
Kevin T. Bauder (DMin, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School; PhD, Dallas Theological Seminary) is past president of and current research professor of systematic and historical theology at Central Baptist Theological Seminary, Minneapolis. He is a general editor of One Bible Only? Examining Exclusive Claims for the King James Bible.
R. Albert Mohler, Jr. (Ph.D., Southern Baptist Theological Seminary), is president and Joseph Emerson Brown Professor of Christian Theology at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. He is the author of several books, including Words from the Fire: Hearing the Voice of God in the 10 Commandments, and is a contributor to Is Hell for Real: Or Does Everyone Go to Heaven?
John G. Stackhouse Jr. (PhD, University of Chicago) is the Sangwoo Youtong Chee Professor of Theology and Culture at Regent College. He is the author or editor of eleven books, including Making the Best of It: Following Christ in the Real World. He is a former president of the Canadian Evangelical Theological Association.
Roger E. Olson (PhD, Rice University) is professor of theology at George W. Truett Theological Seminary of Baylor University. He is the author of many books, including Questions to All Your Answers: The Journey from Folk Religion to Examined Faith, Reformed and Always Reforming: The Postconservative Approach to Evangelical Theology, and How to Be Evangelical without Being Conservative.
Product Details
Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images? |
Customer Reviews
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
14 of 16 people found the following review helpful
Format:Paperback|Amazon Verified Purchase
There is no other book like this book. Everyone knows that substantial differences exist under the evangelical label. These differences have been written about for years. Even Systematic Theologians (e.g., Erickson and Geisler) have taken a stab at explaining them, albeit not to the satisfaction of the groups being described. People have fought over these differences and divided over these differences, but no one has allowed each major proponent present his case for his own view. This work, in the mind of this reviewer, is nothing less than groundbreaking. It is groundbreaking for a number of reasons. First, it selects from a broad range of viewpoints. Most works thus far may have focused on the conservative evangelical and generic evangelical debate, but few have had the audacity to include the fringe viewpoints of the fundamentalists and post-conservatives. Second, it selects excellent representatives for each viewpoint. Each proponent has studied extensively, written substantially, and is respected by the other writers for this. Each proponent is able to make a reasonable (as opposed to a caricatured) defense of his position. This fact speaks well to the effort of the editors in selecting the writers judiciously. Third, the clarity of the writing and the quality of the dialogue has already sparked ongoing and helpful discussion between the groups. In the end, it seems that this work may be seminal in a better understanding of the landscape of evangelicalism.
A thorough analysis of all the views would be quite difficult to do in a simple book review, but an attempt will be made to summarize each view and note the points of contention that are raised with each writer. As well the reviewer will some offer personal critiques of the arguments of all the writers.
View 1 is the fundamentalist view as presented by Kevin Bauder. Bauder lays out his case from a number of angles. His arguments seem unique in that he does not attempt to claim the title of "Evangelical" and in so doing does not attempt to restrict the evangelical tent. He merely makes the case for how he decides who to fellowship with under that broader umbrella. The key difference (maybe the only difference) between his view and View 2 is his understanding of secondary separation (38-40), which he feels has been lost by the second view (31-33). As presented by Bauder, the secondary separation argument is, as noted by the other writers, quite tame; however, the broader implications of the view have scarred the movement that Bauder promotes. The whole idea of separating with those who do not separate has led to an ad infinitum chain of separation that has led to the deconstruction of fundamentalism. Bauder takes time to lament this fact in his article (40-49). He points out that fundamentalism really only exists as an "idea" but not as a movement any longer. "Hyper-fundamentalists" are carrying on the tradition of separating merely for the sake of separating and the progressives are jumping ship to join with their conservative evangelical brothers. The other writers chide Bauder a little here (e.g., 58, 62), as he represents a view of fundamentalism that does not match the reality seen by those who have interacted with the movement.
Overall, it does seem that Bauder is too good of an example of his own movement. He represents the movement in a way that is uncharacteristically scholarly, balanced, and insightful; however, he still fell prey to the pitfalls of any who would attempt to defend the fundamentalist movement. I felt that he attempted to beat the Billy Graham drum too much in his argument for separating with Al Mohler (e.g., 101). In all reality, Billy Graham and his methods are passé and it feels like too much of a stretch to draw on it for the sake of debate. His emphasis on separation is also too easy due to the fact that fundamentalism has already separated from Evangelicalism long ago, resulting in a "hardening" of the separatist approach (100). In Kevin's words, fundamentalism has set up a "parallel universe" (143) apart from the broader evangelical movement. Fundamentalism has codified separation as the only response to liberalism and other issues. Bauder's approach is shaded by this position. To imagine pushing out liberals and doing battle to take back denominations is both unsettling and useless from this point of view. It is no wonder, then, to find Bauder's expression of surprise upon seeing the conservative resurgence in the Southern Baptist Convention (102). In the fatalistic mind of the fundamentalist, separation is the only viable response to error. Mohler insightfully notes that this approach would not have allowed for the "rescuing or redeeming of wayward institutions" (55). Bauder ultimately stands victim of his own philosophy here (not to mention the fact that his collaboration with men like Olson in a work such as this contradicts the very idea of separation that he claims to espouse). Historically, fundamentalism allowed for responses other than separation. It allowed for work to be done to attempt to restore the individuals, denominations, and schools. Only when nothing more could be done, then separation was used as a last resort (i.e., Westminster and the OPC). In this sense, Bauder is not a historic fundamentalist, and in another sense, he is not a modern fundamentalist (which he characterizes as "hyper-fundamentalists"). Bauder ultimately is an anomaly who attempts to hold up an idea of fundamentalism without a history or a movement while a great likelihood exists that the historic idea of fundamentalism that Bauder champions still is alive and well in the view that follows.
View 2 is the confessional evangelical view as presented by Al Mohler. His case is argued historically and biblically and is a case for measuring evangelicalism by how individuals measure up to conservative orthodox theology and practice. Interestingly, a number of similarities between Mohler's approach and Bauder's view are easy to be found. Mohler's handling of the fellowship as center-bounded (75-77) smacks of Bauder's maximal and minimal levels of fellowship. Mohler's triage concept (77-80) marries nicely with Bauder's concept of a "matrix" of considerations in the realm of fellowship (37). Both Mohler's concept of orthodoxy and opposition to liberalism create a number of parallels to the fundamentalist approach; however, Bauder disagrees with the idea that Mohler is a fundamentalist because Bauder feels Mohler is indifferent (100-101) to the dangers of the heterodoxy. Stackhouse and Olson identify Mohler as a fundamentalist right out of the gate (104, 110) and do not see the supposed difference between him and Bauder. Perhaps this difference of opinion is due to the fact that Stackhouse and Olson do not see Mohler as indifferent, but see him aggressively attempting to assert conservative orthodoxy over the big tent of evangelicalism. Perhaps this difference of opinion is because Bauder feels a need to drive a non-existent wedge between himself and Mohler here. Ultimately, the connection is perceived by those involved in the movements and is not seen by the broader evangelicals.
Mohler does a good job representing his position, but it seems that there are some elements lacking in his approach. First, the title of the position is listed as "confessional." Some of the other writers take him to task here, so there is not a great need to go into detail, simply to say that Mohler is not discussing a confession, but rather a conservative view of evangelicalism that points back to an orthodoxy represented in the creeds of the reformation era. Secondly, Mohler's argument seems to center on redefining the identity of the evangelical movement. This seems to be the weakest point of Mohler's argument. By trying to elaborate (75) on Bebbington's definition of evangelicalism, Mohler attempts the impossible. He actually attempts to define the movement as, in essence, his own theological viewpoint. Stackhouse and Olson react strongly against this point. By attempting to redefine and capture the evangelical camp for himself, Mohler overreaches and is called on the carpet for it. The reality is that evangelicalism is much broader than the conservative and confessional camps. What would have helped Mohler here was, instead of focusing on defining evangelicalism in a way that was most helpful to him, he should have argued that within evangelicalism he advocates certain doctrines or fellowships with a certain circle of individuals. He seems to realize this conundrum by the end of his response to Stackhouse. He ends up seemingly conceding the argument to Stackhouse. Yes, evangelicalism is a big tent; however, "at the end of the day, the confessional church must do what the evangelical movement cannot - confess with specificity the faith once delivered to the saints" (155). Big tent evangelicalism is not sufficient for true Christian fellowship. This fellowship demands a tighter circle, in Mohler's mind, than evangelicalism allows.
View 3 is the generic evangelical view as presented by John Stackhouse. At the outset of his chapter, Stackhouse states that he seeks to purpose a position that is the "most authentically evangelical" (116). And it would seem that he does just that. He spends the majority of his article defining the movement and his position within it (116-128). He here defines what evangelicalism is, not what it should be, not what it should not be, not what it was, but what it is. John's evangelicalism is a broad and fluffy sort of thing with no real boundaries. Primarily Stackhouse argues that evangelicalism should be defined as centering on the Bebbington quadrilateral. The trouble that Stackhouse seems to struggle with is how far one can be from the center and still be considered part of evangelicalism. Read more ›
A thorough analysis of all the views would be quite difficult to do in a simple book review, but an attempt will be made to summarize each view and note the points of contention that are raised with each writer. As well the reviewer will some offer personal critiques of the arguments of all the writers.
View 1 is the fundamentalist view as presented by Kevin Bauder. Bauder lays out his case from a number of angles. His arguments seem unique in that he does not attempt to claim the title of "Evangelical" and in so doing does not attempt to restrict the evangelical tent. He merely makes the case for how he decides who to fellowship with under that broader umbrella. The key difference (maybe the only difference) between his view and View 2 is his understanding of secondary separation (38-40), which he feels has been lost by the second view (31-33). As presented by Bauder, the secondary separation argument is, as noted by the other writers, quite tame; however, the broader implications of the view have scarred the movement that Bauder promotes. The whole idea of separating with those who do not separate has led to an ad infinitum chain of separation that has led to the deconstruction of fundamentalism. Bauder takes time to lament this fact in his article (40-49). He points out that fundamentalism really only exists as an "idea" but not as a movement any longer. "Hyper-fundamentalists" are carrying on the tradition of separating merely for the sake of separating and the progressives are jumping ship to join with their conservative evangelical brothers. The other writers chide Bauder a little here (e.g., 58, 62), as he represents a view of fundamentalism that does not match the reality seen by those who have interacted with the movement.
Overall, it does seem that Bauder is too good of an example of his own movement. He represents the movement in a way that is uncharacteristically scholarly, balanced, and insightful; however, he still fell prey to the pitfalls of any who would attempt to defend the fundamentalist movement. I felt that he attempted to beat the Billy Graham drum too much in his argument for separating with Al Mohler (e.g., 101). In all reality, Billy Graham and his methods are passé and it feels like too much of a stretch to draw on it for the sake of debate. His emphasis on separation is also too easy due to the fact that fundamentalism has already separated from Evangelicalism long ago, resulting in a "hardening" of the separatist approach (100). In Kevin's words, fundamentalism has set up a "parallel universe" (143) apart from the broader evangelical movement. Fundamentalism has codified separation as the only response to liberalism and other issues. Bauder's approach is shaded by this position. To imagine pushing out liberals and doing battle to take back denominations is both unsettling and useless from this point of view. It is no wonder, then, to find Bauder's expression of surprise upon seeing the conservative resurgence in the Southern Baptist Convention (102). In the fatalistic mind of the fundamentalist, separation is the only viable response to error. Mohler insightfully notes that this approach would not have allowed for the "rescuing or redeeming of wayward institutions" (55). Bauder ultimately stands victim of his own philosophy here (not to mention the fact that his collaboration with men like Olson in a work such as this contradicts the very idea of separation that he claims to espouse). Historically, fundamentalism allowed for responses other than separation. It allowed for work to be done to attempt to restore the individuals, denominations, and schools. Only when nothing more could be done, then separation was used as a last resort (i.e., Westminster and the OPC). In this sense, Bauder is not a historic fundamentalist, and in another sense, he is not a modern fundamentalist (which he characterizes as "hyper-fundamentalists"). Bauder ultimately is an anomaly who attempts to hold up an idea of fundamentalism without a history or a movement while a great likelihood exists that the historic idea of fundamentalism that Bauder champions still is alive and well in the view that follows.
View 2 is the confessional evangelical view as presented by Al Mohler. His case is argued historically and biblically and is a case for measuring evangelicalism by how individuals measure up to conservative orthodox theology and practice. Interestingly, a number of similarities between Mohler's approach and Bauder's view are easy to be found. Mohler's handling of the fellowship as center-bounded (75-77) smacks of Bauder's maximal and minimal levels of fellowship. Mohler's triage concept (77-80) marries nicely with Bauder's concept of a "matrix" of considerations in the realm of fellowship (37). Both Mohler's concept of orthodoxy and opposition to liberalism create a number of parallels to the fundamentalist approach; however, Bauder disagrees with the idea that Mohler is a fundamentalist because Bauder feels Mohler is indifferent (100-101) to the dangers of the heterodoxy. Stackhouse and Olson identify Mohler as a fundamentalist right out of the gate (104, 110) and do not see the supposed difference between him and Bauder. Perhaps this difference of opinion is due to the fact that Stackhouse and Olson do not see Mohler as indifferent, but see him aggressively attempting to assert conservative orthodoxy over the big tent of evangelicalism. Perhaps this difference of opinion is because Bauder feels a need to drive a non-existent wedge between himself and Mohler here. Ultimately, the connection is perceived by those involved in the movements and is not seen by the broader evangelicals.
Mohler does a good job representing his position, but it seems that there are some elements lacking in his approach. First, the title of the position is listed as "confessional." Some of the other writers take him to task here, so there is not a great need to go into detail, simply to say that Mohler is not discussing a confession, but rather a conservative view of evangelicalism that points back to an orthodoxy represented in the creeds of the reformation era. Secondly, Mohler's argument seems to center on redefining the identity of the evangelical movement. This seems to be the weakest point of Mohler's argument. By trying to elaborate (75) on Bebbington's definition of evangelicalism, Mohler attempts the impossible. He actually attempts to define the movement as, in essence, his own theological viewpoint. Stackhouse and Olson react strongly against this point. By attempting to redefine and capture the evangelical camp for himself, Mohler overreaches and is called on the carpet for it. The reality is that evangelicalism is much broader than the conservative and confessional camps. What would have helped Mohler here was, instead of focusing on defining evangelicalism in a way that was most helpful to him, he should have argued that within evangelicalism he advocates certain doctrines or fellowships with a certain circle of individuals. He seems to realize this conundrum by the end of his response to Stackhouse. He ends up seemingly conceding the argument to Stackhouse. Yes, evangelicalism is a big tent; however, "at the end of the day, the confessional church must do what the evangelical movement cannot - confess with specificity the faith once delivered to the saints" (155). Big tent evangelicalism is not sufficient for true Christian fellowship. This fellowship demands a tighter circle, in Mohler's mind, than evangelicalism allows.
View 3 is the generic evangelical view as presented by John Stackhouse. At the outset of his chapter, Stackhouse states that he seeks to purpose a position that is the "most authentically evangelical" (116). And it would seem that he does just that. He spends the majority of his article defining the movement and his position within it (116-128). He here defines what evangelicalism is, not what it should be, not what it should not be, not what it was, but what it is. John's evangelicalism is a broad and fluffy sort of thing with no real boundaries. Primarily Stackhouse argues that evangelicalism should be defined as centering on the Bebbington quadrilateral. The trouble that Stackhouse seems to struggle with is how far one can be from the center and still be considered part of evangelicalism. Read more ›
12 of 14 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars
Scintillating Dialogue On The History and Status of Evangelicalism
September 21, 2011
Format:Kindle Edition|Amazon Verified Purchase
I love the format of the "Views" books in that they allow the reader to wrestle with and think about crucial issues that oftentimes divide Christians. Instead of having the bias of one author - you get to see an offensive and defensive articulation of each view and weigh the evidence based on the strengths and weaknesses of the evidence given by each author. This new offering in the "Views" series particularly addresses important aspects that unite and divide "evangelicals." An evangelical is someone who holds to the "good news" as declared from the Scriptures. However, what is the good news? What are the uniting factors of the good news? And what are the boundaries required in disseminating the message, and uniting around the good news in order to penetrate society with the gospel?
The reason this book and the issues are so important is that what is at stake in all of this discussion is the heart of the gospel, and if there is no agreement on the gospel than unity is ultimately a vain pursuit, and the power of the gospel is squelched in isolated enclaves, rather than in a unified front.
In this book the panel of experts specifically focus on three areas in evaluating the spectrum of evangelicalism:
1) They evaluate their views on Christian cooperation with respect to Evangelicals and Catholics in evaluating the Evangelicals and Catholics Together movement led by Charles Colson and the late John Neuhaus, which began in the 1990's. Also, they address the more recent Manhattan Declaration in order to bring more clarity to cooperation among social and theological concerns.
2) They evaluate doctrinal boundaries - what are the "essentials" that make one a doctrinally sound evangelical - specifically with reference to the recent debates over "open" theism (does God know the future).
3) They explain their specific views on key issues related to the atonement with specific reference to what it means that Christ took on God's wrath meant for sinners.
The Four Distinct Views Presented Are:
View #1: Fundamentalism - Kevin T. Bauder (Research Professor at Central Baptist Theological Seminary in Minneapolis)
View #2: Confessional Evangelicalism - R. Albert Mohler Jr. (President and Joseph Emerson Brown Professor of Christian Theology at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville)
View #3: Generic Evangelicalism - John G. Stackhouse Jr. (Professor of Theology and Culture at Regent College in Vancouver, Canada)
View #4: Postconservative Evangelicalism - Roger E. Olson (Professor of Theology at George W. Truett Theological Seminary of Baylor University)
After each writer presents his view there is a response from each of the others with insightful commentary on the others' views. I found this book to be historically enriching, doctrinally thought provoking, and challenging in its ecclesiological and sociological implications. I hope this book will summon a wide reading and will help balance the thinking, behavior, and unity of all who care about being an evangelical - and more importantly getting the gospel right so that we may speak it and live it boldly in a world that desperately needs to know Jesus and what it means to be a part of His body on earth.
The reason this book and the issues are so important is that what is at stake in all of this discussion is the heart of the gospel, and if there is no agreement on the gospel than unity is ultimately a vain pursuit, and the power of the gospel is squelched in isolated enclaves, rather than in a unified front.
In this book the panel of experts specifically focus on three areas in evaluating the spectrum of evangelicalism:
1) They evaluate their views on Christian cooperation with respect to Evangelicals and Catholics in evaluating the Evangelicals and Catholics Together movement led by Charles Colson and the late John Neuhaus, which began in the 1990's. Also, they address the more recent Manhattan Declaration in order to bring more clarity to cooperation among social and theological concerns.
2) They evaluate doctrinal boundaries - what are the "essentials" that make one a doctrinally sound evangelical - specifically with reference to the recent debates over "open" theism (does God know the future).
3) They explain their specific views on key issues related to the atonement with specific reference to what it means that Christ took on God's wrath meant for sinners.
The Four Distinct Views Presented Are:
View #1: Fundamentalism - Kevin T. Bauder (Research Professor at Central Baptist Theological Seminary in Minneapolis)
View #2: Confessional Evangelicalism - R. Albert Mohler Jr. (President and Joseph Emerson Brown Professor of Christian Theology at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville)
View #3: Generic Evangelicalism - John G. Stackhouse Jr. (Professor of Theology and Culture at Regent College in Vancouver, Canada)
View #4: Postconservative Evangelicalism - Roger E. Olson (Professor of Theology at George W. Truett Theological Seminary of Baylor University)
After each writer presents his view there is a response from each of the others with insightful commentary on the others' views. I found this book to be historically enriching, doctrinally thought provoking, and challenging in its ecclesiological and sociological implications. I hope this book will summon a wide reading and will help balance the thinking, behavior, and unity of all who care about being an evangelical - and more importantly getting the gospel right so that we may speak it and live it boldly in a world that desperately needs to know Jesus and what it means to be a part of His body on earth.
2 of 2 people found the following review helpful
Format:Paperback
For decades Evangelicalism has been in a constant flux and there is no sign of it slowing down. The nature of this flux centers on Evangelicalism's very identity. But the nature of Evangelicalism itself hinges on defining two important terms or ideas: "What is the evangel?" and "Who is an evangelical?"
As if answering these questions were not controversial enough, throw into the mix the fact that everyone wants to have the answer(s) but not everyone agrees. Thus, within broader evangelicalism there is significant confusion and lack of unity about who is an (e)vangelical and what is (E)vangelicalism. This is a debate, and sometimes war, that has waged for decades and will continue for years to come.
It is a commonly held belief, applied to many arenas, that he who defines the terms wins the debate. Since Evangelicalism is so divided and spread out the question naturally arises, "Who gets to define these two terms/ideas?" Is any one definition correct? Can any definition be wrong? Can anyone be an evangelical? What does it take to be considered unevangelical?
In an effort to present and possibly come to more of a unified consensus on the definition of these terms Andy Naselli and Collin Hansen have edited the new book Four Views on the Spectrum of Evangelicalism. This book brings together the views of four leading voices within Evangelicalism today. The contributors and their respective positions are as follows:
Kevin Bauder - Fundamentalism
Al Mohler - Conservative/Confessional Evangelicalism
John Stackhouse Jr. - Generic Evangelicalism
Roger Olson - Postconservative Evangelicalism
There are no doubt other slices within Evangelicalism that could have been represented but these four views seem to be the most dominate and have a large following.
Unity on the evangel
The basis for the word evangelical is the word evangel which means "good news." Across the four views presented there is unity in believing that Evangelicalism as a movement and evangelicals as persons should be centered on the good news of the gospel.
For Bauder "profession of the gospel is the minimum requirement for Christian fellowship" which centers on 1 Cor. 15 and the events of the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ (p. 25). It is these events that make the gospel possible. But simply affirming the reality of these is not enough. "The gospel begins with events, but the events are not presented as brute facts. They are interpreted (p. 29)." To Bauder, the gospel is the explanation of the significance and meaning of those events. He states further, "That meaning explains why the good news is good....Therefore, the gospel has an irreducibly doctrinal component. The gospel is not only events; it is also doctrines (p. 29)." It is these explained doctrines that shape and provide the boundaries for an evangelical and should for those within Evangelicalism. "Since the gospel functions as the boundary of Christian fellowship, fundamental doctrines are part of that boundary (p. 29)." They are fundamental doctrines of the gospel and as such should be fundamental to and evangelicals explanation of the evangel.
For Mohler there is not much recognizable difference in what Bauder asserts. Mohler sees the doctrinal essentials inside a theological triad. There are first, second and third tier doctrines to the Christian faith. These first tier doctrines "include the Trinity, the full humanity and deity of Jesus Christ, justification by faith alone and the authority of the Scripture (p. 78)." He goes on to say, "Denying these doctrines represents nothing less than eventually denying Christianity itself (p. 79)." The rub lies in the boundary between first and second tier doctrines. This is where Mohler and Bauder might disagree (and where Stackhouse and Olson certainly will) but where they would also part ways with Stackhouse and Olson. Both Bauder and Mohler agree that there is a fine line between the two but they would differ on what they are. Mohler further articulates the gospel as the center of evangelical confession by rounding it out with the idea that whatever becomes the center naturally defines the boundaries. If the gospel is the center of Evangelicalism then it also defines its boundaries, thus by definition weeding out those who can and cannot (should or should not) claim to be an evangelical. Mohler champions a "model of evangelical identity that directs constant attention to both the center and the boundary.....Attention to the boundary is not a matter of mere doctrinal policing. It is necessary for our faith to resemble and represent what the Bible reveals. Attention to the boundary lines is essential lest the evangelical movement forfeit its responsibility to make our confession of Christ clear (p. 77)."
John Stackhouse understands the evangel to be "a message about the life, work, and significance of Jesus Christ as God reconciling the world to himself and how we can participate in that salvation (p. 116)." Though in somewhat different words Stackhouse falls in line with Bauder and Mohler on identifying the gospel as the center of evangelical confession. He too believes there are to be sets of beliefs that mark out an evangelical as well as convictions they hold to. As an individual an evangelical is to be Christ centered, Bible centered, conversion centered and activist minded (p. 119). As a movement Evangelicalism is to be Christ centered, Bible centered, conversion centered, missionally focused and transdenominational (p. 124). Going beyond Bauder and Mohler, Stackhouse believes an evangelical need not only confirm right doctrines (orthodoxy) but also right feelings (orthopathy) and right practice (orthopraxy) (p. 124). The issue for Stackhouse is how much of each sphere does one have to hold to in order to be considered an evangelical? Can you major on one and minor on the others and still be an evangelical? Can you ignore one or two and solely focus on the last that you cannot be identified as an evangelical who is committed to the gospel?
In much the same vein as Stackhouse, Olson seeks to shape the identity of an evangelical and Evangelicalism around the ideas of conversionism, biblicism, crucicentricism and activism. These form the center of evangelical belief. Unlike the other contributors he does not come out and define the gospel per se but one does get the general idea throughout his discussion of the aforementioned shapers of evangelical identity.
All in all the four authors have general agreement that the gospel is the center of the life of the evangelical and Evangelicalism as a movement. They also have general agreement that there is a center of sorts around which an evangelical and Evangelicalism is set. Where they clearly divide over is on whether this gospel center, and it's attending doctrines, by definition or naturally sets its own boundaries in which one must stay inside in order to biblically identify as an evangelical and associate and fellowship within Evangelicalism.
Disunity on who is or can claim to be an evangelical
Even a cursory look at the history of Evangelicalism will yield the harsh reality that it is fractured. There are many factors to this which historians of many perspectives have charted over the last decade or so. Perhaps the issue that is most responsible for these fractures is the place of separation among evangelicals. Do evangelicals separate from others who claim to be evangelicals but do not keep the gospel the center and what that implies? Do we have biblical warrant to separate from other professing evangelicals? It is here where the marked division occurs.
Compared to many Fundamentalists Bauder brings a welcome tone to his view of Evangelicalism and Fundamentalism. He is of the same stripe but different. The heart of the difference for Bauder is what Fundamentalists have become famous for (whether they want to or not) - second degree separation. As central as this belief is it takes up very little of Bauder's chapter. The crux text is 2 John 9-11. For Bauder these verses describe how Christians are to handle other Christians who extend fellowship to other professing believers who they would not fellowship with. From these verses Bauder's conclusion is clear
"Christians who make a habit of encouraging apostate teachers are hardly a model of Christian discernment. We should treat them as people who have a share in the evil of apostasy. That is why fundamentalists separate from Christian leaders who will not separate from apostates. By refusing to break with apostates, such Christian leaders are losing reward by bringing themselves into fellowship with apostasy. The evil of apostasy becomes common property between them and the apostates (p. 40)."
What seems reasonably clear is how person A (evangelical) is to relate to person B (apostate). What I am not sure of yet is how to reconcile where person C (evangelical who associates with person A) is even in the picture in these verses. It seems like a point of implication at best. There are two parties in this passage not three. Whether or not Bauder's conclusions about 2 John 9-11 are as clear as he seems them to be, there is some merit and wisdom to his words. Bauder is more than reasonable earlier in the chapter as he recognizes that each person will draw the line differently and we must give everyone some room for different movement and personal discernment and application of separation. What has plagued Fundamentalism is that too often second and third degree doctrines are held to the level of first degree doctrines and thus first and second degree separation happens where there should be fellowship and unity. This is not healthy for the church. Read more ›
As if answering these questions were not controversial enough, throw into the mix the fact that everyone wants to have the answer(s) but not everyone agrees. Thus, within broader evangelicalism there is significant confusion and lack of unity about who is an (e)vangelical and what is (E)vangelicalism. This is a debate, and sometimes war, that has waged for decades and will continue for years to come.
It is a commonly held belief, applied to many arenas, that he who defines the terms wins the debate. Since Evangelicalism is so divided and spread out the question naturally arises, "Who gets to define these two terms/ideas?" Is any one definition correct? Can any definition be wrong? Can anyone be an evangelical? What does it take to be considered unevangelical?
In an effort to present and possibly come to more of a unified consensus on the definition of these terms Andy Naselli and Collin Hansen have edited the new book Four Views on the Spectrum of Evangelicalism. This book brings together the views of four leading voices within Evangelicalism today. The contributors and their respective positions are as follows:
Kevin Bauder - Fundamentalism
Al Mohler - Conservative/Confessional Evangelicalism
John Stackhouse Jr. - Generic Evangelicalism
Roger Olson - Postconservative Evangelicalism
There are no doubt other slices within Evangelicalism that could have been represented but these four views seem to be the most dominate and have a large following.
Unity on the evangel
The basis for the word evangelical is the word evangel which means "good news." Across the four views presented there is unity in believing that Evangelicalism as a movement and evangelicals as persons should be centered on the good news of the gospel.
For Bauder "profession of the gospel is the minimum requirement for Christian fellowship" which centers on 1 Cor. 15 and the events of the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ (p. 25). It is these events that make the gospel possible. But simply affirming the reality of these is not enough. "The gospel begins with events, but the events are not presented as brute facts. They are interpreted (p. 29)." To Bauder, the gospel is the explanation of the significance and meaning of those events. He states further, "That meaning explains why the good news is good....Therefore, the gospel has an irreducibly doctrinal component. The gospel is not only events; it is also doctrines (p. 29)." It is these explained doctrines that shape and provide the boundaries for an evangelical and should for those within Evangelicalism. "Since the gospel functions as the boundary of Christian fellowship, fundamental doctrines are part of that boundary (p. 29)." They are fundamental doctrines of the gospel and as such should be fundamental to and evangelicals explanation of the evangel.
For Mohler there is not much recognizable difference in what Bauder asserts. Mohler sees the doctrinal essentials inside a theological triad. There are first, second and third tier doctrines to the Christian faith. These first tier doctrines "include the Trinity, the full humanity and deity of Jesus Christ, justification by faith alone and the authority of the Scripture (p. 78)." He goes on to say, "Denying these doctrines represents nothing less than eventually denying Christianity itself (p. 79)." The rub lies in the boundary between first and second tier doctrines. This is where Mohler and Bauder might disagree (and where Stackhouse and Olson certainly will) but where they would also part ways with Stackhouse and Olson. Both Bauder and Mohler agree that there is a fine line between the two but they would differ on what they are. Mohler further articulates the gospel as the center of evangelical confession by rounding it out with the idea that whatever becomes the center naturally defines the boundaries. If the gospel is the center of Evangelicalism then it also defines its boundaries, thus by definition weeding out those who can and cannot (should or should not) claim to be an evangelical. Mohler champions a "model of evangelical identity that directs constant attention to both the center and the boundary.....Attention to the boundary is not a matter of mere doctrinal policing. It is necessary for our faith to resemble and represent what the Bible reveals. Attention to the boundary lines is essential lest the evangelical movement forfeit its responsibility to make our confession of Christ clear (p. 77)."
John Stackhouse understands the evangel to be "a message about the life, work, and significance of Jesus Christ as God reconciling the world to himself and how we can participate in that salvation (p. 116)." Though in somewhat different words Stackhouse falls in line with Bauder and Mohler on identifying the gospel as the center of evangelical confession. He too believes there are to be sets of beliefs that mark out an evangelical as well as convictions they hold to. As an individual an evangelical is to be Christ centered, Bible centered, conversion centered and activist minded (p. 119). As a movement Evangelicalism is to be Christ centered, Bible centered, conversion centered, missionally focused and transdenominational (p. 124). Going beyond Bauder and Mohler, Stackhouse believes an evangelical need not only confirm right doctrines (orthodoxy) but also right feelings (orthopathy) and right practice (orthopraxy) (p. 124). The issue for Stackhouse is how much of each sphere does one have to hold to in order to be considered an evangelical? Can you major on one and minor on the others and still be an evangelical? Can you ignore one or two and solely focus on the last that you cannot be identified as an evangelical who is committed to the gospel?
In much the same vein as Stackhouse, Olson seeks to shape the identity of an evangelical and Evangelicalism around the ideas of conversionism, biblicism, crucicentricism and activism. These form the center of evangelical belief. Unlike the other contributors he does not come out and define the gospel per se but one does get the general idea throughout his discussion of the aforementioned shapers of evangelical identity.
All in all the four authors have general agreement that the gospel is the center of the life of the evangelical and Evangelicalism as a movement. They also have general agreement that there is a center of sorts around which an evangelical and Evangelicalism is set. Where they clearly divide over is on whether this gospel center, and it's attending doctrines, by definition or naturally sets its own boundaries in which one must stay inside in order to biblically identify as an evangelical and associate and fellowship within Evangelicalism.
Disunity on who is or can claim to be an evangelical
Even a cursory look at the history of Evangelicalism will yield the harsh reality that it is fractured. There are many factors to this which historians of many perspectives have charted over the last decade or so. Perhaps the issue that is most responsible for these fractures is the place of separation among evangelicals. Do evangelicals separate from others who claim to be evangelicals but do not keep the gospel the center and what that implies? Do we have biblical warrant to separate from other professing evangelicals? It is here where the marked division occurs.
Compared to many Fundamentalists Bauder brings a welcome tone to his view of Evangelicalism and Fundamentalism. He is of the same stripe but different. The heart of the difference for Bauder is what Fundamentalists have become famous for (whether they want to or not) - second degree separation. As central as this belief is it takes up very little of Bauder's chapter. The crux text is 2 John 9-11. For Bauder these verses describe how Christians are to handle other Christians who extend fellowship to other professing believers who they would not fellowship with. From these verses Bauder's conclusion is clear
"Christians who make a habit of encouraging apostate teachers are hardly a model of Christian discernment. We should treat them as people who have a share in the evil of apostasy. That is why fundamentalists separate from Christian leaders who will not separate from apostates. By refusing to break with apostates, such Christian leaders are losing reward by bringing themselves into fellowship with apostasy. The evil of apostasy becomes common property between them and the apostates (p. 40)."
What seems reasonably clear is how person A (evangelical) is to relate to person B (apostate). What I am not sure of yet is how to reconcile where person C (evangelical who associates with person A) is even in the picture in these verses. It seems like a point of implication at best. There are two parties in this passage not three. Whether or not Bauder's conclusions about 2 John 9-11 are as clear as he seems them to be, there is some merit and wisdom to his words. Bauder is more than reasonable earlier in the chapter as he recognizes that each person will draw the line differently and we must give everyone some room for different movement and personal discernment and application of separation. What has plagued Fundamentalism is that too often second and third degree doctrines are held to the level of first degree doctrines and thus first and second degree separation happens where there should be fellowship and unity. This is not healthy for the church. Read more ›
Most Recent Customer Reviews
3.0 out of 5 stars
Not the best in the counterpoint series
Many people use the term evangelical these days. Outside of the church, the word evangelical is used to refer to anyone who is a politically active conservative Christian. Read more
Published 7 months ago by Clint Walker
5.0 out of 5 stars
Sheds Light, and Edifies
Four Views on the Spectrum of Evangelicalism is an important book for evangelicals and non-evangelicals alike. Zondervan should be applauded for this project. Read more
Published 9 months ago by Benjamin A. Simpson
4.0 out of 5 stars
Helpful book that will help evangelicals think through what...
Evangelicals take their name form the koine Greek word euangelion, translated into English as "good news" which is also known as the evangel. Read more
Published 12 months ago by Dave J. Jenkins
4.0 out of 5 stars
Maybe Fundamentalism isn't so bad after all
Four Views on The Spectrum of Evangelicalism
©2011 by Andrew David Naselli, Collin Hansen, Kevin T. Bauder, R. Albert Mohler Jr., John G. Stackhouse Jr., and Roger E. Read more
©2011 by Andrew David Naselli, Collin Hansen, Kevin T. Bauder, R. Albert Mohler Jr., John G. Stackhouse Jr., and Roger E. Read more
Published 12 months ago by Reviewer
4.0 out of 5 stars
Irenic, Hopeful Dialogue on the Spectrum and Future of Evangelicalism
I was thrilled to receive this book to review from Zondervan because of its content and scope: four views on the spectrum of evangelicalism'. Read more
Published 19 months ago by Jeremy Bouma
