No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 March 2012
In the first decade of the twenty-first century, the Evangelical Theological Society (ETS) in the United States (US) went through a shift because of the introduction of open theism into theological context of conservative evangelicalism. The response by the society to this new theology was swift and decisive. Not only were the memberships of certain evangelicals (i.e. Clark H. Pinnock and John Sanders), who were responsible for bringing open theism into the ETS, in danger of being revoked, but the ETS formally denounced open theism and changed its constitutional by-laws to safeguard itself against anyone bringing significant theological innovation into the society. It is important to re-examine the cultural ethos of the ETS in the US in terms of the underlying beliefs of the society in order to determine whether or not the changes the ETS made had basis in scripture or were simply motivated by the culture at large. To determine this, this article will begin by generally describing some of the main cultural beliefs of the ETS. Next, the discussion focuses on some of the major historical influences of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, which impacted the ETS to conform to an ethos more in line with the Enlightenment. Third, the article will critique these Enlightenment-based cultural beliefs linguistically, culturally and theologically. This article will demonstrate that because the ETS conformed more to the standards of the Enlightenment than to scripture, it is generally much more preoccupied with knowing the truth of scripture rather than walking in the way of Jesus Christ. Finally, this article suggests the way forward for the ETS is to become a more inclusive society by aligning itself with a more historical definition of evangelicalism rather than simply being defined by the evangelicalism of the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries. This article suggests that by making this move, the ETS will reclaim a much more grace-filled attitude towards its current members and give hope to those committed Christ-followers on the outside of the society, showing them they are welcome to be a part of such a prestigious theological group.
1 The open theist controversy has not been the only one in which the ETS has decided to change its constitution or by-laws.
2 The ETS statement on inerrancy read as follows: ‘The Bible alone, and the Bible in its entirety, is the Word of God written and is therefore inerrant in the autographs.’ ETS, ‘About: Doctrinal Basis’, http://www.etsjets.org/about.
3 The other doctrinal standard concerns the Trinity. A member must believe that ‘God is a Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, each an uncreated person, one in essence, equal in power and glory.’ Ibid.
4 The ETS position reads as follows: ‘For the purpose of advising members regarding the intent and meaning of the reference to biblical inerrancy in the ETS Doctrinal Basis, the Society refers members to the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (1978).’ ETS, ‘About: Bylaws (No. 12)’, http://www.etsjets.org/about/bylaws.
5 Not every evangelical denomination has seen significant decline. E.g. Pentecostal churches within the evangelical community have generally done well over the last half-century.
6 Vanhoozer, Kevin J., First Theology (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2002), p. 315Google Scholar.
7 The assumption being made, namely that conservative evangelicals and the ETS are the same, is based upon the ETS purpose statement, which reads: ‘The purpose of the Society shall be to foster conservative biblical scholarship[.]’ ETS, ‘About: ETS Constitution (Article II: Purpose)’, http://www.etsjets.org/about/constitution (emphasis mine).
8 Like the term ‘culture’, ‘proposition’ has a range of meanings depending on those who use it. Philosophically, a ‘proposition is an abstraction that captures or expresses the descriptive content of any . . . statement’. Clark, David K., To Know and Love God (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2003), p. 358Google Scholar. In other words, a proposition is the meaning of a statement extracted from the context in which it is written. The process of propositionalising statements was an attempt to describe how meaning existed as an objective, universal and literal entity apart from the perceived subjectivity of the various contexts in which the particular statement was used.
9 Olson, Roger E., Reformed and Always Reforming (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2007), p. 23Google Scholar.
10 Ibid.
11 Those evangelicals who claim that conservative evangelical theology is a product of modernism include, but are not limited to, the following: Grenz, Stanley J. and Franke, John R., Beyond Foundationalism (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2001)Google Scholar; Knight, Henry H. III, A Future for Truth (Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1997)Google Scholar; Pinnock, Clark H., Tracking the Maze (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1990)Google Scholar; and Middleton, J. Richard and Walsh, Brian J., Truth is Stranger than it Used to Be (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 1995)Google Scholar.
12 Grenz and Franke, Beyond Foundationalism, p. 31.
13 Ibid.
14 There were actually two Enlightenment methodologies. The first was rationalism, as developed by Descartes. Rationalism referred to knowledge gained through using the mind's ability to reason about the world. Consequently, rationalists believed that understanding was gained only through mental processing and therefore what humans actually experienced contributed very little to how true knowledge of the world was achieved. The other method was called empiricism. Empiricism is defined as knowledge gained through the sense experience, which refers to what can be learned through seeing, tasting, touching, hearing, and smelling. White, James E., Serious Times (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2004), p. 26Google Scholar.
15 It is important to point out that Descartes had a Christian worldview. For evidence, ibid., p. 27.
16 Ibid.
17 Ibid., p. 26.
18 Ibid., p. 25.
19 Ibid., p. 27. White does an excellent job of emphasising the marginalisation of the European church in the following: ‘One of the more symbolic events took place on November 10, 1793, when Notre-Dame de Paris, the great church of France – most famous of the Gothic cathedrals – was formally declared and transformed into the Temple of Reason, with busts of Rousseau and Voltaire taking the place of the Saints.’ During the opening ceremony of the Temple, the people attending sang a song, whose content declared their freedom from the traditional authority of the church and consequently asked reason to become their god. Ibid., pp. 28–9.
20 Hodge, Charles, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1952), vol. 1, p. 152Google Scholar.
21 Hodge, A. A., Outlines of Theology for Students and Laymen (Grand Rapids: Zondervan), p. 75Google Scholar.
22 Dorrien, Gary, The Remaking of Evangelical Theology (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1998), p. 18Google Scholar.
23 Hodge, A. A. and Warfield, Benjamin B., ‘Inspiration’, Presbyterian Review 2/6 (April 1881), p. 245Google Scholar.
24 Machen, Gresham J., Christianity and Liberalism (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1977), p. 74Google Scholar.
25 Dorrien, Remaking, p. 39.
26 Ibid., p. 24.
27 Ibid.
28 Ibid., p. 25.
29 Henry, Carl F., God, Revelation, and Authority (Waco, TX: Word, 1976–83), vol. 1, p. 215 (emphasis removed)Google Scholar.
30 Henry, Carl F., Towards a Recovery of Christian Belief (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1990), p. 55Google Scholar.
31 Dorrien, Remaking, p. 109.
32 Henry, God, Revelation, and Authority, vol. 4, p. 192.
33 Dorrien, Remaking, p. 116.
34 Ibid., p. 115.
35 Perry, , ‘Dissolving the Inerrancy Debate’, Journal for Christian Theological Research 6/3 (2000), para. 22, http://www2.luthersem.edu/ctrf/JCTR/Vol06/Perry.htmGoogle Scholar.
36 Ibid.
37 The idea that literal and metaphorical language was separate was not the invention of modernism, but was taken from Aristotle, who was the father of the literal-metaphorical dichotomy. Modern philosophers (i.e. Thomas Hobbes and John Locke) took Aristotle one step further by trying to rid language and thought of metaphor completely.
38 The definition of ‘conceptual metaphor’ given here is a derivative of the one found in Lakoff, George and Johnson, Mark, Metaphors we Live by (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980), p. 5Google Scholar.
39 The vast majority of the literature discussing contemporary metaphorical theory uses all capital letters when referring to conceptual metaphors. This article will continue this tradition.
40 Ibid., p. 4 (emphasis original).
41 Ibid.
42 Ibid., p. 5 (emphasis original).
43 These linguistic expressions are derived from McElhanon, Kenneth A., ‘From Word to Scenario’, Journal of Translation 1/3 (2005), pp. 55–6, http://www.sil.org/siljot/2005/3/46697/siljot2005-3-02.pdf (emphasis mine)Google Scholar.
44 Ibid., p. 55.
45 Ibid., p. 57.
46 Ibid., p. 58.
47 Ibid., p. 59.
48 Ibid., p. 60.
49 Ibid.
50 Ibid., pp. 60–1.
51 Ibid., p. 60 (emphasis original).
52 Dorrien, Remaking, p. 19.
53 Ibid., pp. 19–20.
54 Ibid., p. 20.
55 Ibid.
56 Ibid.
57 Ibid., p. 21.
58 Ibid.
59 Steven Studebaker, ‘Revelation and Scripture: Inspiration’ (lecture, McMaster Divinity College, Hamilton, ON, 5 Oct. 2009), p. 7.
60 Dorrien, Remaking, p. 21.
61 Ibid.
62 Olson, Roger E., The Story of Christian Theology (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 1999), p. 132Google Scholar.
63 Ibid., p. 133.
64 Ibid., p. 132.
65 White, James E., Rethinking the Church (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2003), p. 19Google Scholar.
66 Ibid., p. 20.
67 Ibid., p. 21.
68 This was the case when the ETS used the modernist based doctrine of inerrancy to attempt to remove open theists from the society.
69 Ward, Karen, ‘Response to Mark Driscoll’, in Webber, Robert (ed.), Listening to the Beliefs of Emerging Churches (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2007), pp. 45–6Google Scholar (emphasis original).
70 The four doctrines described in this paragraph are taken from Collins, Kenneth J., The Evangelical Moment (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2005), p. 21Google Scholar. Also, there is no objection to the ETS retaining their doctrinal stance on the Trinity, as it is very much a part of Christian orthodox tradition.
71 Although the ETS may have believed it was justified in attempting to remove Pinnock and Sanders from their fellowship, it was only acceptable as defined by modernist standards. At no point did the society demonstrate the New Testament concept of truth, which means they would have had to treat these evangelicals as Christ would have, namely with love, acceptance, charity and grace. This lack of acting in a truly Christian fashion towards Pinnock and Sanders shows just how much modernity has become an idol of the ETS.
72 The goal of this article has not been to define what an evangelical or evangelicalism is. Defining both is an important exercise and the discussion of how these terms should be understood is a source of both historical and current debate, as there is no unilateral agreement on their respective definitions. Rather, the purpose of this article is to encourage the ETS to consider broadening its doctrinal boundaries in order more fairly to represent the wider and more generous spirit that has typically defined the evangelical ethos.