Four Views On The Spectrum of Evangelicalism

Counterpoints

by Andrew David Naselli, R. Albert Mohler Jr., Kevin T. Bauder

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 Fundamentalism, Conservative/confessional evangelicalism, Generic evangelicalism, and Postconservative evangelicalism.

Genres: Theology, Christian, Church, Ecclesiology, Fundamentalism, Christianity, Cultural

215 pages, Kindle Edition

First published September 20, 2011

About the author

Andrew David Naselli (PhD, Bob Jones University; PhD, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School) is associate professor of New Testament and theology at Bethlehem College & Seminary in Minneapolis, Minnesota and an elder of Bethlehem Baptist Church.

Reviews

[Josiah Richardson · Rating 2 out of 5]

In some ways, the idea of who is a true evangelical has become less important over the past decade or so. We have seen so many that we have thought were strong evangelicals turn out not to be, and vice versa. These four authors give their take on the property lines of evangelicalism. Mohler holds to a view called confessional evangelicalism which sounds like something we reformed folk would sign onto, yet he appeals to no confession for his view which seems to be intentional. The moment we attach a historical confession to our view of evangelicalism, we probably lose the vast majority of self-proclaimed evangelicals.

It may sound cliche, but there is truth to the idea that when everyone is evangelical, nobody is. Is it just holding to the fundamentals of the faith? How do we differentiate that from just being credal or confessional? Can you be so nuanced or particular in your evangelicalism that you are no longer evangelical? Are denominational differences enough to move you in or out of the evangelical sphere? These and other questions are either unanswered or side-stepped. The responses to each author’s installments looked like a cotton hammer where nobody wanted to call the other out for not being an evangelical in their beliefs or actions.

It just seemed like 200 pages of four different authors saying “I guess, in the end, we’re not so different after all.” All authors agreed that just being a Christian doesn’t make you an evangelical, and one author even said something to the effect of “I don’t know why I was given the label of Post-Evangelical when I’m saying the same things as the other authors.”

[Stephen Bedard · Rating 5 out of 5]

In general, I enjoy the Four Views books but I particularly liked this one. I expected that the authors would get nasty with each other over the complex definition of evangelical identity but it was actually a productive and healthy conversation.

[Alex Inouye · Rating 5 out of 5]

The goal of this book was to present four views on the Evangelicalism spanning from fundamentalism to post-conservative evangelicalism. In summary, fundamentalism is marked by the conviction that evangelicalism ought to be marked out by theological distinctives, and separation ought to occur from anyone who associates with those who violate said theological distinctives. Confessional evangelicalism agrees with fundamentalism’s proposition that we must have theological boundary markers, but confessional evangelicalism differs in that it is unwilling to draw a hard line at secondary separation and makes a concerted effort to do what Mohler calls “theological triage.” Non-confessional evangelicalism seems to see the evangelical as merely a protestant Christian committed to the gospel. One may wonder why even use the term “evangelical” in the non-confessional evangelical camp. The post-conservative evangelicals seek to have a “big-tent” meaning they do not want to draw any theological boundary lines for evangelicalism and see evangelicalism as fluid and difficult to define.

This book reminded and reaffirmed to me that an explicit statement of faith is extremely important, and I would add that the statement of faith ought to make a concerted effort to identify where the church or organization falls in respect to historic Christian orthodoxy. For this reason, I see and affirm the helpful nature of historical creeds and confessions. I will qualify that I do not see the creeds and confessions as “lenses” to put over the Bible and read through, but rather, they are rightfully the outcome and result of reading the scripture, seeking the author’s intent, and summarizing the scripture’s teaching on certain doctrines. Thankfully, there is a long line of testimony where generations of men have affirmed the same biblical truth on the core doctrines like the Trinity, salvation by faith alone, and the person of Christ.

[Paul Forrest · Rating 3 out of 5]

Although I appreciate the "four views"/"five views" format for Christian debate, I find it doesn't work as well in the audiobook version which I used as it would a printed book. We have a detailed view presented by "A", which is then critiqued by B, C and D. Then it's B's turn, answered by A, C and D. Then it's C's turn....you get the picture.
So much for the format. As for the content, I found it quite useful, hearing different perspectives within "Evangelidom" on such matters as extent of ecumenical fellowship, open theism, the Evangelicals and Catholics Together document, and others.
Not taking away from its value, the biggest puzzle for me with this project was why there was so much effort spent in arguing for a particular definition of "evangelical". Let's say that somehow they came to an agreement. What they can't prevent is the possibility of a definition-drift of these labels. The word could become so meaningless in years to come as to be of no value. Labels tend to become not as valuable as their inventors hope.
Is there any value in defining the word? Yes, in so far as it promotes discussions like the one in this book. For example, a major point of debate was about criteria for the Christian to decide how far to cooperate or extend the hand of fellowship to other denominations and traditions. It's perhaps an unanswerable question, but should be talked about.

[Tori Samar · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was my first time reading a book from the Counterpoints series. Very worthwhile, and I'm now seriously considering reading at least one Counterpoints book per year from here on out. Regarding this topic specifically, I have heard the terms evangelical and evangelicalism for years, but always considered myself fuzzy on the meanings. In one sense, this book justified my confusion. How could I have been clear on something that exists on such a spectrum? But simultaneously, this book has indeed provided me some much-needed clarity and understanding. I better understand the position I hold (fundamentalism), the position most closely associated with people whose books and blogs I read and podcasts I listen to (confessional evangelicalism), and two positions I wasn't even aware existed. While not an exhaustive look at the spectrum, this book has been illuminating. I have been informed without the fear of editorial bias. And I have also seen proof that civil disagreement and debate is still possible (who knew?).

[Caleb Greene · Rating 4 out of 5]

Four Views on the Spectrum of Evangelicalism is part of the “Counterpoints” series published by Zondervan. The books in this series are designed to bring together people of different views to combine their writing into one volume. The format includes an essay from each of the contributors, with a short response the other writers after each essay.

The editors of this book, Collin Hansen and Andrew Naselli, have gathered four fine representatives, both for their academic credentials as well as their life experience and perspective on evangelicalism. The editors helpfully try to limit the scope of the book by suggestion three common topics for the writers to discuss that have recently been contested in evangelicalism: Evangelicals and Catholics Together, open theism, and penal substitutionary atonement. These topics allow them to explain their views on cooperation, doctrinal boundaries, and fundamental doctrines in turn.

In the end, most people reading this book will find that there are are two groups of two in this book. Naselli notes in his conclusion that, “Views 1 and 2 . . . are close to each other as are views 3 and 4” and “the distance between views 1-2 and 3-4 is significantly greater than between views 1 and 2 or 3 and 4” (214). While these four can be broken down into two groups, those who hold to a particular group, will be satisfied that proper distinctions were made throughout.

If you are looking for the final word on the subject of evangelicalism, this is not the book for you. The brevity of the work simply does not allow for an in-depth analysis of any of the views presented. But its brevity is also its strength. At this length, it remains engaging throughout, even for the average reader. It may not answer all the questions, but it will give a person the right questions to ask and paths to pursue in future study. Many have not even considered the separatism of fundamentalism and confessional evangelicalism. This book should get the conversation started for whoever reads it and it is a conversation worth having.

[Kevin · Rating 4 out of 5]

A very useful book on the topic of "what is an evangelical."

I have to agree with Niselli's conclusion that there are really two main views rather than four. I found Bauder's writing to be very laborious to read while Mohler's was much more fluid. As one who grew up solidly in the "fundamentalist" camp and now identifies more closely with Mohler's view of "confessional evangelicalism", I think that myself and many of my contemporaries (who've also distanced from "fundamentalism") would be more accepting to it if more of the movement were like what Bauder presented. However, most in the fundamentalist "camp" tend to be the extremes he identified as revivalist or hyper fundamentalist.

Worth the time to read and consider and spark good discussions.

[Philip · Rating 5 out of 5]

Simply Groundbreaking

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. Thankfully, John does provide us with two examples of those who do not fall within that solar system. Roman Catholics, in the writer’s mind, do not fit the mould because they do not seek to identify with the movement (128). One might ask if this may change should the Catholics change their mind on this point, but that remains beside the point. According to Stackhouse, Mormons also do not fall within the evangelical camp because they do not hold to his concept of orthodox doctrine and are therefore not even Christian (137). John also gives us two examples of (interestingly, non-orthodox) views that can be considered evangelical: open theism and the New Perspective on Paul. So now a “useful” (116) definition of the movement emerges: evangelicalism is a movement made up of all non-Catholic, non-cultic born again Christians.

As expected, Bauder and Mohler jump all over Stackhouse although each one clarifies their points in response. Bauder moves towards an “I told you so” sort of approach and breaks into a history lesson of why fundamentalists left the movement to begin with (145-148). He argues that this very slippery slope of the movement drove the fundamentalists to remove themselves from it a half-century ago. Mohler moves to shift his argument to one of admitting that, though the movement is vast and difficult to bound, believers must bound their fellowship to avoid being taken prey by false doctrine. It was fascinating that neither Bauder nor Mohler really targeted questionable points on an individual level, but rather dealt with the argument as a whole. The one phrase that jumped out to this reviewer was actually targeted by Olson. Stackhouse defined penal substitutionary atonement as “far from being merely some sort of evangelical marker…[it] is a vital and non-negotiable part of Christian theology in general” (133); however, instead of writing off the view as non-evangelical (based on the same reasoning that he wrote off Mormonism), he rather closes here by noting that although the New Perspective crowd are merely wrong evangelicals, but they are still genuine evangelicals. Olson picks up on the doublespeak and points it out (158). Ultimately, when John speaks of orthodoxy (and he does quite frequently) the reader must ask the question: from whose perspective? This question will really come into play as the final view is considered.

View 4 is the post-conservative evangelical view as presented by Roger Olson. This writer has always been fun to read. The reader may find a visceral reaction to some of what he says, but he certainly thinks outside the box and writes with a sharp wit and great skill. Overall his view of evangelicalism is big and fluffy like Stackhouse’s, but just bigger and fluffier. In the center one will find those that reject the inerrancy of Scripture (165, 172-173). Out on the fringes one may find “monophysites, Sabellians, open theists” (192), New Perspective promoters, and so on. To Olson this odd bunch of believers, among several other things, demonstrates a respect for the tradition of Christian orthodoxy. On the one hand, Olson argues for respect of the early creeds of Protestantism and Christianity (176), but on the other hand argues that evangelicalism should be generous enough to include views held as heretical since the fifth century (177). In this sense, Olson seems to be militating for a broader view of evangelicalism than currently exists. Just as Mohler militantly argues for a smaller view of evangelicalism, Olson co-opts the evangelical movement for his own purposes and tries to force upon it views that do not even fit within the orthodox framework.

Surprisingly, Olson gets hit quite hard from all three of the co-authors. Bauder makes an insightful analogy to Olson’s evangelicalism looking like something of a “freak show” (192) that includes all sorts of deformed dogs and holds them up as the archetype of what a real dog should be. Mohler points out that even Olson bounded the movement by excluding Seventh-Day Adventists and Catholics. Olson really does believe in a bounded evangelicalism whether or not he states it outright. Ultimately, the result of views such as Olson’s and Stackhouse’s is an “unstable” movement in Mohler’s opinion (197). Mohler indicates that the only means of regaining the stability of the movement is to return to specific doctrinal boundaries. Stackhouse also makes two particularly strong points. He notes that “every element in a centered set has to embrace all of what constitutes the center. Not “face toward it,” but to embrace it” (202). By making this point, Stackhouse undermines even his own concept of centered evangelicalism. If all the difference rests upon whether one is embracing the center or merely facing the center, then who is to determine that difference? Does this not smack of something of a boundary (viz., one group is close enough to embrace the center and another group is too far away and is only facing the center)? That said, Stackhouse does solidly strike at Olson’s model and should raise a number of questions in the mind of the readers. To this reviewer, Stackhouse seems to be concerned about just how big and fluffy the movement may become if it is not bounded in some way. It seems that this may be John’s fleeting attempt to try to erect some sort of boundary before the term truly becomes meaningless. Secondly, Stackhouse notes that Olson relies too much upon the NAE in his definition of what is in evangelicalism and what is out (203). This point was a much needed corrective to the incessant pleas to the organization throughout the chapter.

In summary, the views could be stated as follows. Bauder argues that one should separate from evangelicalism. Mohler argues that one should retake evangelicalism. Stackhouse argues that one should exist within evangelicalism. Olson argues that one should expand evangelicalism. The views really do polarize and, as Naselli states, in essence form two polar opposites (214). One view seeks to limit their fellowship within the breadth of evangelicalism (Views 1 and 2) and the other view seeks to allow for as much variation within their fellowship within evangelicalism (Views 3 and 4). In light of these considerations old enemies may become fast friends or deeper differences may need to be brought to light. Possibilities abound as this book brings a fresh perspective on the spectrum of evangelicalism.

[Justin Daniel · Rating 5 out of 5]

It’s always frustrating to hear on the news “Evangelicals believe..” because that term is either very generic or very specific depending on who you ask. I never really thought about it before, but the term “evangelical” is actually a highly contested term. As I read this book, I thought evangelicalism might be a lot like jazz. Jazz is a genre of music that has a variety of subgenres. So for example, when you say “I’m listening to jazz”, that doesn’t really tell you anything. Are you listening to latin jazz? Straight ahead? Fusion? Bebop? Free? The possibilities are vast in this world. In the same way, I think this book is a lot like that. There are many, many forms of evangelicalism and each has a particular view of what makes a person evangelical. What convictions does one have to hold to be an evangelical? Where are the boundaries and what is central? What of differing opinions?

This is the beginning question of this book. How do we define evangelical? There are four views presented on the “spectrum of evangelicalism” that general editors Andrew Nasselli and Collin Hansen assembled, each with a different theologian to describe what is an evangelical. Here are the four positions and their authors: 1) Fundamentalism – Kevin Bauder; 2) Confessionalism – Albert Molher Jr.; 3) Generic – John G. Stackhouse Jr.; 4) Post-Conservative – Roger Olsen. The editors asked each author what an evangelical is and asked them to look at some issues in modern day evangelicalism that are “hot topics” according to the opinion of their evangelical scheme. Some of these issues were: are catholics evangelicals or can catholics be evangelicals; are those who ascribe to open theism evangelicals; their respective position on substitutionary atonement etc. The format of the book was very interesting: after each chapter, the other three authors were able to respond to the opinions of the former, a type of rebuttal if you will. This made it really interesting to see all the different opinions and even categorize myself. I just want to take a brief look at each position and the pro’s and con’s of each one:

Fundamentalism – Pros: Biblical inerrancy; concerned with correct theology – this is what makes an evangelical: the “fundamentals”; opposed to open theism; opposed to fellowship with heretics and do not believe catholics are evangelicals; ascribe to the traditional notion of protestant substitutionary atonement. Cons: fundamentalism struggles with the name “fundamentalist.” Kevin Bauder expertly explains that there are “hyper-fundamentalists” who worry about what clothes you wear and how long women’s hair has to be, King James only sects etc. This is not fundamentalism. But Dr. Mohler points out that unless fundamentalists quell that group, the existence of fundamentalism as a viable option as evangelical is tentative.
Confessional – Pros: Confessional Evangelicals are similar to Fundamentalists but they argue that to be a true Evangelical you must agree with all the confessions and creeds in Church history; proponents of sound theology and biblical inerrancy; opposed to open theism; against catholics being considered evangelicals; ascribe to traditional notion of substitutionary atonement. Cons: I think both Fundamentalists and Confessionals are “attacked” or criticized by opponents because they believe that their conditions for being evangelical are too narrow.
Generic – Pros: Generic Evangelicals hold to 4 basic notions that make up an evangelical that was first proposed by David Bebbington: Biblicism, Conversationism, Crucicentricism, and Activism. Cons: this definition is perhaps too broad. Under the auspice of that, both Catholics and Mormons could be considered evangelicals. Dr. Stackhouse believes that they might be evangelicals, just “wrong” evangelicals.
Post-Conservative – Pros: this is the broadest definition of evangelical that you can get. Dr. Olsen believes that both open theists, Roman Catholics, and Mormons could be evangelicals as long as they hold to Bebbington’s four essentials. He says that evangelicalism is a movement, not an organization like the Roman Catholic Church and therefore no one can say who is “in” and who is not based a movement does not define boundaries. Cons: unfortunately, I sympathize with Dr. Olsen but I cannot agree with him. Yes evangelicalism is a broad term, but if there are no boundaries then why fight for anything?
As you can see, the term “evangelical” is hotly debated. I think I find myself in either of the first two categories, and I lean more heavily to Confessionalism. This is a really interesting book though, and I think it clarifies a lot about what it means to be an evangelical.

[Jeremy Bouma · Rating 4 out of 5]

I was thrilled to receive this book to review from Zondervan because of its content and scope: four views on the spectrum of evangelicalism. I'm excited for this book for the reason Collin Hansen writes in the introduction: "all is not so clear within the evangelical camp either. Simply labeling ourselves evangelical no longer suffices. We are conservative, progressive, post conservative, and pre progressive evangelicals. We are traditional, creedal, biblical, pietistic, anti creedal, ecumenical, and fundamentalist. We are 'followers of Christ' and 'Red Letter Christians.'" (9)

And then the kicker: "We are everything, so we are nothing." (9)

Exactly.

There is this sense nowadays, at least from my estimation, that the term evangelical means little to nothing because it means so much. Contemporary expressions of evangelicalism seem to be moving in several directions all at once. And it doesn't make matters any better when a prominent president of a prominent evangelical seminary says of Rob Bell's new book Love Wins "I find nothing in his Love Wins book that violates the standards of a broad Evangelical orthodoxy."

At times like these I want to join a certain rap artist in asking, "Will the real evangelical please stand up?"

Insert into the conversation this new book with four perspectives on evangelicalism from four able "representatives": Kevin Bauder (Fundamentalism), Al Mohler (Confessional Evangelicalism), John Stackhouse (Generic Evangelicalism) and Roger Olson (Postconservative Evangelicalism).

This book aims to let each of these representatives of these four points along the spectrum of evangelicalism to define evangelicalism and locate their view in historical context. Along the way they address how they understand Scripture and authority, while also addressing three recently contested issues within evangelicalism: Christian cooperation, particularly between evangelicals and Catholics; open theism, to illustrate their views on doctrinal boundaries; and penal substitutionary atonement, to illustrate a key doctrinal issue relating to the gospel. Then after each contributor establishes their arguments and perspective, the other contributors give critique and pushback in a surprisingly irenic tone.

Of course the world evangelical is rooted in the NT use word euangelion, meaning good news, which relates to "the coming of Jesus Christ and his ministry to usher in the Kingdom of God." (10) And Luther and the Reformers—from whom our Protestant lineage we owe—were the ones who came to be known as evangelicals, because of their criticism of the Roman Catholic Church and concern for the biblical gospel. And of course from the post-WWII organizing efforts of Okenga, Henry, and Graham we derive an even more, specific evangelical lineage in their task at unifying around and preaching the gospel.

The same is true today. We still bear this good news that Jesus Christ has fulfilled the messianic hopes of Israel—the Jesus Story has completed Israel's Story, as another person has recently argued in defining gospel—through the cross in his death for the sins of rebels and resurrection to bring new life/creation, and we take seriously the command to proclaim this good news and provoke people to repentance, belief, and baptism. And these four contributors help us along with that effort.

I appreciated Bauder's clear explanation and defense of fundamentalism, and the responses from Mohler, Stackhouse, and Olson that provide some needed pushback. And while I appreciate the clarity and unity fundamentalism brings regarding the gospel, their posture and narrowness is beyond me.

I agreed more with the section from Mohler than I expected, though his charge that open theism is "disastrous to biblical Christianity" went too far for me. I've read all the open theists and, while I'm not 100% on board with their conclusions, find them to be well within the evangelical tent (ETS and NAE thought so, too) and helpful in correcting Calvinist overreach regarding the divine sovereignty and human freewill. I was also dismayed to find zero emphasis on orthopraxy, right living. The emphasis on orthodoxy was predictable, but neglecting pietism and social activism as extension of our evangelical gospel convictions was sorely unfortunate and a big miss. It's unfortunate this predictability marks confessional/conservative evangelicalism to such an extent it's basically cliche. The gospel and gospeling is about behavior as much as beliefs, and I don't mean the anti-drinking, anti-smoking, anti-dancing variety of behavior. I mean the type that is radically countercultural to the retribution, consumption, and injustice found in Kingdom America, the type of behavior that can only come from a radical encounter with Jesus' gospel and life in the Kingdom.

Also, Mohler's section on "theological triage" was very helpful and very timely, not only as evangelicals but also as Christians. Yes Jesus and His gospel-story and way are at the center of our lives and identity as Christians, but that life and identity is bounded by certain beliefs—beliefs about that person and about that gospel-story. Except nowadays it seems almost impossible to name what exactly are the contours of that person and gospel-story, unless you're Catholic and then you do have a magisterium and tradition to remind and root you. Since us evangelicals don't have such central governing body and hardly find a rootedness in tradition by way of liturgy and the creeds, such an effort at triage is necessary.

I resonated with Stackhouse and his tension of maintaining the boundaries of evangelical Christianity, while also being broad tented enough to include a whole lot of folks. He joins Mohler in using Bebbington's quadrilateral to define evangelicalism—conversionism, biblicism, crucicentrism, and activism—while also adding transdenominalism to account for that broad tent. Unfortunately, Stackhouses generic evangelicalism lacked the the more activistic theological triage motif and posture of Mohler, which I find necessary nowadays.

I did not find Olson's perspective on evangelicalism helpful at all. Olson’s distinction between boundaries and centers, movements and organization was confusing. His drumbeat insistence there is no entity that has the right to decide who is in or out and instance on the impossibility do such a decision logically contradicts his own pronouncements against two Christian denominations. And his reaction against doctrinal “litmus tests” and policing is simply unhelpful.

Olson loudly protested there isn’t an “evangelical magisterium,” which means no one in evangelicalism has the right to name what is in or out, doctrinally right or wrong. Yes there is no central organizing group or person that has legal authority to declare something out of bounds, like Rome and the Pope. That doesn’t mean there isn’t an ethos and historical-socio-theological precedent that enables the movement and individuals to do just that. And on this point and others, Olson fails miserably, where Stackhouse and Mohler succeed in helping give good definition to what is and isn’t evangelical.

Overall this was a good entrance into a conversation on both the history and future of evangelicalism. Though I appreciated each of the four perspectives, I thought the confessional position could have been represented someone who was confessional and Mohler could have represented a conservative evangelicalism. I join Olson in thinking another category could have been added: paleo-orthodox evangelicalism, represented by someone like Thomas Oden or D H Williams. I realize there could have been 10 positions represented, but I do think that only four views (which I know is in keeping with the marketing of the entire series) was too limiting, hence 4 stars.

In the end, my hope is that we as evangelicals would recapture the identity of which each of these contributors to helps remind us. The demeanor and tenor of their arguments and push backs should help create a good climate in which we can recapture and rediscover evangelicalism a new.

[Parker Haines · Rating 5 out of 5]

“The Spectrum of Evangelicalism” is a collection of essays where individuals who represent a variety of different versions of evangelicalism set out their definition of the term and consider the question of Christian community. The range considered spans from fundamentalism to post-conservative evangelicalism. As you move left, the arguments move away from the fundamentalist argument towards a definition of evangelicalism that is very broad. I learned a ton from this book and naturally try to locate myself somewhere on this spectrum. I found Kevin Bauder and Dr. Mohler's arguments compelling, and frankly, I understand the other two authors' critique of Mohler as representing really another form of fundamentalism, due to the fact that there are so many shared convictions between Bauder and Mohler. However, I do think this assertion is mistaken due to the fact that Mohler articulates no doctrine of second-degree separationism. I also think that calling Mohler a fundamentalist in the popular sense of the term is dishonest. It was fascinating to read Bauder's defining much of what comprises modern-day fundamentalism as “hyper fundamentalism”. This makes the line between Bauder's fundamentalism and Mohler's confessional evangelicalism very fine indeed.

I also was sympathetic towards Olson's critique of Mohler, saying that when he uses the term “Confessional Evangelicalism” what he really means is “Conservative Evangelicalism”. I do find Mohler's usage of the term confessional a bit confusing, seeing as he rarely appeals to the authority of a particular creed or confession. It seems to me like the Presbyterian idea of confessionalism is more consistent, as they regularly appeal to the Westminster standards.

Walking away from this book, I'm asking big questions about where the lines of Christian fellowship should be drawn. If I understand Mohler's argument, he suggests that the broad usage of the term evangelical (and thus, Christian fellowship) should be drawn at the point of 1st order Gospel issues, such as issues of the deity of Christ, the Trinity, and justification by faith alone. Thus, Mohler suggests, we should not consider Roman Catholics as Evangelicals, nor as genuine Christians. Do I think the issue gets more difficult if you move to other issues?

For example, if the reason we reject Roman Catholics as Christians is because they have a misconstrued conception of the doctrine of justification by faith, then would we similarly bar N.T Wright from evangelicalism because of his new perspective? And if we bar open theists from Christian fellowship because of their redefining of the nature of God and their blunt rejection of that which the Bible clearly teaches, should we consider egalitarians in the same category?

I want to have well-reasoned answers to all of these questions.

[Kiel · Rating 4 out of 5]

Written by four contributors and two editors, this books captures a bird’s-eye view of the theological fault lines at the borders of some of the major tribes within American evangelicalism. Fundamentalism, confessional evangelicalism, generic evangelicalism, and post-conservative evangelicalism are represented in the debate. All make points I found helpful or interesting, and made generous comments at key moments I found surprising and warm. The editors make it clear that the entirety of the spectrum is not represented, which is apparent to the contributors and any reader familiar with more nuance to the evangelical world. However, enough ground is covered to show that there is indeed a real spectrum, that the issues are not trivial, and that it’s not likely to unify in a way that would be agreed upon by any substantial majority. One curious detail is that none of the contributors consider my home movement, the Restoration Movement, to be evangelical. I can only assume that’s meant generally and not for every church, but it was lumped in with 7th day Adventists from their perspectives. I’m not formally associated with it anymore, but I found the comments interesting. 222 pages or 9 hours of polemics, theological nuance, and history of US Christianity.

[Jonathan · Rating 3 out of 5]

My main complaint is in regards to the editors and contributors of the book. At the end of the day this book was 4 white, baptist, north american late middle aged guys talking about evangelicalism. This book could have been so much richer by adding a voice from the African-American, Latino-American and/or Asian-American church as well as a non-North American.

However it was still a valuable read that was beneficial to me. Although I found myself greatly frustrated by Bauder's (the fundamentalist) responses to Stackhouse and Olson (whom I both really enjoyed), it was interesting to see firsthand how a self-identifying fundamentalist thinks. I definitely side with Stackhouse and Olson's vision for and definition of evangelicalism. I also found it startling to see how similar Mohler and Bauder were.

[Matt Hession · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book does a good job at defining and interacting with various perspectives on the meaning of evangelical. The authors do a terse but thorough enough job at comparing and contrasting the different perspectives. The book personally helped me determine where I feel is the proper spot on the perspective, not just by having the perspective well defined, but seeing how that perspective properly responds to opposing views. I recommend the book for anyone who defines themselves as an evangelical and also finds themselves intellectually engaging with other evangelicals who they may disagree with on various doctrines of high concern to them.

[Andre Beck · Rating 3 out of 5]

The individual articles are a little disappointing but the book as a whole is a great stimulus for thinking more deeply about what it means to be Evangelical. It does a good job introducing you to some of the fundamental questions, even if the answers do not always represent what is typical of (or even the best of) the various viewpoints.

[Joshua Lawson · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book sharpened my understanding of the distinctions that exist within Evangelicalism. To be honest, I had never really considered the "spectrum" in depth before now. The contributors were generous with each other and did their best to fairly represent their respective differences, which I appreciate.

[Daniel · Rating 4 out of 5]

A helpful read to see various perspectives on evangelicalism. Though I see things from the more conservative side I found the more inclusive arguments very interesting to consider. At the end of the day evangelicalism will always be difficult to define because anyone can claim to be one based on personal definition.

[Shawn Hurley · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is worth it, if only to read Kevin Bauder's chapter on Fundamentalism. If all fundamentalists were as willing to study to and form their views with an intellectual astuteness minus the attitude, then many more would be willing to remain under this label.

[Alan Lewis · Rating 4 out of 5]

4 different versions as to what constitutes an evangelical. Agreements and disagreements are plentiful. Seems like straining at gnats....much like the Pharisees of the New Testament. Tribalism demonstrated.

Obtained a free copy during a book promotion.

[Kristopher Schaal · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great little book on the topic! The interaction between Mohler and Bauder was especially helpful to me personally.

[Dan Waugh · Rating 4 out of 5]

Helpful. Some useful insights. But, the book confirms that no one can really define evangelicalism or say who is in and who is out.

[Mary Foxe · Rating 3 out of 5]

DNF. Just not the book for me.

[Steve Penner · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is a fairly recent addition to Zondervan's series on controversial issues. It follows the "4 views" format of previous publishers which includes a response to each of the four essays from the other three contributors. In this case the 4 views attempt to reflect the variety of evangelical experience (and belief).

I found it to be an interesting and informative dialogue. What the four writers have in common as well as what sets them apart becomes apparent in the essays, but more cogently in the responses to the essays. Without trying to summarize the views (which if you want to do, read the summary and you'll get a good sense of the issues and positions), the book reinforced that often the basis for our differences is our innate temperament. While there are definitely differences in the content of belief, from definitions of evangelicalism to how much of a boundary is there in attempting a definition, what struck me more than content was tone. To use the Meyer-Briggs typology, it became obvious that those on the more conservative end of the spectrum also reflected a much more SJ approach stylistically with definite black & white and in & out thinking. The opposite end reflected a more NT and NF approach tending towards description and experience rather than hard and fast definitions. There wasn't an SP in the house.

It does give me pause to reflect on how difficult it is to maintain unity among such a diverse group of believers. Apparently there are some who have totally given up on the idea of evangelicalism. I am far from giving up, but it would be easy to start walking down the road of despair.

For those who are interested in evangelicalism and what the issues are that divide and are open to interpretation, this book is very good starting place.

[Rick · Rating 4 out of 5]

My life having been a sojourn through and around the institutions, ideas, and individuals that played some role in the phenomenon of evangelicalism over the past six+ decades, it was like reading about my own history. Some of these I have deeply tasted of. Some I have resisted. Others I have had to think about very deeply, others less so. Some influenced me only tangentially, some profoundly. But all of them in some way make me, in part, what I am today. In no particular order, a few among the many things discussed by four very differently-minded authors:
Fundamentalism. New (neo) Evangelicalism. "Christianity Today." "The Fundamentals." Fuller Seminary. Billy Graham. Carl Henry. Charles Fuller. Daniel Fuller. Harold Lindsell. "The Battle for the Bible." Infallibility and/or Inerrancy. Harold Ockenga. George Marsden. Open Theism. New Perspectives on Paul. Oneness Pentecostalism. N. T. Wright. J. Oliver Buswel. The Manhattan Declaration. Southern Baptist Convention. Missouri Synod Lutheran. The Resurgence. Charles Hodge. Bob Jones University. National Association of Evangelicals. Dallas Theological Seminary. Charles Finney. Hyper-fundamentalism. Lausanne Congress on World Evangelism. Gresham Machen. Mark Noll. Plymouth Brethren. Revivalism. John R. Rice. Francis Schaeffer. Charles Wesley, John Wesley. George Whitfield. Youth for Christ. etc. etc.
A thought provoking book, both in considering where we should be going (assuming I'm an evangelical) and where we've come from. As for who is and who isn't, the book may not answer the question to your satisfaction, but each author carefully (and graciously) sets forth his position, and substantively responds to each of the other contributors. Part of Zondervan's Counterpoint Series.

[Chuck Bonadies · Rating 5 out of 5]

Several years ago I was at a conference where Don Carson was asked to define evangelicalism. While I don’t recall the answer, I do remember him chuckling a bit before he began to speak. After reading this book, I can understand why. Defining evangelicalism is extremely difficult.

While much could be said about the book, from my perspective, two important ideas come to the surface. First, while four views are presented, one the editors, Andy Naselli, points out that there are really only two views (broadly speaking). Fundamentalism and Confessional Evangelicalism can be paired together while Generic and Post Conservative Evangelicalism share much in common. While I’m sure that many Fundamentalist and Confessional Evangelicalism see a good bit of distance between themselves, I agree with Naselli: they come down in essentially the same place on most issues. There is a reason that people to the left of Mohler call him a fundamentalist and people to the right of Bauder consider him too progressive.

In addition to this, Bauder is careful to distance himself from populist revivalism and hyper-fundamentalism. While this may be true historically, one wonders if a fundamentalism void of these two elements is common today. The overall spirit of Bauder’s article leads me to believe that the author himself may share this conclusion.

The strength of this book is its uniqueness. I don’t know of another work that compares and contrasts views on evangelicalism quite like this one.

CB

[Merv Budd · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is one of those books that has four writers each write on their theological perspective and then has each of the other three comment. The four theological perspectives were: fundamentalism, confessional evangelicalism, generic evangelicalism and post-conservative evangelicalism. They also tried to focus their discussion on defining “evangelicalism” and offering their particular brand of evangelicalism’s perspective on three current (or almost current) theological issues: the Catholics and Evangelicals Together movement, open theism and penal substitutionary atonement.
Allow me to admit right off the bat that this is not the kind of book most people would read for pleasure. However, I found it quite helpful in helping me understand why I call myself an evangelical and yet feel angst about doing so. The spectrum of evangelicalism is so wide that there are some aspects that I personally find distasteful.
I liked this book. It does not bring resolution but it has brought some clarity to my own position and was helpful in understanding the positions of others. Albeit, I do find myself grateful that we will be judged by a gracious God on the basis of grace, through faith in Jesus, rather than being judged by theologians on the basis of theology through doctrinal correctness regarding propositional truths.

[Joelendil · Rating 4 out of 5]

As with other books in the Counterpoints Bible & Theology series this book allows the reader to get a basic overview of the topic from a variety of viewpoints from proponents of those viewpoints. Each contributor gives an explanation of his view which is critiqued by each of the other contributors. The tone of this book is generally amicable and there is less straw man argumentation than occurs in single-author books where someone explains and then critiques an opponent's point of view.

The points of view in this book range from "evangelicalism is limited to those who affirm certain key doctrines" (basically a mild form of fundamentalism) to "evangelicalism is made up of just about anyone who self-identifies as evangelical because who are we to judge?". Key points discussed by each author were inerrancy of the Bible, Catholics and Evangelicals Together, open theism, and substitutionary atonement. I was a little disappointed that there wasn't much discussion of media portrayal of evangelicalism as being primarily a political philosophy or voting bloc.

It was very interesting to see these viewpoints side by side, but in the end, I'm not sure if this book helped me better understand what evangelicalism is or just confirmed my perception that it has so many different meanings to so many different people that it is becoming a relatively useless description.

[Justin Bailey · Rating 4 out of 5]

I found this book more illuminating than most "four views" type books. While there are four different authors, each purportedly representing four different perspectives, it becomes clear that each of the authors falls into one of two broader postures representative of evangelicalism. The former imagines evangelicalism theologically, and thus works with a "bounded-set" definition; the latter conceives of evangelicalism sociologically and uses a "centered set" definition. While Bauder's writing was intriguing, I'm not sure that he is actually representative of most fundamentalists, and that the kind of fundamentalists he describes actually exist in large numbers. Mohler is representative of the neo-Reformed doctrinal resurgence that has excited/repelled so many. Stackhouse and Olson represent a "big tent" evangelicalism that is hesitant to define who is "in" and "out" (though both make such pronouncements); incidentally, both are egalitarians whose views would exclude them from something like the Gospel Coalition. In all, a quick and clarifying survey of the landscape of evangelicalism, ca. 2010.

[Matthew · Rating 4 out of 5]

Helpful discussion of the different views within evangelicalism, how to define the movement, and the importance of some key theological themes as they relate to the movement. The participants engage each other directly, but respectfully. They includes lots of history of the development of the movement, and the key issues facing it today. I'd highly recommend this for those on the outside wanting to understand the movement, but more so for those within it to understand what's at stake in the current debates.

[Dan · Rating 4 out of 5]

A fascinating read. I really appreciate the vision for putting this together and the willingness of the participants to have a meaningful dialog that doesn't just deal with straw men all the while talking past each other. Bauder speaks with a clarity is unmatched. Mohler is in classic Mohler form - gracious and honest. I wasn't as familiar with the other 2 authors but enjoyed reading them even while disagreeing with much of their content.