A few years ago, I edited a volume of essays on bibliology with Paul Helm. Shortly before the deadline for submission of papers for review, the project was “cited and ridiculed. ” by a preacher of a highly influential theological conference, as a modern attempt to reaffirm the bibliology of B. B. Warfield. After a few days, one of the collaborators sent me an email, telling me that he was concerned because his name was associated with such a project. I was able to assure you that the project was not intended to defend Warfield’s position, but rather was an exploration of the concept of inerrancy, as this concept is related to both God and his word. The lord regained his confidence and remained on staff, but the incident merely served to confirm in my mind something that I had long suspected: Many evangelical scholars want to combine the useful with the pleasant. They want mercy and perhaps the scene that evangelism offers them; but they also want to be accepted by those in university doctoral circles.
It makes sense for the problem to be in the fact that two gentlemen cannot be served. As the Lord once said, “No one can serve two lords; Why will he get bored of one and love the other, or will he dedicate himself to one?and despise the other?
Strange times and uncertain theology
We live in strange times. Rarely does a year pass without a conference somewhere about the future of the Church; with at least one preacher or sometimes even a list of preachers who controversially represent exactly the kind of theology that has emptied the banks, eliminated preaching, and killed commitment to the gospel.
I recently saw a pamphlet from one of these conferences, praising a great evangelical thinker and critic, yet the most important speaker of this conference represented exactly the kind of misleading theology to which the laveur had devoted his whole life to ridicule. These are really strange moments.
What’s going on? What is the reason for this cowardly and insignificant need to receive the acceptance of most of the countries of the world?
Why do evangelical scholars want acceptance from the world?
I suspect that there are many reasons for this problem, first, the context of evangelization lends itself to this kind of confusion, in fact, evangelization does not understand what it is, it is a movement based on experience (new birth), theological commitments or para-ecclesiastical institutions?Therein lies the difficulty: the first factor (experience) will degenerate into a simple subjective mysticism if not associated with the latter (theological commitments). answer to Pilate’s question: “What is the truth?”And the third (para-ecclesiastical institutions) is often part of the problem to define the second or, in the specific case of the United States, becomes less ministry and more of a means of venerating celebrities, vulnerable to the kind of criticism of Erick Hoffer. ; who said that any great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business and ends as an opportunity for extortion. Evangelism is a pitiful disorder; it’s not pure or simple.
Second, if a movement does not know what it is, then it cannot make satisfactory demands on those who are in it and those who are not. The limits of a movement end up being revealed by the person who is closest to belonging, but who, nevertheless, does not belong to the movement. Arius is an ancient example in the church. No matter how high and exalted his view of Christ was, he could still see him simply as a creature and not as fully as God. The boundary was drawn and Arrio was left out. Combine the problems of defining evangelical identity with today’s cultural inclination to exclude no one, and you’ve got a heady recipe for total disaster. Say beautiful things about Jesus, feel the heat when someone lights a candle and be nice to your grandmother and? and instantly! ? you are a member; you can be evangelical. In this way, we will have those who refuse the penal substitution; they do not have a meaningful notion of biblical authority, of Christ’s exclusiveness in salvation, of justification by grace, by faith, and the unity of salvation. It doesn’t matter: it just points out that Jesus was a nice and funny guy; articulate sentences that sound orthodox; Speak in a passionate tone and you can also have your membership certificate and give a keynote speech. And if the lectures I mentioned above are an indication of how things are going, it is a sign that we have been fooled by these devices all along.
Third, it would be as if there was a widespread evangelical inferiority complex. This means that if we don’t want to exclude anyone, we fear being excluded. Of course, in such an ill-defined world, it is always a temptation for an evangelical scholar to do things easily or to remain silent about some more shameful doctrinal commitments to have a little more influence on this scene. largest, on the other side of the world. This is a specific temptation for evangelical scholars and systematizers, whose great associations are totally hostile to the kind of supernaturalism and affirm outdated truths, upon which the statutes of their churches were largely constituted. In doing so, we are wrong to say that we are in a certain way doing God’s work; because if we have articles published in this journal or by this editor, we are really making progress in the incredulous culture of theological schools. Isn’t it that these things are neither good nor worthy?Do I do this kind of thing myself?but should we be careful not to confuse professional academic achievement with the building of saints or punctuation for the kingdom of God.
As James Barr noted years ago, it remains true that evangelical scholars are respected in academia only by specific points where they are less evangelical. There is a difference between academic or acquired respectability and intellectual integrity. For a Christian, this depends on God’s approval and is based on fidelity to his revealed Word. This doesn’t always mean playing by the rules of academic associations.
Do our academics need ambition? But not like that
Finally, very few evangelical scholars seem to have a lot of ambition. This may seem strange: the desire to retain the right to a position in college; publish with some editorials Talk in some university conferences exchange ideas with those responsible for associations?all these ambitions seem very common; however, true ambition, true Christian ambition, is certainly based on the construction of the Church and the service of God’s people, and it is directed at that, but it is precisely at this point that evangelical scholars fail so clearly. that evangelical scholars have had in academia has been insignificant and often (as mentioned) confined to areas where their evangelical contributions have been insignificant. If the same time and energy were devoted to the construction of the Saints, imagine how the church could be transformed.
This does not mean that we should not allow substantial erudition, nor that the needs of a man or woman on the stand serve as a criterion by which relevance must be judged; but it is to affirm that all theological erudition must be carried out with the primary objective of building the saints, confusing the opponents of the Gospel, and encouraging their brethren. an elitist association, but to acquire knowledge he has worked to strengthen the church and extend the kingdom of God through the local church.
Will the day come when the intellectual and cultural elites of evangelism?Institutions and individuals will face a difficult decision. I see the crisis approaching two different but closely related fronts. First, the time comes and, perhaps it has already happened, when believing that the Bible is God’s inspired Word, imposed by Him and totally true, will, at best, be intellectual suicide and at worst a sign of mental illness. Second, expressing any form of opposition to homosexuality will be the same as advocating for white supremacy or child abuse. In those days, the choice will be clear. Those who remain in the Christian ranks will be obvious, and those who have spent their lives trying to serve both Orthodox and academics will find that no intellectual contortion can save them. The fear of being associated with B. B. Warfield will be the least of them.
Years ago, Mark Noll wrote a book, The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind, in which he argued that the scandal lay in the fact that there was no such evangelical mentality. As far as evangelical scholars and their erudition are concerned, I do not agree. , the scandal is not that there is no evangelical mentality; but in the fact that there is, today, a very precious little gospel.