Not surprisingly, Quarles devotes about half of his review to a discussion of Licona’s handling of this one passage. Quarles offers what appears to me to be a very thoughtful and well considered critique of the apocalyptic interpretation of the pericope, which I will only summarize briefly here. He objects that the text of Matthew gives no clear indication of a shift in genre from historical narrative to apocalyptic. He posits that Licona’s arguments for the historicity of Jesus’ resurrection would also support the historicity of Matthew 27:52-53 (a point Quarles unfortunately does not develop, no doubt due to space constraints). He critiques the claim that the pericope is non-historical because it may be poetic. Quarles emphasizes that it is especially difficult to exclude historical and even evidential intent from Matthew’s statement “they appeared to many.” Finally, Quarles takes exception to Licona’s appeals to pagan parallels. His arguments here are worthy of reading and careful reflection.

Quarles mentions the controversy itself only very briefly at the end of the review:

“Recently, Licona’s position on these two verses has stirred considerable controversy, necessitating a more extensive treatment of his discussion of Matt 27:52-53 than a typical review would warrant. My hope, however, is that a treatment of two verses that amounts to only 6 pages out of the 641 pages of text in the book will not prevent conservative evangelicals from carefully reading and digesting the author’s many fine arguments for the historicity of Jesus’ resurrection” (843-44).

Amen to that.

Quarles offers no further comment on the Licona controversy, not even mentioning Norman Geisler, and says nothing about the claim that Licona’s view of the Matthean pericope is a denial of biblical inerrancy. This is rather ironic, given that JETS is the journal of a society founded on the issue of biblical inerrancy. To his credit, though, and as is appropriate in a book review, Quarles keeps the attention focused where it should be, on the relevant exegetical and hermeneutical issues and not on personalities or red-flag accusations.Similar Posts:

• Press Release: Michael Licona Response to Norm Geisler
• A Possible Error in the Bible?
• Is Inerrancy the Linchpin of Evangelicalism?
• What are the essentials to Christianity? Four Criteria
• Evidence for the Resurrection: Part 2 – External Evidence

• On Educating New Christians
• Why Are Christians So Divided? Brief Reflections on Denominations
• How Theologically Diverse Should Your Church Be?
• Postmodernism: How to disarm a suspicious culture
• “How People Become Evangelists of Unbelief” or Leaving (Christ)ianity – An Evangelical Epidemic

Of course this is not the reason I had to put on my bulletproof vest. The post turned from a ”ho-hum” reminder to a slanderous “how could you?” when I used Roman Catholicism as an illustration of an institution that limits freedom. Further, from this, I suggested that true Roman Catholics cannot be good scholars. In order to qualify as “good” scholars, they have to be a bit rebellious.

I have been quite taken aback by the responses. Part of me is glad to see so many Protestants coming to the defense of Roman Catholics. It tells me that our readership is made up of those who are kind and gracious, not wanting to make unnecessary divides and not liking harsh rhetoric (which does nothing to advance our cause and does not honor Christ). Though I don’t think I made any overstatements or used sensationalistic rhetoric to make my point, I am glad to see pushback, so long as it is thoughtful. As well, I believe I have earned the right to write a “wounds of a friend” post every once in a while. Those of you who are regulars of this blog know that I don’t engage in polemics very often. I feel I have written in a balanced way over the years, even if it has not been perfect. But every so often I will write something that cuts to the quick. Looking back at this post, it would have done me well to preface it with a study on the Roman Catholic view of authority. This might have served as a reminder (to those of us who are Protestants) why we don’t believe in an infallible Magisterium, and why we do believe this body ultimately does much more harm than good.

My History with Roman Catholicism

When I was exploring the Roman Catholic faith many years ago, I did not do so as a mere outsider who was trying to gather apologetic ammo. I did so prayerfully and respectfully, wrestling with the Lord concerning every detail and doctrine. After nearly a year of daily engagement with Catholicism (sometimes for 4-5 hours a day – my whole family remembers that time!), reading and talking with the “best of” Roman Catholics, I came to understand Catholicism at a whole different level. My fellowship with many Catholics became so close and sweet that many of them approached me and said that they all knew that it was simply a matter of time before I converted. However, this was not to be.

During this time I reshaped my understanding of Catholicism in many ways. For example:

Prayers to Mary and the saints: I used to think that these amounted to worship of Many the saints. While this might be true of some Roman Catholics, it did not represent the true teaching of the Church on this matter. When Catholics pray to Mary and the saints, it is not unlike when you or I ask someone to pray for us. We are not worshiping the one we ask to pray for us, are we? When a Roman Catholic prays to a saint, they are simply asking them to intercede on their behalf the same way as when you or I ask a friend to pray for us. And from their perspective, who better to ask to pray for you then Mary, Jesus’ mother!

Yes, I still disagree with this practice, but I don’t view it as saint worship anymore.

Purgatory: I used to think this was a doctrine which expressed a wholly deficient view of the atonement. What Christ did was not enough. His payment was insufficient, so we must spend some atoning time in Purgatory. While this is the view of some Roman Catholics, others merely see it as “washing up before dinner.” In other words, all of us believe in some type of process that completely sanctifies us after death. We all believe that Christians die imperfect and fallen, but something happens between death and the presence of God, which makes us actually and totally free from all sin. What happens? What cleanses us? Catholics call this Purgatory. Many see it as a timeless (almost instantaneous) event. It is like our last surgery.

While I strongly disagree with any type of atoning event which uses suffering as its means of cleansing, I can live with this “modified” understanding of Purgatory without getting too bent out of shape these days.

Doctrinal Development: But hasn’t Catholicism changed so much over the years? How can they claim to be a stable entity when they have contradicted themselves so often? Those who are serious about understanding Roman Catholic theology as it stands today must engage An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine by John Henry Newman. In my opinion, it is the most important Roman Catholic apologetic work of the last two centuries, and possibly since the Reformation. In essence, Newman gives Rome an articulated defense of how and why Roman Catholic doctrine develops (i.e., it develops, but does not change).

Again, I disagree with the work’s final implications (that Rome has not really changed), but I can now understand how one can still have their historic integrity and their Catholicism, too.

My journey in and out of Roman Catholicism was an incredible struggle, filled with the fostering of new friendships, appreciation, and some degree of anxiety as I returned my visitor’s pass and sailed back across the Tiber. There are so many things to say, but I must move quickly to a justification of my last post concerning their scholarship.

Can Catholics Disagree with Rome and Remain Catholics?

As many of you know, my primary training is in New Testament studies. I love and respect theology, philosophy, and church history, but when push comes to shove, I want to know what the text says. I love to study commentaries. I love to read them cover to cover. Although I could do a much better job of it, I love to keep up on my Greek. Nothing persuades me of truth more than discovering it in the Bible. In short, I love exegesis.

Issues related to interpretation became a major focus of my conversations with Catholics. My primary question was this: What if I have an interpretation of a text that does not agree with Rome? Is that okay? What you have to know is that there is quit a bit of freedom to interpret in the Roman Catholic system. Wait. I know what you are thinking. Doesn’t that militate against what your previous post argued – that there is not academic freedom in Rome? Well, it depends on what you mean. You see, contrary to popular opinion, Rome has not spoken directly and dogmatically to many passages of Scripture. Even the Pope rarely, if ever, speaks infallibly. He is just as fallible as you or I 99.999% of the time. It is only when he speaks “from the chair” that his words are infallibly binding. And there is quite a bit of debate among Catholics as to when Popes have actually exercised this privilege. In other words, there is not a “Dogmatic-Required-by-Rome-Commentary” out there. The Pope and councils have not laid out how understand every text of the Bible. Therefore, there is some degree of freedom.

However, there are some passages, such as Matthew 16, that have been dogmatized (you know, the whole “Peter and the keys to heaven establishing the Papacy” thing). More importantly, theology has been dogmatized. In other words, however one reads the Scripture, in the end, the reading must fall in line with Roman Catholic theology.

So…can one interpret the Bible in a way that conflicts with Roman Catholic theology? The answer is no.

In my attempts to understand Roman Catholicism, I looked and looked for loopholes.

What if I come to the conviction that Mary was not ever-virgin? Can I teach accordingly? No.

What if I come to the conviction that missing mass on Sundays is not a mortal sin? Can I teach and act accordingly? No.

What if I came to the conclusion that the Bible teaches against the doctrine of Purgatory? Can I teach my kids this? No.

What if I disagreed with the doctrine of transubstantiation, believing that John 6 was not to be taken literally? Could I teach and believe accordingly? No. Well, not if I expect to be a true Roman Catholic.

What About Hans Kung?

In response to my last post, many people brought up the fact that there are many within the Catholic Church who have disagreed with the Church and are still in good standing. Therefore, they believe this invalidates my last post. Hans Kung is always the example in these cases! While it is true that Rome has not formally excommunicated Kung, this does not serve as a good illustration, as any good Catholic will inform you. One does not have to be formally excommunicated to have lost their standing in the Church. Think about it. I am sure that there are many everyday dads and moms and brothers and sisters who have never been formally “kicked out” of the Church, yet hold incredibly aberrant views. They are not “safe” simply because the institution has not formally recognized their apostasy. Apostasy is defined very clearly and happens upon the subject’s departure, not the Church’s recognition of this departure. So one should expect to find thousands, indeed millions, of examples of those who hold views different from Rome’s, but are still “members in good standing.”

Again, this was such an important question for me: Can one study the Bible and come to conclusions that are different than what has been dogmatized by Rome, and still be a true Catholic?

Let me quote Rome:

“23. When the Magisterium of the Church makes an infallible pronouncement and solemnly declares that a teaching is found in Revelation, the assent called for is that of theological faith. This kind of adherence is to be given even to the teaching of the ordinary and universal Magisterium when it proposes for belief a teaching of faith as divinely revealed.

When the Magisterium proposes ‘in a definitive way’ truths concerning faith and morals, which, even if not divinely revealed, are nevertheless strictly and intimately connected with Revelation, these must be firmly accepted and held.(22)” (emphasis mine; Source)

Accepted and held. This is more than a mere “I will not teach against this” like we have in the documents of membership at Stonebriar Community Church. This doctrines much be accepted and held. And this is not a passive acceptance, but one that must be firm.

Doesn’t Evangelicalism Have the Same Limits?

Finally, a word about Roman Catholicism compared to Evangelicalism. Many have objected to me using Rome as a punching bag, believing that if Catholicism lacks freedom, then the same must be said of Evangelicalism. In a way, I see where people are coming from. However, this does not really work. Evangelicalism is not an institution. It has no creeds, documents of incorporation, headquarters, president, or pope. In theory, Evangelicalism is descriptive of a movement with which like-minded believers network or identify. One cannot be “kicked out” of Evangelicalism. One does not become an Evangelical by vowing to submit to the authority or even the idea of Evangelicalism. Therefore, the comparison does not work.

I even had someone complain by saying that since I was a 5-point Calvinist, the same restraints were upon me. They said that I did not have the freedom to interpret the Scriptures outside of my 5-point Calvinistic paradigm. Again, this is in no way parallel. Not only is 5-point Calvinism not an institution to which I submit, it is merely a description of my beliefs. I am free to become a 4-point Calvinist tomorrow if I so desire. (And this  often happens!. Every time I study the book of John, or talk with Dr. Hall Harris III, I become more 4-point.)

Again, the end is the same. Becoming a Roman Catholic amounts to a submission of your beliefs to the authority of Rome. I think one can be a fine philosopher, sociologist, epistemologist, and ethicist and still be a Roman Catholic. However, when it comes to theology and, most specifically, exegetical studies of the Bible, I don’t think he or she can be a scholar, since they lack the academic freedom to disagree with Rome.

Contray to what many people have said, I don’t hate Rome. Maybe I should have used Mormonism as the example. You think there would have been less push-back if I did? I probably shouldn’t have used any illustration at all! Just left it as “Embracing Doubt.” Oh well, damage done.Similar Posts:

• In Defense of Sola Scriptura – Part Eight – What about all the divisions?
• Walking Away from Protestantism: Francis Beckwith Converts to Catholicism
• Roman Catholicism and Evangelicalism: Has the Battle Ground Begun to Change?
• Essential Differences Between Catholics and Protestants
• Embracing Doubt or Why ‘Roman Catholic Scholarship’ is an Oxymoron

I know, I know.  I don’t ever write this . . . this . . . well, this polemical. It seems as if I am discrediting Roman Catholic scholarship with a heavy hand by an ad hom fiat. Please know this is not what I mean to do. There are going to be plenty of people thrown under the bus with this one. In fact, let me start by saying there are many Roman Catholics whom I deeply respect. I am not anti-Catholic. As well, there are many Roman Catholics whom I believe qualify as scholars. However, once they become a scholar (and I am talking about theology here), as I will explain, they have to depart to some degree from Rome. I am not saying that they actually depart from their core Catholic beliefs. I am simply saying that they must suspend their commitment to Rome in order to meet what I believe to be an essential characteristic of scholarship.

Most of you would not think of yourself as scholars. I understand that. I don’t think of myself as such either. However, I would assume that you attempt to be good students. Namely, you attempt to be students of truth.

Let me back up a bit.

Rene Descartes and Doubt

Rene Descartes is often thought of as the father of modernity. He gets a bad rap these days, especially by our postmodern and emerging friends. I think some of the bad rap is justified, particularly his quest for indubitability (How’s that for a word? Don’t try to say it out loud at home). Indubitability means absolute and perfect certainty. Rene Descartes (and many of his modernistic buddies) wanted their beliefs to be beyond the ability to be wrong. Like 1 plus 1 equals 2, Descartes wanted all matters of faith to share such comforting certainty (indubitably). I can’t get into all the fallacies here, but let’s just say that this quest was not only impossible, but unnecessary. Our beliefs do not have to be infallible before we are justified in possessing them. However, Descartes’ methodology had many redeeming elements that provide benchmarks of inquiry, learning, and knowledge. The first and most important thing Descartes taught was that we are to doubt. Doubt everything!

Doubt gets a hard rap in religious circles. In fact, we are often told that the opposite of faith is doubt. For many, doubt is only what unbelievers do. It is true that doubt can be a bad thing, but it largely depends on the context and how you understand it. Doubt can be, and very often is, healthy. In fact, I argue that doubt is a necessary first step to true conviction, understanding, and real faith. Let me explain.

The Essence of Scholarship

In order to learn, one must be willing to change. I don’t mean that they must be willing to merely go from the lesser to the greater, but also from the greater to the lesser, or even from the greater to the none. If we are to be true learners, we must be able to suspend our convictions to some degree. Of course, all knowledge requires some basic foundational assumptions, as Descartes began to articulate, but all knowledge must be challenged in order to graduate to true faith. We must be willing to set aside our preconceptions, passions, and emotional attachments in order to enter a learning environment. We must be willing to doubt everything, even our doubts.

Scholarship is based on the assumption that the best, most accurate, and trustworthy information is being sought. Scholarship is not based on the assumption that we are attempting to prove what we already know or believe. I learned a dictum early in my seminary career from my friend and co-blogger, Dan Wallace: “We are in pursuit of the truth, not prejudice.” In other words, we must do our best to approach our studies with the intent to follow the evidence no matter where it leads. This is a hard thing to do, as we all have our prejudices. We all have a “home team” for which we root. This is why being true students is very hard. We don’t like to be challenged, only confirmed. However, if we are to be true students – true scholars – we must be willing to suspend, to the best of our ability, our prejudices.

A Word About Apologetics

I love apologetics, don’t get me wrong. But what I am about to say will offend many apologists out there. Nine times out of ten, I don’t think apologists make good scholars. “Apologetics” is defined most broadly in Christian circles as defending the faith. This means when there is something – an idea, event, book, or person – presenting challenges to the faith, the apologist will come to the rescue.

While there are Christian apologists out there, there are also apologists for particular areas. For example, there are apologists for young earth creationism, evolutionary theism, inerrancy, premillenialism, and counter-cults. There are also apologists for the individual traditions in the Christian faith, such as Protestant apologists and Roman Catholic apologists. Of course, apologetics is not limited to the Christian faith, as there are apologists for atheism, Mormonism, and Islam.

While I think apologetics is a necessary and much-needed discipline, and while I believe there are some very good and honest apologists out there (such as my friends Rob Bowman, Paul Copan, and Mike Licona, to name a few), most of the time the discipline falls into the trap of being a perpetual exercise in defending presuppositions.  Anytime there is a preset conclusion to which your data and interpretation of the data must point, apologetics turns bad. It is no longer a scholarly pursuit, since it has a predetermined outcome.

In our studies, we must be free to question, search, deny, confirm, doubt, and change. As hard as it is, we must allow ourselves this liberty. If we come to a subject with what we believe to be infallible or indubitable certainty, all of the data, no matter what it says, will be bent, shaped, and manipulated to fit this preset conclusion. Even our most vital and basic beliefs must be open to question. Why? We are fallible. Our ideas could be wrong. Our prejudices can be ill-founded. In short, we must question ourselves because we are not God.

What God Thinks of Doubt

When it comes to our faith in God, this is not less important, but more important. In order for our faith to be strong, our ability to test our faith must be valid. Paul admonishes the Corinthians to test the the sincerity of their faith (2 Cor 13:5). Without doubt, our faith can never really be tested. For to even take a test there must be some suspension of our presumption of perfection. Paul tells the Thessalonians to test or examine all things carefully, and only hold fast to that which is worthy of our faith (1 Thess 5:21). This is the basic idea of discernment, which requires a critical methodology. The Psalmist asks the Lord to test his mind and his heart (Psalm 26:2). God tests us all the time. The purpose of his testing is not to leave us in doubt, but that our doubt would progressively turn to assurance. In order for conviction to arise in our beliefs, tests must be conducted.

In the end, when we test our faith, when we doubt, when we discern, when we critically examine our most fundamental beliefs (remember, Paul says test all things) under the microscope and they survive, they are much stronger than they were before the test. Doubt is a necessary precondition to faith. Discernment is a necessary precondition to following God.

I don’t think Christians should have any fear in testing their faith. We should not fear the doubt that leads to assurance of truth. Not only does God not mind our aspirations to such scholarship, he beckons us to such.

Why “Roman Catholic scholarship” is an oxymoron

What does this have to do with Roman Catholicism? Well, as you can see, this post is about much more than just the viability of Roman Catholic scholarship. While what I have described above is very difficult for anyone with deep commitments, it is most difficult, in Christianity, for those who exist under authoritative human leadership. Christian traditions do not get much more authoritative than Roman Catholicism. To be fair, there are unspoken authoritative structures in many Christian traditions that, while not claiming infallibility, do share the same fundamental guidelines. Outside the Christian faith, it is not much different. I find atheists have the least ability to question their atheism, but this has more to do with personal emotional fundamentalistic commitments than any human authority. This is why atheism boasts of being the most objective, but this boast is, most of the time, very empty.

Roman Catholicism, however, exists under a official umbrella of authoritative – indeed infallible - dogmatic assertions. Again, while no one is completely objective in their studies, Roman Catholics, when it comes to their defined dogma, cannot really study objectively.  Why? Because their conclusions are already laid out. For example, if a Roman Catholic is interpreting the Scriptures, he must come to conclusions that are in line with what Rome has already said about the subject. He doesn’t have the freedom to disagree. He doesn’t have the freedom to doubt, if the doubt implies an actual possibility that Rome is wrong.

This is why all true Roman Catholics “scholars” are necessarily apologists who follow the prejudice of Rome, not the the data. Were they to doubt and come to conflicting opinions on something the Church has dogmatized, they are no longer, by definition, Roman Catholic.

In truth, most Roman Catholics don’t function in this way. In fact, the Roman Catholics whose scholarship I trust the most are a bit rebellious. They are not truly Roman Catholic. Apologists on the inside of Rome would call them “cafeteria Catholics,” since they pick and choose which beliefs they like best.

This is not to say that the trust they put in Rome is ill-founded. I don’t happen to think the magisterial authority of Rome is worthy of such trust, but that is not the subject of this post. Another time, maybe. This simply means that when it comes to biblical and theological studies, the designation “Roman Catholic scholar” is an oxymoron. Their conclusions, no matter how unlikely, must sing in harmony with Rome. However, it must be said, that if they are right and the Magisterial authority is infallible (which is the key meta-issue before all others between Protestants and Roman Catholics), then their methodology is secure to the degree that they can demonstrate this claim.

While Protestantism is certainly not perfect, there is freedom for true biblical and theological scholarship to exist. Protestants don’t have to be lawyers defending a client of tradition, but can instead be investigators of truth. We can be critical scholars. Whether or not we always practice this is a different matter, but the issue is one of allowance. Yes, the greater the allowance, the more the diversity. But the greater the allowance for diversity, the greater the possibility of true conviction to exist. Evangelicals can let the evidence take them wherever it leads, not simply to a predetermined destination. Therefore, I believe Protestant Evangelicals can practice true scholarship to a degree that other traditions, especially Roman Catholicism, cannot.

Finding Personal Conviction Through Embracing Doubt

However, this does get very personal. In the end, Christians, no matter what their tradition, need to increase their faith. This does not mean holding our hands against our ears, covering our eyes, and blindly following a predetermined route. Our conviction must be personal. It cannot be blindly outsourced. This was one of the many things that the Reformation brought back into focus: true conviction.

Martin Luther stood before a council ready to take on the prejudices of his day. Not without fear but full of courage, Luther, at the Council of Worms (in Wittenberg, Germany, 1517), gave his famous speech:

“Unless I am convinced by the testimony from scripture or by evident reason—for I confide neither in the Pope nor in a Council alone, since it is certain they have often erred and contradicted themselves—I am held fast by the scriptures adduced by me, and my conscience is held captive by God’s Word, and I neither can nor will revoke anything, seeing it is not safe or right to act against conscience. God help me. Amen.”

What was he doing? Doubting. Learning. Growing. Becoming more convicted. Adducing for himself. Did he believe that he could have been wrong about his previous commitments concerning the Catholic church? Yes. This is what set him on the reformation path. Did this produce fear? Affectung. This is the type of fear he describes. It is a German word that cannot easily be translated into English. It carries all the connotations of fear, with a much more paralyzing result. In short, Luther was doubting and scared. But he knew that this was the cost of true conviction and scholarship.

Sadly, many of us (Roman Catholic or otherwise) do not often follow this legacy.  While it is easy to get caught up in defending our prejudice, let us take up this mantle of learning and be ready, for the sake of our Lord, to change when necessary. We recognize that the possibility of true conviction necessitates the possibility of error, but is this too great a price to pay? Embrace your doubts. Doubt your doubts. Test all things. Follow the evidence, not your presuppositions.Similar Posts:

• Why I Hate Roman Catholicism, Part 2
• First Things Blogcast #4: Catholics vs. Evangelicals on Justification
• The Catholic Church is a Cult
• Why I Don’t Buy the Roman Catholic Interpretation of John 6 in Defense of Transubstantiation
• Finally a Catholic who is Not Afraid to Condemn Me?

Similar Posts:

• First Things Blogcast #4: Catholics vs. Evangelicals on Justification
• First Things Blogcast #5: Catholics vs. Evangelicals on Justification
• Frustrations from the Front: The Myth of Theological Liberalism
• Converting from Evangelicalism
• Evangelicalism: Your Turn

We Evangelicals talk a lot about essentials and non-essentials. Rightly so. We talk about distinguishing between those areas in our faith – those doctrines – which are central or “cardinal” doctrines, and those which are not so important. However, we often have trouble when someone asks us to define, distinguish, and defend this whole “essentials/non-essentials” distinction.

I have written on this many times, but I am going to attempt to be somewhat comprehensive here. That translates to “long article forthcoming.” But I think that this exercise is representative of a pressing issue in Christian discipleship. So put on your seat belt. It is going to get bumpy.

At the Credo House of Theology (our headquarters in Edmond, Oklahoma), right when you walk in the front door, you see written on the wall the Latin words in necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas. Translated into English, this means, “In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity.” This phrase (often wrongly attributed to Augustine) comes from an otherwise obscure German Lutheran theologian of the early seventeenth century named Rupertus Meldenius. It has served as a place holder for a sort of Evangelical credo or statement of faith (hence, it is the first thing you see at the “Credo” house). It expresses the idea of orthodoxy and grace existing together. It reminds us that there are essential Christian beliefs and there are those matters of lesser importance.

I remember hearing a pastor once say concerning doctrine, “You are either one-hundred percent right or one-hundred percent wrong. There is no in-between and there are no gray areas. God is not confused or unsure. Why should we be?” While this might be true concerning God, for us, things are different. For now, we see in a mirror dimly (1 Cor. 13:12). While we have our share of those with more of a fundamentalist mindset, who have a thousand lines drawn in the sand in the name of truth, we also have our share of liberals, whose mindset compels them to erase as many lines as possible in the name of grace or love. We must be careful, balancing grace and truth.

Defining Essentials and Non-Essentials

Paul spoke about those things that are “of first importance [protois]” (emphasis mine). Christ spoke about straining out a gnat while swallowing a camel (Matt. 23:24) and the “weightier things of the law” (Matt. 23:23). The very existence of creeds and pithy statements of faith in the Bible evince the truth that there are many issues that are of “first importance.” Here are a few examples of biblical creeds and succinct statements of faith:

Deut. 6:4:
Hear O Israel, the LORD is our God, the LORD alone.

1 Cor. 12:3:
Therefore I want you to understand that no one speaking by the Spirit of God ever says “Jesus be cursed!” and no one can say “Jesus is Lord” except by the Holy Spirit.

1 Cor. 15:3-7:
For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.  Then he appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep.  Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. (emphasis mine)

Phil. 2:6-11:
[W]ho, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.  And being found in human form, he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross.  Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

1 Tim. 3:16:
Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of our religion: He was manifested in the flesh, vindicated in the Spirit, seen by angels, preached among the nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory.

Heb. 6:1-2:
Therefore let us leave the elementary doctrine of Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, with instruction about ablutions, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment.

1John 4:2:
By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit which confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God.

Each one of these represents an early summary of Jewish/Christian belief, focusing in on the most important issues.

As I said, this is one of the things that (should) distinguish us as Evangelicals. We are those who unite around those things that we believe are the weightiest, the things that are the most important, while we (should) give (some degree of) liberty in the non-essentials. I often tell people that there are some things which I believe that I would die for; there are some things which I believe that I would lose an arm for; there are some things which I believe that I would lose a finger for; and then there are some things which I believe that I would not even get a manicure for.

Like in all areas of life, we need to learn to choose our battles carefully. But in order to do this, we must first come to know the difference between essentials and non-essentials.

But (as the criticism goes) it is not that easy to distinguish between essentials and non-essentials. More importantly for now, many Evangelicals have simply never been exposed to this and therefore practice their theology in a much more legalistic way, believing every conviction that they have to be representative of a hill upon which they should die.

Here I want to elaborate upon and expand the discussion a little bit. While we need to distinguish between essentials and non-essentials, we also need to recognize that there are different types of essentials. Along with this goes my belief that there are different ways to “break fellowship” based on our beliefs. In other words, not all essentials are equal. Some are essential to the very foundation of Christianity, but some are only essential to a particular denomination or expression. This will require different types of breaks in fellowship.

Let me start with a chart, then I will briefly break it down:

click on chart to enlarge

Essential for salvation: These are the most essential doctrines of all essentials. This includes what every Christian should always be willing to die for. In essence, if someone does not believe the doctrines that are “essential for salvation,” they are not saved. Hence, it is at the center of the circle.

What I include:

• Belief in God (there is no such thing as an atheistic Christian)

Issues pertaining to the person and work of Christ:

• Belief in Christ’s deity and humanity (1 John 4:2-3; Rom. 10:9)
• Belief that you are a sinner in need of God’s mercy (1 John 1:10)
• Belief that Christ died on the cross and rose bodily from the grave for our sins (1 Cor 15:3-4)
• Belief that faith in Christ is necessary (John 3:16)

As with all of them, I am sure that there are some ancillary matters that could be included, but this gives you the key doctrines. Without these, you simply don’t have any sense present of what it means to be a Christian.

Essential for historic Christian orthodoxy: These include beliefs “essential for salvation” but are broader in that they express what has been believed by the historic Christian church for the last two thousand years, no matter which tradition. This is expressed by the Vincentian Canon (434 A.D.): “that which has been believed everywhere, always and by all.” The exception of fringe movements has never been valid for this canon. It is simply asking, “What have all Christians everywhere always believed?”

Some of what I include:

• The doctrine of the Trinity as expressed at Nicea
• The doctrine of the Hypostatic Union (Christ is fully man and fully God) as expressed at Chalcedon
• The belief in the future second coming of Christ
• A belief in the inspiration and authority of Scripture
• A belief in God’s transcendence (his metaphysical distinction from the universe)
• A belief in God’s immanence (his present activity in the world and our lives)
• A belief in God’s sovereignty (while there are different ways to define sovereignty, this basically purports that God is in control)
• Belief that Christ is the only way to a right relationship with God
• Belief in eternal punishment of the unredeemed

To be sure, some of these doctrines “develop,” or mature, but their maturation is only in relation to their seed form which preexisted their more mature expression. (For more on this, see here.)

Please notice that these are essential, even if they are not as essential as those expressed in the previous category. In other words, these do not represent negotiables. These are still cardinal doctrines.

But we could also include in this section a grouping entitled “Essential for Historic Orthopraxy.” This would include all of those practices and sins about which the church has been united in its belief. This would include humility, helping the poor, belief that homosexuality is a sin, issues of stewardship, respect for the imago dei (which would deem abortion wrong), and the need to evangelize the lost.

Essential for traditional orthodoxy: Again, these will necessarily include all of those from the two previous categories, but add some distinctives of their own. Essentials here will include all of those that are foundational to one of the three main Christian traditions: Protestantism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Roman Catholicism. These are beliefs that distinguish one tradition from the next, but are not absolutely essential from the broader Christian worldview expressed above.

Some Protestant distinctives would include:

• General belief in the major pronouncements of the first seven ecumenical councils (325-787 AD)
• Belief in the necessity for a personal relationship with Jesus Christ
• Belief that justification is through faith alone on the basis of Christ alone
• Belief that Scripture alone has ultimate and final authority on all matters of faith and practice
• The canon of Scripture made up of 66 books (excluding the Deuterocanonical books)

Some Roman Catholic distinctives would include:

• Belief in transubstantiation (the bread and wine turn into the actual body and blood of Christ)
• Belief that justification is through faith and works
• Belief that both Scripture and unwritten tradition have ultimate authority as they are interpreted by the Magisterium
• Belief in the authority of twenty-one ecumenical councils
• Belief that the Pope is the infallible vicar of Christ
• Belief in the Marian dogmas
• Belief that the canon includes the Deuterocanonical books

Some Eastern Orthodox distinctives would include:

• Belief in the infallibility of the first seven ecumenical councils (325-787 AD)
• Belief that the liturgy of the Church is part of the Gospel
• Rejection of substitutionary atonement and the imputation of Adam’s sin
• Salvation by grace through faith as God works these out through our unification with Him (theosis)
• Traditional inclusion of the Deuterocanonical book (although there is some debate about this)

Again, for each one of these tradition, these represent essential distinctions which, while not as cardinal as those in the previous two categories, are important nonetheless.

Essential for denominational orthodoxy: This will be similar to the above, but one step down in importance, dealing as it does with the particular and peculiar denominational expressions by the various Protestant traditions.

Some examples:

• Credo-baptism, i.e., Baptism is only for believers (Baptists)
• Infant baptism (Presbyterians, Methodists, Anglicans)
• Unconditional election (Reformed and Presbyterians)
• Arminian theology (Methodists, Nazarenes)
• Belief in the continuation of the Charismatic gifts (Pentecostals, Church of God)

While these might be considered worthy of breaking local fellowship in practice, they are not important enough to break ultimate fellowship. In other words, these represent legitimate debates that should not affect our unity.

Important but not essential: These are those beliefs that do not describe any particular tradition necessarily. They are important, but not that important.

Some examples:

• Beliefs about particulars in the creation debate
• Belief whether the books of Jonah and Job are historical accounts
• Beliefs about the authorship of 2 Peter
• Belief about particular end-time schemes (i.e. premillennial, amillennial, post-millennial)
• The order of books in the canon
• Which translation of the Bible to use from the pulpit
• Which Gospel was written first
• How often one should celebrate the Lord’s supper
• Whether or not Christ taught in Greek or Aramaic

Not Important: These are beliefs that people have concerning Christian doctrine that are not important for any expression and do not affect Christian devotion or spirituality.

Some examples

• The date of Christ’s birth (Christmas)
• What kind of music to play at church
• Whether to use real wine or grape juice at communion
• Whether to hold Saturday night services
• Whether or not John the Baptist was an Essene

Pure speculation: That is just what these are – speculation. We just don’t know one way or another, nor does it matter.

Some examples

• Did Adam have a belly-button? (yes, he did…it would just look funny otherwise)
• Belief in the eternal destiny of pets? (except I know my dog Rocky is going to heaven)
• What was God doing “before” creation? (creating hell for those who speculate such things)
• Will there be meat to eat in heaven? (we can all hope)
• Will there be sex in heaven? (we can all hope more)
• How long was it before Adam and Eve fell? (two hours after Eve was created . . . ask me why some other time)

So far, my purpose has been to stimulate a deeper level of thought about the difference between essentials and non-essentials. Really, I just want to convince you that there are different levels of essentials and non-essentials.

Now (take a deep breath), let’s move on and talk about the criteria which makes a doctrine essential.

Defending Essentials and Non-Essentials

So far so good? I can hear the objections:  ”This all sounds really nice. But who decides what are essential doctrines and non-essential doctrines? The Pope? Your local church pastor? The SBC? Al Mohler? Or is it my private interpretation of the Scripture? Alas, with such a question, the divisions start all over. “In essentials, unity.  Sounds nice, but impractical.”

I don’t think we have to be so pessimistic about this. I actually think that there are certain criteria that most thoughtful people can agree constitute the foundation of our faith – the essentials. I have them narrowed to four in no certain order. It is important to note that I am persuaded that all four must be present for a doctrine to be considered essential for salvation or essential. These criteria would pertain only to the first two circles: 1) Essential for salvation and 2) Essential for historic Christian orthodoxy.

1. Historicity: Does the doctrine have universal historical representation?

This first criterion is one of historical agreement. This is a form of “consensual faith” (consensus fidelium). This criterion of universal consensus follows the canon of Saint Vincent of Lérins mentioned above: quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus, “that which was believed everywhere, always, by everyone.” In other words, an essential cannot be something new like the doctrine of the Rapture. Neither can it be something that has lacked historic unity by Christians across time like the perpetual virginity of Mary. As well, it cannot have limited geographic representation, like certain Eastern liturgy. The question here is, Have all Christians of all time everywhere believed it?

2. Explicitly Historical: Does the history of the church confess their centrality?

This is like the first but differs in an important way. Here we are saying that if the history of the church has not explicitly confessed this as a central issue, then it is not. For example, the history of the church may confess that the Christian worldview includes a firm confession of a belief in the historicity of the Flood narrative, but it has never been a part of the central teachings to the degree that a denial of such is a damnable offense. When combined with the first criteria, the exception cannot define the rule. The point here is that we take seriously God’s work in the history of the Church through the Holy Spirit. If the church has universally believed that a certain doctrine is both true and central to the Christian faith, that doctrine deserves serious consideration as being among the essentials.

3. Biblical Clarity (Perspicuity): Is the doctrine represented clearly in Scripture?

One of the principles that the Reformers sought to communicate is that of the perspicuity (clarity) of Scripture. The Reformers did not believe that all of the Scripture was clear (a misunderstanding of the doctrine of perspicuity), but that all that is essential for salvation is clear. In short, if something in Scripture is obscure, then it is not essential. Augustine even held to such a principle stating that one must not build doctrines on obscure passages (On Christian Doctrine). For example, one should not build essential doctrine on what the “keys to the kingdom of heaven” (Matt 16:19) are, or what it means to be “baptized for the dead” (1 Cor. 15:29). Unfortunately, both Catholics and Mormons have done just that. If a passage is obscure, no essential doctrine can be derived from it.

4. Explicitly Biblical: Does any passage of Scripture explicitly teach that a certain doctrine is essential?

The Scriptures speak about a great many things, but it is explicit regarding that which is of essential importance. For example, as I noted before, Paul says to the Corinthians, “For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures” (1 Cor. 15:3-4; emphasis mine). The “of first importance” tells us that Christ’s death and resurrection “for our sins,” from Paul’s perspective, are essential components of Christianity. Without such, according to Paul, there is no Christianity (1 Cor. 15:12ff). As well, the Gospel of John speaks about the importance of faith. “Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son” (John 3:18). This passage explicitly makes faith central.

Again, these four criteria, I propose, must all be present. I think I am committed to this. If one or more is lacking concerning a particular doctrine, I believe that it is not possible for one to legitimately argue for its core necessity. (But again, this does not mean that the issue is not important.) As well, all four feed off each other and are somewhat self-regulating. In other words, if someone doubts whether something is clear in Scripture, all he or she has to do is look to history.  If something is not clear in the Scripture, we will not find that it passes the test of historicity. This is why it is of vital importance that Christians not only be good exegetes, but also good historians.

Conclusion

For some of you, this is the first time you have been exposed to this way of thinking. I pray that you consider the major points of what I am saying even if you do not agree with the details. I am not an ecumenicist, but I don’t think that we should have ill-will or break fellowship with people unnecessarily. I do believe that we have the right and obligation to define what it means to be “Christian.” While I don’t think we should over-define it to the point where our circle of fellowship is so small that it only includes “you and those two,” we need to be careful, as under-defining our faith is just as dangerous as over-defining it. It is very easy to slip into theological maximalism (fundamentalism) or theological minimalism (liberalism). But we are Evangelicals. This means that we are “centrists,” uniting around the most important issues and giving varying degrees of liberty in less important issues. While it is true that because something is non-essential this does not make it negotiable, it is also true that because something is believed strongly does not make it central.Similar Posts:

• Essentials and Non-Essentials: How to Choose Your Battles Carefully
• What are the essentials to Christianity? Four Criteria
• Evangelicals: We Can and Must Distinguish Between Essentials and Non-Essentials Better
• Four Types of Theologians
• More on Evangelical Apostolic Succession

The last few months, in keeping up with my weekly reading of “what is happening now” in theology, I have begun to experience theological nausea. My spirit is sick and it is about to hurl. I don’t know what that looks like, but it does not feel right. There are simply too many “opt outs” being offered – we are beginning to look more like a cafeteria than a church.

In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty . . . right? Let me try to briefly state the issue that I have, today, at 5:24pm CST. I am getting the feeling that Christian apologists and theologians, in order to make our faith more palatable to the outside world, are attempting to move all difficulties of our faith into the “non-essential” category in order to create “opt outs.” This is where just about everything outside of the person and work of Christ becomes negotiable. When does the form of Christianity we offer become something different than the historic Christian faith?

Some examples are in order here (please forgive the snarky spirit of the following):

1. Problem with the doctrine of eternal punishment? No problem. We have these two less common options: universalism or annihilationism. You can believe that all people will eventually be saved or that all the damned will cease to exist.

2. Problem with the truthfulness of Scripture? No issue at all. There is no need to believe that the Scripture is true in everything it says, only the “big parts” like Christ’s resurrection.

3. Problem with a donkey talking and other crazy things? Let me point you to an important word: “metaphor.” Yep, just about any portion of Scripture can be turned into a metaphor, myth, parable, symbol, or any number of things. Point being, you don’t have to accept it.

4. Problem with creation account in Genesis? No need to get down. We have lots of options here, including our latest, theistic evolution. The point is that whatever modern science proposes, you can accept. (See number 3 for the means of acceptance.)

5. Problem with God’s allowing for evil? Easy. We have an option that says God, in order to preserve freedom and true love, cannot know about (much less intervene) in the free-will evil choices that people make. Therefore, he is off the hook. Its called “open theism.” Have fun.

6. Problem with the doctrine of election? I understand. This is a particularly nasty one. However, no need to fear. You don’t have to believe this. There is a modified form of divine election which says God’s choice is based on your choice. There . . . the sting is gone.

7. Problem with the exclusivity of Christ? Again, we have the answer. Nowadays, we have this idea called “inclusivism.” With this fancy option, we say that people can be covered by the blood of Christ without actually accepting the Gospel. Awesome.

Next…

8. Speaking of the “blood” of Christ, some of you might have a problem with the idea that the Father sacrificed his son (and that he was actually happy about it). You know all that archaic stuff about sacrifices and the shedding of blood? You don’t have to accept that either. There are some who believe that Christ was an example rather than the subject of “divine child abuse.” God’s forgiveness is based on his love, not blood.

9. Problem with homosexuality being a sin? Don’t let that hold you back. Many of our most astute theologians have been able to rework this issue so that there is an option on the table which proposes that homosexuality was not universally condemned in the Scripture. Though the ranks of those who advocate this may be few, it is enough to create a loophole to get out of this one. There are even many “gay churches” that you can attend.

Next…

10. Problem with male headship in the church and family? This is one of the easier ones. We have tons of representatives in the church (even denominations) which disagree here. You are free to reject any idea of male headship based upon “cultural context.”

Okay. I am done with the examples…

Here is the problem I have. While I hold to pretty traditional beliefs in these areas, many (not all) of these listed I agree with. In other words, I do believe there are some legitimate alternatives, most notably on the issue of election. While I am a Calvinist, being very committed to unconditional divine election, I understand there are alternative options here that are viable. In short, I don’t believe that a rejection of unconditional election amounts to a rejection of Christianity.

However, when does our removal of intellectual and emotional stumbling blocks create an aberration of Christianity that is Christian only in name? When does our theology get manipulated enough to where it is no longer Christian theology? When do we offer so many choices on the Christian smörgåsbord that the cafeteria’s name needs to change? When does our theology cross the line to where it is “something, but not Christian”?

While writing this, I was talking to a friend who said that she knows a person whom she is trying to evangelize, but that this person has some “issues” with the Christian faith. She wants to bring the friend to the Credo House to discuss them with me. I said in jest, “No problem. Whatever issue the person has, we have multiple alternatives! I can get out of anything.” In other words, whatever their problem is, so long as it is not about the resurrection of Christ, “we know a guy” that can take care of it, if you know what I mean.

I am suspicious of any mindset that is compelled to produce all of these “opt-outs” in order to make Christianity more palatable. Who said that was our job? When did palatability become a test for veracity? Sometimes we believe things that are not palatable, don’t we? Is our desire to be intellectually and culturally viable causing our witness to misrepresent “the faith once for all handed over to the saints”? When do we lose the “fellowship of the saints” due to our minimalization of the Christian faith? Just because something is hard to believe, does this give us the right to scavenger hunt for other options? When have we pulled up so many anchors that we are adrift in a different sea? When is it “something, but not Christian”?

I am tired of all the options. Can we just preach our convictions in the church and not the cafeteria?Similar Posts:

• Engaging Postmodernism (3): Changing the Horse
• Engaging Postmodernism (5): Changing the Water
• Can Catholics Affirm Sola Scriptura?
• Engaging Postmodernism (2): Denying the Horse is Postmodern
• “Good Question. I Will Find the Answer and Get Back to You” . . . And Other Stupid Statements

You know what they say: whenever you are losing an argument, just stop and require your opponent to define their terms ad infinitum. That way the argument gets lost in the hopeless idea that all you are doing is talking past each other. It is a dirty move in debate, but, in reality, we do need to stop every once in awhile, catch our breath, and define our terms.

The term “Fundamentalist,” I find, is very ambiguous. It is difficult to know what people mean when they use it. Nine times out of ten I would not call myself a fundamentalist; eight times out of ten I would repudiate the designation.

I am an Evangelical, not a fundamentalist. I say this with a bit of pride. But I have come to recognize over the years that many times when I make this distinction, some people don’t get it. “But, but, but, I thought they were the same thing,” some people respond.

Let’s back up a bit.

The Fundamentalist movement began in the late nineteenth early twentieth centuries in reaction to theological Liberalism (to be distinguished from political liberal). A “theological liberal” in Christian scholarship refers to a movement in Christianity brought about during the enlightenment. Modernism had brought all of traditional creedal Christianity into question through higher criticism, demythologization of the Scripture, and naturalistic evolution. Theological liberals are children of modernism who, while accepting its criticism concerning the Scriptures and traditional Christianity, sought for a more “enlightened” version Christianity. Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768-1834), often referred to as the Father of Theological Liberalism, expressed his faith not as rational belief, but as a feeling of dependence on God. He did not think Christianity or religion needed creeds:

“You reject the dogmas and propositions of religion. Religion does not need them; it is only human reflection on the content of our religious feelings or affections. Do you say that you cannot accept miracles, revelation, inspiration? You are right; we are children no longer; the time for fairy-tales is past.”

Social concern became the uniting and driving force of Christianity and many churches and denominations felt the need to succumb in order to survive in the evolving modern intellectual landscape. Through liberalism, Christianity was being reduced to cause rather than creed. All vestiges of historic Christian doctrine were replaced with more accommodating truths.

Perhaps H. Richard Niebuhr (1894-1962) provides the best description of the belief of theological Liberalism:

“A God without wrath brought men without sin into a kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a cross.”

The Fundamentalist movement was an early twentieth century movement that sought to counter theological liberalism by reaffirming historic Protestant doctrine. It was an issue of identity. Christianity was beginning to lose its identity as liberals, who looked nothing like the historic Christian faith, were calling themselves Christian nonetheless. There were some great men involved in this movement such as  J. Gresham Machen and B.B. Warfield. At the time, the term “Fundamentalist,” first used in 1920 by Curtis Lee Laws in the Baptist Watchman-Examiner, became synonymous in American Protestantism (especially in the south) with “orthodox Christianity” or simply non-liberal Christians.

The Fundamentals, published from 1915-1920, was a monumental work of 90 essays contained in twelve volumes. Drawing from dozens of authors including James Orr, B.B. Warfield, and G. Campbell Morgan, these essays defended the essence—the Fundamentals—of the Christian faith against the threat of Liberalism.

In short, Fundamentalism began primarily as a movement fighting to preserve the historic Christian faith.

But in the 1930s, following the blistering defeat of popular fundamentalism in the court of public appeal at the Scopes Monkey Trial, Fundamentalism gradually shifted in its focus. It took on a more extravagant separationist mentality. Fundamentalists began to be identified with a much more legalistic version of Christianity that was losing its voice in the intellectual world and, just as importantly, losing its heart for the culture. It was no longer just those fundamentals of the faith that were under attack by Liberals that Fundamentalists separated from, but from every doctrine and practice of those that they considered to be in cahoots with the liberals. If the culture believes it—if the culture does it—we don’t. Why? Because the culture is evil. Therefore, movies, smoking, card playing, drinking, and cussing became among the fundamentals of the new Fundamentalists. The doctrinal statement of these Fundamentalists became long and burdensome, allowing for very little freedom in beliefs or practice, even among the issues that others believed were debatable and unclear.

For this reason, the Evangelical movement began. “Evangelical” was not a new term: it was used to describe the Lutherans at the time of the Reformation. That is why many called this modern Evangelical movement “neo-Evangelical” (coined by Harold J. Ockenga in 1947). Ockenga argued that Fundamentalism had lost its way, having the wrong attitude about the church’s relationship to culture. He believed that Fundamentalism was doing more harm than good and had not had the desired effect on Liberalism either socially or theologically. Edward J. Carnell argued that Fundamentalism was “orthodoxy gone cultic” because of its convictions that went well beyond historic Christianity as represented in the early creeds. Others argued that Fundamentalism was a new form of anti-intellectual Christianity that could not defend itself and would eventually lose relevance and bring Christianity down in the social market of ideas. Evangelicalism came to regain focus and lighten the load.

With leaders such as Ockenga, Billy Graham, and Carl F. Henry, Evangelicals represented a “third way” (tertium quid) between Liberals and Fundamentalists. They were committed to traditional doctrine and practice, but allowed for much more freedom and diversity in the areas that were biblically debatable and/or less important. Evangelicals sought to reengage the intellect and encourage Christians to reenter society and gain what was lost in the market of ideas.

From this, one can see that there is a great chasm that exists between Evangelicals and Fundamentalists. Fundamentalists are not Evangelicals and Evangelicals are not fundamentalists. Of course, within Evangelicalism you find those that are more traditional (such as David Wells, John Piper, and John MacArthur) but you also have those who would be more “progressive” (such as Roger Olson, Stanley Grenz,  and N.T. Wright). Roger Olson is currently popularizing the idea of “Big Tent” Evangelicalism. The progressives are more willing to push the envelope either in areas of doctrine or practice, while the traditionalists are about maintaining the traditions as they have received them. It is hard to maintain ground as an Evangelical. There is always the temptation to slip back into Fundamentalism or to progress too far toward Liberalism. But there are those who could be seen as maintaining the middle ground (such as Billy Graham, Chuck Swindoll, J.I. Packer, and Chuck Colson).

Either way, the common Evangelical credo (though not originating with modern Evangelicalism) is, “in essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity” (Rupertus Meldenius). The Fundamentalist movement, as it became, would not like this credo because there are very few things that would qualify as “non-essentials.” To the Liberal, all things were gray. To the fundamentalist, all things were black and white. To the Evangelical, there is black, white, and gray.

Another way to put it: Evangelicalism has a center (anchor), not boundaries; fundamentalism attempts to create a center by the creation of multiple boundaries. Liberalism has no anchor or boundaries.

Some other more popular (and fun) ways to distinguish between Fundamentalists and Evangelicals:

How do you tell the difference between a Fundamentalist and an Evangelical? Ask them if they like Billy Graham. Evangelicals love Billy Graham; fundamentalists believe he compromised.

How do you tell the difference between a Fundamentalist and an Evangelical? Ask them what is the eternal destiny of Catholics. For the Fundamentalist, all Catholics are going to hell. Evangelicals are not so certain.

My favorite is this:

What is an Evangelical? A nice fundamentalist.

Fundamentalists are young earth Creationists. Evangelicals have no definite stance on the origins issue other than the belief that, however creation happened, God did it.

Both Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism, however, share a devotion to the absolute and final authority of Scripture. Both share in their belief that the Reformation was a good and necessary thing. Both are committed to the Lordship of Jesus Christ. In these things, they are far closer to each other than they are with Liberal Christianity. Liberal Christianity, in their denial of the centrality and Lordship of Jesus Christ and historic Christian doctrine, is not Christian in any sense. Both Evangelicalism and Fundamentalism are.

Fundamentalism has all but lost its association with the early years of the movement. It is now a term that is used in just about every discipline to describe those who are radically and, often, militantly committed to their cause. In general, a Fundamentalist of any religion or movement it is associated with narrow-mindedness and an obscurantist mentality.

However, theological liberalism (ironically coming from the word “liberty”), it can be argued, is now just left-winged theological Fundamentalism. They don’t entertain more conservative views. Fundamentalist don’t entertain more liberal views. Evangelicalism, in theory, sits in the middle and can entertain truth found in both, while remaining committed to the essentials of the historic Christian faith.Similar Posts:

• "I am not Wimpy" or What is the Difference Between an Evangelical and A Fundamentalist
• I Get it . . . I Was Wrong . . . I Recant
• What does it take to be an Evangelical?
• Evangelical Manifesto
• The Coming Evangelical Collapse?

In the wake of the Bell debacle, Tim Challies has written an excellent article here about three notable observations.  Overall, I agree with his assessment that the Evangelical world has become too mealy on truth rooted in the historic Christian faith.  He challenges the notion that doubt, opaqueness and unanswered questions have become norms across the landscape.  By implication and particularly related to the Bell incident, these charges bear merit.

However, I find myself a tad uneasy about the charges when viewed from a different perspective.  Meaning, bold proclamations of truth based on the historic understanding of Christian essentials are an absolutely necessity.  I do agree with the critiques of the recent debacle, that once the so-called ‘old paradigms’ are questioned and uprooted, its a slippery slope to beliefs that will necessarily fall outside the bounds of Christian orthodoxy.  There must be an unyielding to core truths that make God’s plan for salvation both trustworthy and necessary to make Christian belief Christian belief.  There is a foundation by which Christians must affirm the exclusive claims of the gospel and consequences for rejection.

But on the flip side, there has been a divergence of theological distinctions within Evangelicalism.  For the most part these are not positions that uproot the Christian faith.  These are not positions that don’t necessarily challenge the sine qua non of Christianity, but may represent variations in understanding Biblical doctrine or passages that ultimately impact an understanding of Christian practice.

So when we talk about bold proclamations, I think the perspective from which we are making this statement matters. If it is the perspective of claims that will absolutely uproot the Christian faith, then yes we must boldly declare with Paul, “I am not ashamed of the gospel of Jesus Christ”.  That is becoming increasingly unpopular in an increasingly pluralistic world.  But if the perspective involves peripheral issues that to varying degrees will impact how we live out Christian faith, then I do believe there is a place for epistemological humility.  That does not mean we have a strong conviction but it also leaves room that competing positions that do not transgress the core faith, might be legitimate options.   Confidence in atonement or the resurrection is quite different than confidence in the age of the earth or the style of worship in the church.  There are issues of varying importance that must be weighed accordingly.

I think issue of perspective equally applies to doubt.  There is a difference between the Christian who has been told that any doubt amounts to a loss of salvation or that they never had it vs. doubt concerning essential truths.  To the former, the Christian needs to be affirmed that doubt is ok.  No, not ultimately because our faith IS based on belief.  But periods of doubt are not necessarily a product of an unrealized faith.  But the person who doubts that essential truths that are rooted in the historic witness of Christian belief are no longer needed, does have a kind of doubt that can result in disasterous consequences.  From this perspective, doubt is not ok.

I fear that if we apply the same measure of dogmatic expression to all areas equally in a stand for “truth” that might lead to overzealous and rigid compliance outside of which will exist the path to post-liberalism or even heresy.   In this scenario, any uncertainty expressed will necessarily be deemed a move down this path.  Unwarranted accusations might abound simply because one has expressed uncertainty, but unmeasured against a standard of significance.  Perspective, I think, should cause us to examine which positions are worth fighting for, which we really need to express concern about and which ones we may disagree with but allow grace in disagreement.  There are some areas where we can have conviction but have to confess that we ultimately don’t know.  I personally believe that rigid dogmatism in areas that require flexibility can be just as harmful of having no dogmatism or certainty at all.

So while I agree with Challies’ assessment and observations, I modify it to say it depends on what it is we are talking about.  Every topic related to Christianity cannot be treated with the same degree of certainty or dogmatism.  Some must, some need not be and there is everything in between.

See Michael’s post here on essentials vs. non-essentials, which provides a pretty good guide on the range of doctrinal certainty.

 Similar Posts:

• Four Types of Theologians
• Minimizing Christianity to the Glory of God
• Minimizing Christianity to the Glory of God?
• What is Certainty?
• The Patsy Called Relativism

I think the “official” definition of a mega-church is any church with over 2000 members.

Click here for a complete listSimilar Posts:

• Mega Churches in America Chart
• Two New Charts
• In Defense of Seeker Churches
• Theology Unplugged: What is the “True” Church #1
• Theology Unplugged: What is the “True” Church #4