Evangelical Integrity
The late Earl of Shaftesbury once quipped, “I know what constitutes an Evangelical in former times . . . I have no clear notion what constitutes one now.” Lord Shaftesbury is hardly alone in his confusion.
The evangelical movement is in the midst of a massive identity crisis that threatens the integrity of conservative Christianity in America. As in Lord Shaftesbury’s time, the word is now applied to doctrinal positions, institutions, and organizations that bear little resemblance to the founding convictions of the movement—and to the core of doctrinal commitments central to evangelical identity.
A cadre of revisionists now seeks to redefine evangelical theology through a theological “megashift” that looks remarkably like the liberal theology evangelicals once rejected. Central doctrines such as Christ’s substitutionary atonement, verbal inspiration, the exclusivity of the Gospel, the reality of hell, and justification by faith alone are rejected in favor of a new evangelical paradigm.
The Augustinian and Reformation foundations of the evangelical tradition are to be replaced with a new doctrinal platform complete with a wrathless deity and an unnecessary cross.
Advocates of this “megashift” declare that the revolution is inevitable as younger evangelicals reject the old doctrines. The shift may be hidden by the continued use of traditional language, but the older words have been redefined.
A prime example of this redefinition is seen in the new concept of God’s omniscience promoted by those who champion the “openness of God.” According to these theologians, God’s omniscience has been wrongly understood throughout the history of the church. We are now to understand that God is truly wise and infinitely resourceful, but not all-knowing in any genuine sense.
God is open to the future, they argue. He knows all that can be known, but even God cannot know what free creatures will choose in the future, and since these decisions determine the shape of the future, God is waiting with His creatures to see how it will all work out in the end. God knows all that can be known, and that is all there is to say.
This is an ancient heresy in a new guise. This limited deity is not the God of the Bible. This “openness theology” may fit comfortably with modern metaphysics and contemporary culture’s idea of a relational deity, but the God of the Bible knows all things exhaustively, reigns over His creation, and is never depicted as a mere spectator—even an “infinitely resourceful” spectator.
The Evangelical Theological Society recently held its annual meeting. The Colorado Springs event brought together evangelical scholars and theologians from all over the country. The controversy over openness theology was on the agenda, and the society adopted a resolution declaring the openness view to be incompatible with biblical inerrancy—the society’s founding criterion for membership. The resolution passed by a large margin, but only a minority of members voted. Furthermore, advocates of the openness theology declared that they continue to press for full acceptance of their views. The ETS vote was hardly conclusive.
Evangelicalism’s identity crisis is an integrity crisis. If “evangelical” can mean anything or everything, it means nothing. If evangelicalism is divided over an issue as basic as God’s omniscience, it is headed into utter confusion.
Every word requires a definition, and the definition limits how the word can rightly be used. As Charles Spurgeon once fulminated, “It is mere cant to cry, ‘We are evangelical; we are evangelical’ and yet decline to say what evangelical means.”
The founders of modern evangelicalism sought to identify themselves with the faith once delivered to the saints, with the classical tradition of orthodox doctrine, with an affirmation of the total truthfulness and authority of the Bible, with the formal and material principles of the Reformation, with the exclusivity of the Gospel and the urgency of conversionist evangelism, and with the bold preaching that Jesus saves sinners.
None of these can now be taken for granted among those who call themselves evangelicals. We need a truth in advertising campaign if “evangelical” is to be saved from meaninglessness. A failure of evangelical nerve will lead to evangelical disaster.
As a movement, evangelicalism now encompasses a vast array of publishing houses, theological schools, colleges, magazines, mission societies, and parachurch organizations. The movement has been a mighty force for Gospel witness and a voice for righteousness in the culture. Will this continue? Only time will tell. This much is clear—if evangelicalism is to regain its witness and momentum, it must first regain its doctrinal convictions.
The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary is determined before God to be genuinely Baptist and genuinely evangelical, and to hold these commitments with integrity as we are accountable to our churches. Our faculty is driven by this commitment; our students are drawn by this determination; and our faithfulness will be measured by this accountability. By God’s grace, we intend to teach and to demonstrate what evangelical really means.
Originally published February 28, 2004.
