A High View of Scripture? (Evangelical Ressourcement)

The Authority of the Bible and the Formation of the New Testament Canon

Allert, Craig D., Williams, D. H.

• Publisher: Baker Academic
• Year: 2007
• ISBN:
  9781441201591
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Christian Theology

Word Guild 2008 Writing Award (Biblical Studies) Where did the Bible come from? Author Craig D. Allert encourages more evangelicals to ask that question. In A High View of Scripture? Allert introduces his audience to the diverse history of the canon's development and what impact it has today on how we view Scripture. Allert affirms divine inspiration of the Bible and, in fact, urges the very people who proclaim the ultimate authority of the Bible to be informed about how it came to be. This book, the latest in the Evangelical Ressourcement series, will be valuable as a college or seminary text and for readers interested in issues of canon development and biblical authority.

EVANGELICALS, TRADITIONALISM, AND THE BIBLE

Unity and Diversity in Evangelicalism

If one were to take and read any book on evangelicalism within the vast array of literature on that topic, it would not take long to realize the issue of definition and the difficulties that lie therein.[1] The problem of definition centers on the fact that evangelicalism is a movement. Movements tend to defy precise definition by their very nature: they adapt to and respond to culture, and they are influenced by other movements that in turn have also adapted to and responded to culture. In other words, since evangelicalism responds quickly and adapts pragmatically toward cultural changes, it creates a dynamic rather than static movement. In this important sense of contextualization, it is therefore incorrect to label evangelicalism a conservative movement.[2] Yet, historically, a hallmark of this movement has been theological conservatism; the movement has manifested a consistent concern for conserving an essential theological emphasis. So, in seeking cultural relevance evangelicalism has sought to conserve the gospel (euangelion) it seeks to communicate.

That evangelicals consider themselves theologically conservative is apparent from only a glance at some of the literature written by evangelicals themselves.[3] The name “evangelical” has a close connection to the euangelion, the gospel message that was the content of the preaching of the primitive church. The content of this message was a proclamation of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ; the lordship of Christ as a result; the presence of the Holy Spirit in the church as a token of God’s favor toward his people; the second coming of Jesus as Savior and Judge; forgiveness of sins; and assurance of salvation.[4] This undergirds Christianity itself.

But the definition of the movement called evangelicalism is not quite so simple. Although most evangelicals belong to a denomination or ecclesial tradition, they do not comprise a single denomination or tradition in and of themselves. Although many Christians proudly wear the label “evangelical,” there is no membership list to indicate that they actually are such or even who they are. In other words, a precise definition evades us, in one respect, simply because it is neither a clearly defined religious organization nor is there in existence a list of members.[5] But this has certainly not prevented anyone who studies the movement from offering definitions. This is evidenced quite clearly by each of the authors cited in footnotes 1 and 3 concerning the issue of definition. Although each is clear in pointing out the difficulty of definition, each proceeds to offer one.

Historian George Marsden indicates that, when speaking of evangelicalism, there are two kinds of definitions: broad conceptual ones and more narrow institutional ones.[6] The broad conceptual definitions focus on the doctrinal unity among those who call themselves evangelical. Most works on evangelicalism include some sort of conceptual definition by way of a list of “essentials” or “controlling motifs.”[7] While the list differs in some details between one writer and another, the core can be expressed as follows:[8]

1. High regard for the authority of the Bible (biblicist).[9]
2. The centrality of the cross as God’s saving activity in history through Jesus Christ (crucicentric).
3. A personally appropriated conversion experience that manifests itself in personal piety and growth (conversionist).
4. Communicating this message to others for personal and societal change (activist).

While this core is quite important to and in the movement, it is not without its problems with respect to definition. Isolating evangelicalism strictly on the basis of these doctrinal concerns thus has three basic problems.[10] First, these types of definitions fail to give an adequate account of the diversity within the movement. Many have actually focused on the complex diversity of the movement rather than the unity. This is well illustrated in a book with the appropriate title The Variety of American Evangelicalism.[11] In the two concluding essays of this volume, the editors summarize the thrust and tone of the book. Donald Dayton indicates that the category “evangelical” remains an “essentially contested concept.”[12] Indeed, the essays in the book vividly show this.[13] Robert Johnston claims that the diversity of the movement causes “evangelicalism” to be an essentially contested concept, and when something is contested, one finds people using it in different ways, with no common standard.[14] This contributes to a contest between differing doctrinal understandings, with each contestant (or groups of contestants) arguing for his or her own specific definition as true or “orthodox.”[15] This is not to say, however, that those who focus on the unity of the movement are blind to the diversity. Such diversity causes most, if not all, writers to express a certain degree of frustration over the difficulty of definition.

Championing the Essentials

Something that appears to alleviate this tension between evangelical unity and diversity is offered by one theologian who claims that the above four essentials are championed by evangelicals in ways not so espoused by other Christians. This may be true, but it does not negate the fact that diversity is present even here.[16] It is one thing to champion biblical authority as a result of inerrancy, and quite another to champion it as a result of infallibility. When one way of championing these essentials attempts to trump another (equally evangelical) way of championing them, there is inevitable conflict. This has prompted Alister McGrath to claim that those who offer precise definitions of evangelicalism usually have some sort of ax to grind—generally the “I’m an evangelical and you’re not” kind of ax. McGrath continues: “It is a simple matter of fact that any theologically rigorous definition of evangelicalism tends to end up excluding an embarrassingly large number of people who regard themselves, and are regarded by others, as evangelicals.”[17] Interestingly the opposite is true as well. Kellstedt and Green have shown that if doctrinal distinctives are the basis, then many Catholics could be described as evangelical.[18]

The second problem with isolating evangelicalism strictly on the basis of doctrinal concerns is that doctrine fails to differentiate evangelicals sufficiently from nonevangelicals. Many groups affirm the same doctrinal commitments as evangelicals but prefer not to be identified as evangelicals.

The third problem with isolating evangelicalism on the basis of doctrinal concerns is that a doctrinal criterion is tangential rather than central to the essence of the movement. In other words, the movement is not held together by a specific confessional or theological framework. This can be seen by comparing other branches of Protestantism with evangelicalism. For example, the Lutheran, the Reformed, and the Presbyterian traditions are confessional in their identity, whereas there is nothing in evangelicalism that could accurately be identified as “evangelical theology.”[19]

This point is well illustrated in a recent book published by an evangelical publishing house, Baker Academic.[20] Authors Gregory Boyd and Paul Eddy organize their book Across the Spectrum into eighteen chapters according to theological issues they see as debated in contemporary evangelicalism. For example, chapter 1 is devoted to “The Inspiration Debate,” chapter 8 to “The Atonement Debate,” and chapter 16 to “The Women in Ministry Debate,” and so on. In each chapter the authors’ purpose is to “introduce . . . students to the positions evangelicals take on various disputed topics.”[21] This focus on the breadth of evangelical theology is emphasized again in the book’s introduction, which asserts that the book considers only options discussed and embraced “within evangelicalism.” This is based on the authors’ understanding that there is no “universally accepted definition of ‘evangelicalism.’”[22] Thus, while there may be a set of controlling motifs in evangelicalism, it is the diversity of the movement that, perhaps, more closely captures its essence.

Marsden’s second type of definition is narrower, focusing on evangelicalism as “a dynamic movement with common heritages, common tendencies, an identity, and an organic character.”[23] Here the emphasis is placed on social structures that give the constituents a sense of common identity and that hold the movement together. Important in these types of definitions are the historical origins of the movement in their various cultural contexts. There are also problems with these types of definitions, but according to Richard Lints, they are not insurmountable.[24] The problems usually have to do with specifying the unifying social stances of the movement too precisely, thus misrepresenting the diversity of the movement as, in fact, unity. This more narrow type of definition is actually the method taken by most scholars of evangelicalism. My position is the same here. The theological essentials of evangelicalism cannot be divorced from its historical development.

My main point here regarding definition is to indicate that definitions of the movement are necessarily vague and somewhat ambiguous regarding the details. This is important to remember, for the common denominator in the above presentation surrounding definition appears to be the diversity of evangelicalism within this unity. The natural question that arises out of this realization centers on how this came to be. The answer lies in the historical development of the movement, or more specifically, the streams that exerted influence on evangelicalism in its development and those that continue to exert influence.

Streams of Confluence in Evangelicalism

There is general consensus concerning the influences that converged to form evangelicalism. These influences combine to contribute to that list of essentials or controlling motifs of evangelicalism indicated above. Many scholars have ably traced the history of the movement, in both Canada and the United States.[25] This section will not retrace steps covered by these and other works.[26] Rather, part of the purpose here is to focus on one broad aspect of these studies—the sources contributing to the contemporary makeup of evangelicalism with a view toward discerning the theological influences exerted both on its development and within the movement in its contemporary manifestations. As mentioned above, it is my understanding that the various streams that contributed to the origins of evangelicalism manifest themselves today in a somewhat unique diversity. This diversity of evangelicalism’s development has left contemporary evangelicalism a confusing (or confused?) legacy. That legacy is one of controlling influence.

The term “evangelical” has a history as long as Protestantism itself. This is because the term was, in fact, synonymous with “Protestant.”[27] The Reformers did not think of themselves as schismatics, but as representatives of the true church, conservatives whose desire was to reform the church to a more biblical ideal.[28] This is why most trace evangelicalism foundationally to the Protesta...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Series Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents
• Abbreviations
• Introduction
• 1. Evangelicals, Traditionalism, and the Bible
• 2. Introducing New Testament Canon Formation
• 3. Canon and Ecclesiology
• 4. A Closed Second-Century Canon?
• 5. Two Important Fourth-Century Lists
• 6. Inspiration and Inerrancy
• Postscript
• Appendix: The Fathers, Scripture, and Inspiration
• Select Bibliography
• Scripture and Other Ancient Writings
• Subject Index
• Notes