How to Be Evangelical Without Being Conservative

How to Be Evangelical Without Being Conservative
Roger E. Olson
Zondervan 2009

This is an interesting book by Arminian scholar, Roger Olson, which seeks to show that being an evangelical Christian does not mean that one has to therefore be a "conservative" politically or even theologically.

I have to admit that the book resonated with me, though I am not sure that Olson's picture of "conservatism" which is a distinctly American one, travels that well on this side of the Atlantic. In the UK, evangelicals are less linked intrinsically to conservative political and social causes (far less to the Conservative Party) than appears to be the case in the USA. In that sense, Olson's ideas are less controversial here than they may be in America.

Some of the chapters of the book deal with distinctly American situations, but others are relevant as much to Britain.

Though I don't agree with everything Olson says, I think that in most of the chapters he does score hits against opponents and makes valid criticisms of the assumption that anyone who is evangelical (and therefore to some extent at least conservative theologically) must therefore be conservative across the board.

Olson's definition of an evangelical is hardly controversial. He emphasises five beliefs common to all evangelicals (adding the fifth to David Bebbington's well-known quadrilateral):

1. Biblicisim - holding the Bible in high regard and placing its teaching at the centre of faith and practice.
2. Conversionism - the belief that human beings need to go through a conversion process to saved.
3. Crucicentrism - that the atoning work of Christ on the cross lies at the centre of the faith.
4. Activism - the belief that the implications of the gospel outworks in practical activities in the world, particularly mission.
5. Respect for the Great Tradition of Christian doctrine - respecting though perhaps not slavishly following the Christian traditions of the past.

Olson then goes on to attempt to show that a person can embrace these five beliefs and therefore be a genuine evangelical, but not then necessarily have conservative political views or in fact take a conservative (in the sense of traditional) line on all theological issues.

After an initial chapter explaining what he means by evangelical and conservative, Olson then goes through a number of chapters explaining that to reject "the conservative line" on a subject does not mean abandoning an evangelical position. I felt some of the chapters were more successful than others - in this sense the book overall must be rated "patchy" but each one has at least something interesting to make you think in it.

The chapters are entitled as follows:

"Being Biblical without Orthodoxy" - here Olson marks the difference between the Bible's own authority and the lesser authority of accepted "orthodoxy" by the church. He points out the need to distinguish between the biblical text which is the Truth, and our interpretations of it, which may or may not be true. I felt this was a successful chapter.

"Building Character without Moralism" - in this chapter Olson criticises attempts to force "Christian behaviour" through legislation on non-Christians. He also criticises a judgmental attitude that I'm afraid many evangelical Christian do display at times. Instead he says the church should be focused on discipline within the church rather than the morals of those outside it. And instead of looking to law to change behaviour, we should be looking to the gospel to transform people's lives. Again I felt this chapter made many good points.

"Celebrating America without Nationalism" - this chapter is very America-focused. I don't think the attitude that Olson explores - that America is a nation specially chosen and blessed by God - is one that really exists in the UK now (that Britain his the special nation) though it certainly did when Britain was the world's superpower. Olson's criticisms are fair and I think the distinction he makes between patriotism and nationalism is valid and does transfer to other countries, including Scotland at this time in history. For Olson, patriotism is a good thing, but nationalism isn't.

"Seeking Truth without Certainty" - this chapter explores the difference between "faith" and "false certainty" and argues that it's okay for Christians to have honest doubts at times. He suggests that Kierkegaard was right to distinguish certainty with certitude. "Certainty" is the absolute knowledge that something is true and Olson thinks that this is inconsistent with the real life of a Christian. "Certitude" is "the settled, inward assurance of faith; it believes without proofs and learns to live with doubts." Although interesting, I'm not yet sure how much of this I agree with or not, but since doubts are okay, that's not a problem!

"Taking the Bible Seriously without Literalism" - here Olson distinguishes fundamentalism which claims to take the whole Bible literally, with evangelicalism which takes the parts of the Bible that are meant to be taken literally, literally. I pretty much agree with everything he says here. Olson claims that since the term "fundamentalism" gained a bad press many who would at one time have been seen as "fundamentalists" now fly under the banner of "evangelical" in effect shifting evangelicalism "to the right" as it were.

"Being Religionless without Secularism" - here Olson argues that one can be Christian and evangelical without being "religious". By religious he seems to mean traditional in Christian worship, church structures and practice. I struggled to understand what he was really saying here. If he simply means that non-traditional ways of doing church are still valid, then I agree.

"Transforming Culture without Domination" - This chapter is similar in some ways to the one on moralism.

"Redistributing Wealth without Socialism" - This is a chapter that I think many evangelicals will hate, but I liked it. Olson argues in effect that it's okay to be an evangelical Christian and lean towards the left politically. Phew!

"Relativizing without Rejecting Theology" - Olson's point here is that we need to put "theological systems" in their correct place, and not end up putting our system above Scripture. That doesn't mean of course that all systems are equally valid. To be honest I had some problems with this chapter in the details though Olson may be correct on the broad brush strokes.

"Updating without Trivializing Worship" - In this chapter Olson simply points out that being an evangelical isn't tied to any one worship style.

"Accepting without Affirming Flawed People" - I found this chapter the most challenging in the book. Olson points out that though evangelicals acknowledge with our heads that we are all sinners, in our hearts and in our practice we act as if some of sinners should be excluded from fellowship, while others are embraced. I think this is by-and-large true. He says that it is strange that once a person is "in" as long as they only lapse into "acceptable sins" they will be supported and looked after, but other people will never "get in" because of their "unacceptable sins". The answer seems biblical to me - we need to be accepting of all people without affirming that their sins are "okay".

"Practicing Equality without Sacrificing Difference" - in this chapter Olson argues that it is okay to be evangelical and egalitarian (supportive of women being allowed to hold all church offices).

The book ends with a postscript advocating a "postconservative evangelicalism". I'm not sure about that. Rather I think we need an evangelicalism that neither unthinkingly takes nor rejects the "conservative line" but seeks to be reformed and always reforming in line with God's Word.

Simply Jesus

Simply Jesus
Tom Wright
SPCK, London 2011

I can't help but thinking that N. T. Wright is getting distracted from finishing the long-awaited massive volume on Paul in his Christian Origins and the Question of God series as writes more and more popular level books. So far we've had Simply Christian, Surprised by Hope, Virtue Reborn and several volumes to complete the New Testament for Everyone series. Now in that same vein comes Simply Jesus.

The book aims to answer three simple, yet central and profound questions for the Christian faith: who was Jesus, what did he do, and why does it matter?

There is little new here for those who have read some of Wright's previous work, but it was still gripping reading to see the arguments laid out in such a straightforward manner in this book.

For Wright, Jesus is very much the Jewish Messiah who "embodied Israel's God" (I think that's a direct quote - if not, Wright certainly says something very similar). He came to do for Israel what Israel could not do for itself - namely be God's light for the Gentiles and the rightful Lord and King of the whole world. Through this, he is able to bring salvation to everyone who has faith in him.

As we might expect, Wright takes the historical background to Jesus' life and ministry very seriously. He talks about a "perfect storm" in the form of a combination of Jewish expectations of deliverance by the Messiah, the power of imperial Rome, and God's strange and powerful purposes for history all coming together at the time of Jesus' life and shaping Christ's life, death and resurrection.

One thing I noted in this book is how firmly Wright seems to have moved towards the Christus Victor view of the atonement as the primary view, although not denying that penal substitution is also a motif in the New Testament, though a secondary one. I would perhaps take issue with this. I do not think Christ could be victorious without penal substitution.

Though most of the book explores who Jesus is and what he came to do, I actually found the short third section on what it means for us to say that Jesus is the king of the world in practical terms to be the most challenging and interesting part. Perhaps this is because I was already familiar with most of what Wright says in the earlier sections from his other books. But this third section where Wright begins to apply his views to normal life was new to me and fascinating. I was certainly excited by Wright's invitation to join in and play our part in God's work of building his kingdom.

In the end, it still seems to me that Wright says the very same things that thoughtful evangelical Christians have always said, but it's as if the thoughts are translated into a different language, using different words at times. This explains how he can both be lambasted by conservatives as a closet liberal and by liberals as a closet fundamentalist! Truth is he is neither, but in good Anglican tradition, he occupies middle ground, yet middle ground much more familiar to evangelicals than liberals I would say as he always seeks to honour what the Bible teaches over all traditions. This is very evident in the extended metaphor of the perfect storm he uses in the first part of the book, where he seeks to show that neither the liberal Jesus of social action, nor the conservative Jesus of deity and salvation in heaven do justice to the New Testament's full-orbed doctrine of Christ and his work.