1 of 9
Editor's Note:
This is a substantially longer version of the article by Thomas Oden that appears in the May/June issue of Books & Culture under the same title. Next week we will post a selection of responses from readers to the exchange between Oden and Robert Gundry.
Some who, having read my exchange with Robert Gundry in the March/April issue, may still be wondering what the fuss and fidget is all about. I would like to try simply to describe the conflicting interests flowing into the controversy over the "The Gospel of Jesus Christ: An Evangelical Celebration," the leadership for which was provided by the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association and Christianity Today.
It is pertinent to begin by pointing out the unprecedented coalition of worldwide evangelical leaders who joined in this sensitive effort to state an evangelical consensus. In order to show the inclusive and irenic purpose of the document, it is first useful to specify the remarkable breadth of this consensus. Headlined by Billy Graham, this consensus includes such leading exegetes as D.A. Carson and Walter C. Kaiser, Jr.; distinguished evangelical educators such as Richard J. Mouw, Luder Whitlock, George Brushaber, and Duane Litfin; prominent evangelical women such as Roberta Hestenes, Kay Arthur, Beverly LaHaye, and Joni Eareckson Tada; key European evangelical theologians such as Henri Blocher and John Stott; leading evangelical apologists such as Ravi Zacharias and R. C. Sproul; heads of worldwide parachurch ministries such as Bill Bright and Chuck Colson; major voices of international broadcast ministries such as Charles Swindoll, John MacArthur, Marlin Maddoux, John Ankerberg, David Jeremiah, and Pat Robertson. Then compare the transdenominational varieties of voices: major Baptist leaders such as Charles F. Stanley, Adrian Rogers, Richard Land, and Jerry Falwell; varied representatives of Wesleyans and Arminian traditions such as Maxie Dunnam, Jay Kesler, and Robert Coleman; such different Presbyterian as D. James Kennedy, D. James Kennedy, and Ben Hayden; and Reformed teachers as Roger Nicole, Edmund Clowney, and John F. Walvoord; major Pentecostal voices such as those of Russell Spittler and Brian Stiller; Lutherans such as Oswald Hoffman and Myron Augsburger; free church evangelicals as different as Kenneth Kantzer and David F. Wells; Anglican evangelicals such as J.I. Packer and Bishop C. Fitzsimmons Allison; respected teachers from the charismatic tradition such as Jack Hayford and Wayne Grudem; executives of massive cooperative evangelical organizations such as Brandt Gustavson, Don Argue, James J. Stamoolis; and international evangelical leaders such as Hee Min Park, Luis Palau, Augustin B. Vencer, Jr., In Ho Koh, and David Cerullo; along with church growth leaders such as Bill Hybels, black evangelicals such as Tony Evans, vast movement leaders such as Bill McCartney, evangelical publishers such as Stan N. Gundry, social evangelicals such as Ronald J. Sider, and eminent historians such as Timothy George, John Woodbridge, and Gerald Bray.
Why recite such a long list? Because only by this means can the broad range of evangelical consensus be grasped. "People have been stunned by the broad acceptance of this statement," wrote David Neff, editor of CT, in the introduction to "Celebration." How was such a wide evangelical consensus attained? It required patient, painstaking, irenic efforts in redrafting and consulting. One wonders whether any document of the evangelical tradition since the Lausanne Convenant of 1974 has received such wide consent. Can our distinguished critics produce anything approaching an equivalent list that would consent to their views? If they disagree with particulars, they have a duty to recognize the irenic and limited purpose of this document. Yet the document continues to be criticized because of its supposed narrowness and lack of representation. I am tempted to conclude that there are some evangelicals who appear so to love dissent, exegetical conflict, and the delicious feeling of moral indignation, that it seems almost a mark of purity to show how they differ from any effort at consensus. This at times takes on the ironic and amusing posture of appearing to desire to fail, to hold to such an untarnished position that only a few could possibly agree with it.
share this page
RSS Feed
