Related articles and links |  1 of 4

A Finite Elasticity
* Roger Olson's article "The Future of Evangelical Theology" [Feb. 9] provided a helpful summary of the multifaceted divisions among evangelicals, although I think Tom Oden's challenge of Olson's traditionalist/reformist paradigm was a needed corrective. Olson was almost successful in writing in a nonpejorative fashion, but his sympathies appeared in general to line up with the reformists' emphases.

Oden's use several times of the term heresy reminds us that biblical error should be taken seriously, lest we be guilty of "dances with wolves." There are, indeed, occasions in which the right thing to do is to call someone to recant.

Someone needs to ask the question: at what point does one cease to be an evangelical? The term itself, like other words, has only a finite elasticity.

Prof. Larry Dixon
Columbia International University
Columbia, S.C.

* I commend Roger Olson for his sincere desire for unity and peace in the evangelical movement, but despair at his statement that "the various positions in these evangelical debates do not themselves call into question our core commitments."

The core commitments of evangelicals have always included belief in God's omniscience, including his comprehensive knowledge of future events; we have always believed that, though it may be correct to say that God in some way responds to events in history, he is in not "in process" so as to be changed by them; we have always affirmed that the revelation of creation is not sufficient for the salvation of the lost and that they must hear the gospel of Christ in order to be saved. These and other core commitments are denied by some or all of those whom Olson terms reformist evangelicals.

I hope all evangelicals will realize that the long agreed-upon foundations of our faith are at stake in these matters and will respond with the uniquely Christian combination of kindness and firmness that is appropriate.

Pastor Ben Gildner
Wyoming Community Church
Wyoming, Minn.

Tom Oden is fond of describing modernity as "dying." That seems to be wishful thinking on his part. Oden benefits, as do we all, from the many gifts of a modern world-view which is thriving, not dying, as we enter the twenty-first century. It is the context in which Christians will seek to be faithful to Jesus, a context we should appreciate and not begrudge.

Also, he should resist using such shrill language as "teeming infestation of heresy," "waning theological liberals," "demonic temptation," and "bewitchment." It reveals a temperament at odds with his commending of "charity" and "love and dialogue." And, I think, it betrays a lack of confidence in his own position.

Wes Davis
Lincoln, Del.

* I will confine my remarks to a few observations concerning the fine section on evangelical theology: (1) There would be no traditionalists without reformers. Lutheranism is traditional. Luther was a reformer; (2) There can be no reformers without traditionalists. I'm not saying there must be a tradition in order to reform it—which is true nonetheless—but that there is a tradition of truth to reform those traditions that have strayed from it, which was established by God himself from the beginning; (3) God does not tell us everything. Our insistence that we know what God has not made clear is what divides us. We must be willing to admit that maybe we just don't know some things we think we know. (4) We all tend to delude ourselves to the effectiveness of our own theological ecclesiology. In a blind confession I requested of several confirmands in my church, only one would admit to faith in Jesus Christ; (5) Of my contact with members of other denominations, the doctrines that I find people know the best are the very ones that divide us. These last two items are pathetic. The only solution that demonstrates the unity between true believers is acknowledging the truth in the tension and how both sides are needed to complete the body of Christ.

next page... |  1 of 4

April 6 1998, Vol. 42, No. 4