Related articles and links |  1 of 2

Growing numbers of evangelical theologians now describe themselves as postconservative. Roger Olson of Baylor University's Truett Theological Seminary defends what he calls the distinctively postconservative approach to theology in his book Reformed and Always Reforming (Baker Academic). He champions a range of evangelical theologians who offer tremendous gifts to evangelicalism. Their voices should be heard by more evangelicals, and Olson's grand tour and useful introductions will help that happen.

Nevertheless, my appreciation comes with a major concern. By Olson's definition, I am postconservative. But I think the term is more trouble than it's worth: rashly triumphalist, historically confused, philosophically incoherent, and needlessly divisive.

Postconservatives "try to move beyond the limitations of conservative theology," Olson writes, "without rejecting everything about it." They still center theology on the Bible, conversion, the Cross, and transformation. But whereas conservatives show "slavish adherence" to an "incorrigible" tradition, postconservative evangelicals say they defer to tradition and orthodox doctrine critically and constructively.

Olson roots postconservatism in Pietist circles rather than the Old Princeton School of Reformed theology that dominates conservatism. Conservatives "under the spell of the Enlightenment" understand theology mainly as information, while postconservatives, he says, are grateful for postmodernity and regard theology as "a pilgrimage and a journey rather than a discovery and conquest" aimed primarily at transformation.

Alongside all that conservative limitation, slavery, incorrigibility, bewitchment, and conquest, Olson attempts to display the fruit of postconservative doctrines of God, rich theological uses of Scripture, and a style that "demands humility, generosity, and openness of spirit."

Sounds great, right? Not to everyone—even to those who might be natural allies. Olson wonders why some postconservatives resist the label. Here are a few reasons I do:

First, if Olson is right to root postconservative theology in his own Arminian Pietism, then this is not a line of succession but a battle for succession—the latest counterattack in the long struggle between Calvinists and Arminians over the evangelical mantle. That makes Olson's label presumptuous. Scholars have repeatedly shown that evangelicalism is bigger than these rivals.

Second, postconservatism is not a radical enough name for "evangelical theology after modernity." A better one would be postliberalism. Why? Because postliberals abandon the Enlightenment project that sparked the whole fundamentalist-modernist controversy, and thus both contemporary liberal theology and contemporary evangelical theology.

Third, and paradoxically, postconservatism is also too radical a term. To treat conservatism as reactionary, as Olson does, fails to respect conservatism's inherent flexibility. Conservatism has evolved as it has critically absorbed traditions from before, during, and after the Enlightenment. This absorption naturally creates evangelical change and diversity. So classical Protestant loyalists jostle with modern revivalists, fundamentalists, and Pentecostals, as well as "emergent" postmoderns. Conservatives will always have plenty to fight about! Yet these different conservators should be natural allies, mentors, and pupils—and yes, fellow conservatives.

Evangelicals and mainliners are far-flung cousins. Like children of estranged ancestors, we are emerging from the modern culture that set us at odds. We face our new context, and each other, in new ways. We also face recalcitrant siblings who resist the change and refuse to reconcile. Among these are many of Olson's fellow Pietists. Their missions, catechesis, worship, cultural engagement, and theology are all finely adapted to modernity.

next page... |  1 of 2

February 2008, Vol. 52, No. 2