Robert Webber's The Younger Evangelicals

Part of the reading for the Contemporary Theological Trends class I'm facilitating in Indy tonight is the first two chapters of the late Robert Webber's The Younger Evangelicals. In the first chapter, he summarizes the history of evangelicalism in the twentieth century. I find his account more balanced than Mark Noll's, and I thought I would summarize it. He does draw significantly on Marsden.

1910-1925
He sees the origins of the fundamentalist movement in this period, with the rise of evolution and higher biblical criticism as primary causes of growing reaction among many Christian groups. I do have a question about some of his timing, for most of the Wesleyan revivalist groups and colleges had already formed by this time.

He sees the Scopes Trial of 1925 as of primary significance in the formation of fundamentalism as a coherent force.

1925-1945
This is the hey day of fundamentalism, which he characterizes as "anti-intellectual," "anti-ecumenial," and "anti-social action." He recalls his course in philosophy at Bob Jones university where the course was offered for reasons of state accreditation in education, but it was basically a course to show that all philosophical speculation was foolish and that all a person needs is the Bible to know the truth. Colossians 2:8 began the course, read of course with no attention whatsoever to what "philosophy" Paul was actually talking about.

Webber is sympathetic to the separation of many fundamentalists from mainline churches in this period because, in his opinion, the "liberal" churches were far from truly "liberal" in their spirit. Rather, they were just as dogmatic in their opposition to fundamentalists as the fundamentalists came to be in their opposition to the liberals.

The fact that the "liberals" had reduced the gospel to a social gospel led many fundamentalists to oppose such social concerns as anti-gospel. Similarly, the strength of pre-millennial thought led to an abandonment of the world to what was thought to be an inevitable downward trajectory of morality and culture.

On a side note to those of my own tradition, you might recognize elements of the impact of this fundamentalist period that can still be found in our chuch, particularly among the smaller churches (One should not think that the smaller churches of our denomination are the majority of our denomination. On sheer numbers, there are as many Wesleyans in our "larger" churches as there are in all our "smaller" churches). As IWU has pondered founding a seminary, I have fielded questions of whether in fact such an educational move would mark the decline of our church rather than its maturation--a vestige of our anti-intellectual past. Many Wesleyans still equate Methodist with liberal, even though the most "Wesleyan" theologian in our denomination is Chris Bounds, who teaches theology at IWU and is United Methodist.

Finally, many Wesleyans still equate any focus on the poor as anti-Christian, even though Jesus' earthly message addressed the poor at least as much as it did eternal salvation (in Luke's presentation, concern for the poor far surpasses concern for eternal salvation). Further, there is the irony that the Wesleyan tradition has in its roots social concern as a dominant theme. It is an ironic consequence of the fundamenalist controversies of the early twentieth century that the focus of the Democratic platform on the poor is actually seen as a sign of its godlessness! Of course most Wesleyans with this perspective have no idea where their biases in this area came from historically.

1945-1966
After WW2, an optimistic generation of new Christian leaders wished to distance themselves from their negative fundamentalist forebears. Thus "neo-evangelicalism" was born. In reaction to the anti-intellectualism of the fundamentalists, they strove to participate in the flow of intellectual thought. Fuller Seminary was founded as the flagship evangelical institution. Christianity Today was founded. The Reformed tradition dominated the scene.

The rise of Billy Graham and his subsequent shunning by Bob Jones represents the rift between fundamentalism and (neo) evangelicalism. Graham reaches out to any other Christians who will join his evangelicalistic mission. Jones insists on separation from those who do not hold the line in their beliefs. A good example of this distinction in more recent times was when Jerry Falwell was interviewed in relation to a scandal involving the then president of the National Association of Evangelicals. To the puzzlement of the media interviewer, Falwell indicated that he had nothing to do with that organization--no skin off my nose.

This generation of American evangelicals remained quite similar to its fundamentalist parents in many respects. The "inerrancy" touchstone grew up in this era.

1966-2000
Webber calls this period a time of increasing diversity in evangelicalism. For example, he argues that the initial leadership of neo-evangelicalism was Reformed. But in this third phase, they reluctantly had to reckon with evangelicals from the Wesleyan tradition. These Wesleyans were often considered "liberal" by the establishment evangelicals.

Even to this day, I would say that Arminians sit tentatively in relation to the Evangelical Theological Society, an organization that I have no interest in myself. John Piper has gone on record saying that we do not really belong.

Webber demarks the early part of this period by irreconcilable disagreement among evangelicals over biblical inerrancy. 1966 saw a failure to agree at a conference at Gordon College. Asbury Seminary and Fuller Seminary refused to define the term narrowly (Asbury) or to use it at all (Fuller). Meanwhile, those in the Reformed camp at Gordon-Conwell, Trinity, and Wheaton followed the narrow definitions of the Chicago Statement (1978) and used it as a political weapon for institutional control. Harold Lindsell's famous, The Battle for the Bible (1977) is an artifact of this period.

In terms of evangelism, this period saw the rise of the church growth movement. In my own church, theological interest almost completely disappeared in the age of John Maxwell. For some of us, it appeared that all that mattered was numbers. Distinctive doctrines of my own denomination almost completely disappeared from view. The norm was the "seeker sensitive" church and the focus was on being relevant.

Evangelicalism at the end of the twentieth century had become global, multicultural, and could include evangelical Anglicans. It even involved dialog with Catholic and Orthodox Christians. There are many signs of the identity crisis this has caused. Wheaton fired a professor for converting to Catholicism. The dominant theme of the Evangelical Theological Society in the early 2000's was who can we kick out next. The rise of evangelicals like Jim Wallis, whose focus is on social action, has grated the Nixon evangelicals who confused capitalism with the Bible.

2000-present
It is the rise of the "younger evangelicals" that Webber is interested in. They are neither the "traditional evangelicals," who have been kicking and screeming this last decade. 9-11 gave them a brief period of re-empowerment, one that they will increasingly see seep away in the days to come. Nor are they the "pragmatic evangelicals" symbolized by Willow Creek, whose confession of failure last year is another sign of the passing of the cultural guard.

Webber sees in Brian McLaren the rise of a new generation of evangelicals. These are orthodox believers. Indeed, they have a revived interest in the ancient elements of the church as found in the creeds. Webber's second chapter gives a basic description of this "emerging" group.

Webber gives 24 characteristics of the younger evangelicals. He published this book in 2002, and I already beg to differ with him on some points. But here is his list (I've flagged the ones I have questions about). I've highlighted the ones that seem more key.

1. Grew up in a postmodern world
2. Marked by a post 9-11 era (and we might now suggest perhaps a post-materialistic era)
3. Have a recovered sense of fallen human nature (we'll see)
4. Aware of a new context for ministry
5. Differ with the pragmatist approach to ministry
6. Minister with a new paradigm
7. Stand for absolutes (I have serious questions about this one)
8. The future runs through the past
9. Committed to the poor, especially in urban centers
10. Willing to live by the rules (I have questions about this one)
11. Facility with technology
12. Highly visual
13. Communicate through stories
14. Grasp the power of imagination
15. Appreciate the arts
16. Appreciate ritual and symbol
17. Long for community
18. Multicultural
19. Intergenerational (?)
20. Attracted to absolutes (I have questions about this)
21. Ready to commit
22. Shared wisdom
23. Demand authenticity
24. Holistic--unity of thought and action