Previous | Next

Spring 1991 · Vol. 20 No. 1 · pp. 3–17 

Focusing the Evangelical Vision

Walter Unger

Persons outside of the evangelical tradition frequently have a blurred understanding of who North American evangelicals are and what they stand for. A faculty member at a Manitoba university commented recently that the image most people have of evangelicalism is based on what they get from the secular media. Most of his colleagues, he observed, see evangelicals in one of three images: 1) traditionalist reactionaries with limited intelligence and education (the media tend to caricature “born againers,” “fundamentalist ignoramuses” and “snake handlers”; 2) dishonest opportunists who use religion to get rich; 3) religious fanatics who are a threat to civil liberties. 1 The need to focus the evangelical vision is real and urgent.

Doctrine, experience, and life in balance.

FROM WHENCE EVANGELICALS?
A THUMBNAIL SKETCH

From a New Testament perspective, the evangelical is the authentic Christian. He or she is one who believes and shares the euangelion, the term first-century believers used as their word for “good news” or gospel of Christ.

From this simple understanding of “evangelical” has emerged a movement that is anything but monolithic. The term {4} was actually not used widely until the early part of the sixteenth century. The Reformers, in breaking from the Roman Catholic Church, believed they had recaptured the true gospel of the first century. Thus the Lutheran and Reformed churches were called “evangelical” to distinguish them from Roman Catholicism.

In the eighteenth century, “evangelical” took on some additional shades of meaning. The great awakenings which swept over England and the American colonies were called evangelical revivals. It came to be understood in a new way that an evangelical not only believed certain truths, but also shared that faith with others who were lost without it. Evangelism once again became an essential part of being an evangelical, as it was in the early church.

Evangelical Protestantism was the dominant force in North America until shortly after the U.S. Civil War. Then an amalgam of at least five theological strands came together to combat new theological and scientific thought seen as a threat to orthodox Christianity.

The elements coming together in the emergence of what was soon to be called Fundamentalism coalesced as a common front to defend the faith against the liberal accommodation to modernity. The five elements were Puritanism (the oldest strain and by 1875 the one most modified); the Arminian impulse, which filtered through to North America via Wesleyan theology; revivalism, no longer confined to rural and frontier communities but, by the end of the 19th century very much urban; millenarianism taught mainly in its dispensational form inherited from John Nelson Darby; and biblical literalism, with the Princeton theologians leading the way in its exposition and defense. 2

Unfortunately, by the early twentieth century, evangelicalism, spearheaded by reactionary forces and given the name Fundamentalism, began a slide into becoming what has been called a ten-ring circus. 3 Fundamentalism developed an enormous penchant for controversy and this, combined with a strong strain of anti-intellectualism, made it a backwater movement.

In the 1940s a self-conscious new evangelicalism emerged out of Fundamentalism. It retained many of the doctrines of Fundamentalism but turned from a schismatic and defensive mode and sought to “retrieve Christianity from {5} a mere eddy of the main stream into the full current of modern life.” 4

The evangelical periodical Christianity Today was founded in 1956 as part of the new thrust to intellectual and theological respectability. The objectives of this revived evangelicalism were clearly articulated by National Association of Evangelicals president Harold Ockenga in 1960. He declared:

[The evangelical] desires to win a new respectability for orthodoxy in the academic circles by producing scholars who can defend the faith on intellectual ground. He hopes to recapture denominational leadership from within the denominations rather than abandoning those denominations to modernism. He intends to restate his position carefully and cogently so that it must be considered in theological dialogue. He intends that Christianity will be the mainspring in many of the reforms of the societal order. 5

The distancing of the resurgent evangelicalism from hard-line Fundamentalism continued throughout the 1960s. By the mid 1970s the evangelical movement crested; a cover story of Newsweek (1976) was titled, “The Year of the Evangelical.” George Marsden succinctly places current evangelicalism in its historical context by noting that in the shorter perspective of its Fundamentalist past, evangelicalism today appears to be “the somewhat moderate outgrowth of an essentially eccentric and separatist religious subculture.” 6 However, viewed in the perspective of a century ago, contemporary evangelicalism can be seen as “embodying some of the most deeply rooted traditions and characteristic attitudes in American culture. At times it appears as a beleaguered sect; at other times it still poses as the religious establishment.” 7

DEERFIELD: TRYING TO REFOCUS A BLURRED IMAGE

Evangelicalism, defined broadly in terms of historical lineage and adherence to cardinal Christian tenets, is a movement which is transdenominational. It includes all those who have personally experienced Christ as their Saviour and seek to share him with others. Thus defined, evangelicals currently number 66 million in the United States (Gallup Poll) and 500 million worldwide (statistician David Barrett).

{6}

Growth in numbers notwithstanding, all is not well with the movement, particularly in North America. With such rapid growth comes the concern that evangelicalism may not survive its own popularity. Blurred distinctives and unethical conduct, it is feared, may take the potency out of the movement.

Theologian Carl Henry recently expressed the concern that whereas some ten years ago North American evangelicalism was heralded as a dominant, positive force, it is now perceived in terms of Elmer Gantry exploitation, manipulation, and confrontational politics. Its cognitive content and its life-ethic have both suffered to the point that the vitality and even survival of the movement may be questioned. 8

Theological erosion has taken its toll on North American evangelicalism. Indeed, concern has been expressed that the movement has become so fragmented theologically that it no longer has a coherent self-identity.

It was to address this identity problem that the National Association of Evangelicals and Trinity Evangelical Divinity School co-sponsored a consultation on Evangelical Affirmations, May 14-17, 1989, at Deerfield, Illinois. More than 350 evangelical leaders tried to develop a concise definition of evangelical belief and practice. I was one of the few Mennonites in attendance.

Scholars gave papers clarifying evangelical positions on salvation, the authority of the Bible, personal and social ethics, ecumenism, black evangelical theology, modern science and church-state relations. Respondents lifted out salient points from each paper, and round table discussion groups of about 20 persons each further critiqued the papers.

The overarching rallying point in all the papers was biblical inerrancy. This doctrine was readily accepted by all and drew very little discussion.

The concern of the convenors of the conference was to speak to the theological fragmentation as well as the moral failures of North American evangelicalism. “We realize that our own house is not entirely in order,” reads the completed Affirmations document. “Many of our worst problems we have brought on ourselves . . . For our sinful lapses into sexual misconduct, neglect of the poor, lack of accountability on the part of our leaders and self-seeking divisiveness, we repent before God and our neighbours.” 9

{7}

Evangelical Affirmations

The Affirmations document does not constitute a complete doctrinal statement, but speaks to pressure points, “evangelical truths that specially need to be asserted and clarified in our day.”

The first affirmation of the Deerfield statement deals with the person of Christ and the gospel. Christ is declared to be fully God and fully man, and his incarnation, substitutionary death and bodily resurrection are declared essential to the gospel. This is followed by an affirmation stating, “As a result of the fall of the race into sin, human beings must be born again to a new life in Christ. They can be pardoned and redeemed by faith in Christ alone.”

The third and fourth affirmations deal with the issue of truth-“God as Source and Ground of Truth” and “Holy Scripture.” Since God the Creator is declared to be the source of truth and the ground of the unity of all truth, churches and Christian schools are encouraged to “develop and implement disciplined instruction that relates the mind of Christ to all knowledge, that emphasizes the compatibility of scientific inquiry with biblical teaching about nature, and that challenges believers to understand and apply a Christian view of the world to all of life.” In the preamble, the document alludes to the vast number of religious movements which present their own conception of reality (the New Age Movement, various syncretistic cults, spiritism) and states that evangelicals now have a much larger and more complicated agenda for witness.

Regarding scripture, the document upholds “the complete truthfulness and the full and final authority of the Old and New Testament scriptures as the Word of God written.” It warns against attempts to limit the truthfulness of inspired scripture to “faith and practice,” and against saying that the Bible errs in such matters as history or nature.

The church is said to be a worshiping and witnessing community. The document further states that “In a day of lax doctrine and even more lax discipline, we specially affirm that Scripture requires the defense of sound doctrine, the practice of church discipline and a call for renewal.”

The mission of the church is said to be primarily that of evangelism of the lost through witness to the gospel by life and {8} word, secondarily comes the task of being salt and light, and seeking to alleviate suffering and injustice. A statement on “Doctrine and Practice” sets forth an urgent call for the practice of holiness and righteousness. “Purity of doctrine must be accompanied by purity of life.”

Under “Human Rights and Righteousness,” the persistent sin of racism is confessed. The call goes out to “respond to the plight of the destitute, hungry and homeless; of victims of political oppression and gender or race discrimination, including apartheid.” Abortion-on-demand, drug and alcohol abuse, sexual hedonism, pornography, homosexuality and child abuse are condemned, although not militarism and the proliferation of nuclear arms (which some conferees urged were also evil). Nothing is said about materialism in the document, but evangelicals are encouraged to exercise responsible stewardship of their own personal wealth and the conservation of the earth’s resources.

The final two affirmations deal with religious liberty (a basic human right which the state must ensure) and “The Second Coming and Judgment.” The latter statement warns against the illusion that all will finally be saved.

The conclusion of the document sets forth a threefold definition of evangelicals. They are a people caught up with the Good News of God’s saving work in Christ. They hold to all the most basic doctrines of the Bible, and they hold to “the formative principle of evangelicalism.” The actual wording of this third point is: “Evangelicals hold the Bible to be God’s Word and, therefore, completely true and trustworthy (and this is what we mean by the words infallible and inerrant).”

Discussion Points

As a participant in the consultation on Evangelical Affirmations, I offer a few observations. There was only one issue which drew any extended debate. In my opinion a number of equally crucial topics were mentioned, but were apparently not seen as of sufficient import to merit significant discussion.

The one issue which exercised the Deerfield group a great deal arose out of James Packer’s paper entitled “Evangelicals and the Way of Salvation.” Packer warned against the inroads in evangelical ranks of the position of annihilationism. This view holds that the judgment upon those who reject Christ will not be eternal torment in hell, but cessation of existence. The {9} Regent College professor became specific in naming a number of outstanding evangelical scholars who hold, or tilt toward this view, the most noted being John R. Stott. 10

Stott was not at the conference, but his latest book, written with David Edwards, was being sold in the foyer. In it is portrayed a liberal-evangelical dialogue on six key areas in which liberals and evangelicals differ. In the sixth chapter, “The Gospel for the Whole World,” Stott gives four arguments for “the possibility that scripture points in the direction of annihilation, and that eternal conscious torment is a tradition which has to yield to the supreme authority of scripture.” 11

Stott does not dogmatize about this view and holds it tentatively, but he also affirms that “the ultimate annihilation of the wicked should at least be accepted as a legitimate, biblically founded alternative to their eternal conscious torment.” 12

In the final plenary session of the conference, heated debate arose over whether annihilationism ought to be denounced in the final document. A representative of the Advent Christian General Conference, whose churches hold such a position, pleaded with the group not to exclude from evangelical ranks those who hold to annihilationism. Others argued that annihilationism was clearly unbiblical. The question arose: Is John Stott now to be disowned by evangelicals?

A vote was taken on the annihilationism issue, and the conference was almost evenly divided on how to deal with it in the Affirmation statement. A renunciation of the position was not included in the final document.

A very small effect, in my opinion, was registered when Myron Augsburger responded to the paper on “Evangelicals and Social Ethics” by Harold O.J. Brown. Brown, professor at Trinity Divinity School, listed the two great issues in America since World War II as civil rights and abortion on demand. Augsburger noted the absence of ethical concern over nuclear arms in Brown’s paper. He urged that “with Christ as the foundation for ethics, we must achieve a more consistent balance than do those whose ‘right to life’ emphasis is more for the unborn than for the born, i.e., the neighbor across national lines; or than those who see abortion on demand as an ultimate evil but do not speak to the nuclear threat as a moral evil.” 13

In the discussion period regarding issues which ought to {10} be included in the Affirmations document, following Augsburger’s lead, I asked the group to add to the statement concerning abortion-on-demand (called “a monstrous evil”) a similar condemnation of militarism and the proliferation of nuclear arms (an equally “monstrous evil”). There was little response to the issue and a vote showed the group divided on such an inclusion; it was not included in the final document.

Another issue which drew virtually no discussion (and certainly deserved major attention) was the whole matter of not only the blatant materialism, but the blessing of materialism which occurs in some evangelical (and other) circles. Nothing was said about the disease of the health-and-wealth gospel or the abuse of so-called spiritual gifts. Richard Lovelace’s recent words on this issue would have been appropriate at the Deerfield consultation:

Gifts of the spirit are more prominent than the call to sanctification. The charismatic garden has a luxuriant overgrowth of theological weeds, including the health-and-wealth gospel, the most virulent form of American heresy that Christianity guarantees worldly success. 14

CRITIQUING EVANGELICALISM

In a recent book receiving widespread attention, twelve authors, all but one of evangelical persuasion, write not only about the scandal of the prosperity gospel, but about doctrinal heresy among some of America’s most popular preachers. The Agony of Deceit delineates the defective views of these men in their doctrines of God, humanity, and redemption. 15

Among prominent, self-professed evangelicals coming under fire are Robert Schuller and Pat Robertson, who distort the traditional Christian doctrine of original sin. The most frequently cited evangelical heretic is Kenneth Copeland, especially condemned for his teaching on the deification of believers. Jimmy Swaggart is faulted, among other things, for an erroneous view of the Trinity as well as for an incorrect view of justification.

Editor Horton comments that

. . . all those whom we have been forced to characterize as “heretics” in this volume cheerfully claim for themselves the designation “evangelical,” and the secular media takes {11} their word for it that they speak for the rest of us. We must admit that the crisis of truth we have seen in the televangelists condemned in this book is only a microcosm of the disarray in Christendom generally. 16

In the final chapter Horton calls for an ethical and theological cleanup in contemporary evangelicalism, not unlike that initiated by Martin Luther in the 16th century. 17

A perceptive reviewer observes that

If these authors are right, then a group of wolves in sheep’s clothing is leading a substantial portion of the evangelical church to the brink of eternal perdition. Even if the thesis is overstated, the book stands as an important manifesto calling evangelicals to recover the lost art of theological discernment. 18

Evangelical Megashift

Less than a year ago, Christianity Today carried a series of articles by six noted evangelical scholars on what has been called an “Evangelical Megashift.” 19 In the lead article, Robert Brow, without naming individual authors and theologians (with the exception of the frequent mention of C. S. Lewis as the most influential transitional figure in the shift from “old-model” to “new-model” thinking) delineates seven terms that he believes have completely changed their focus in new-model evangelical theology. The latter is characterized by a picture of God as three persons held together in a relationship of love and “instead of being dragged trembling into a law court, we are to breathe in the atmosphere of a loving family.”

Hell is no longer seen as a place to which unbelievers are sent by judicial sentence. Hell (as well as heaven) is a destination freely chosen. Faith, in the new thinking, is a direction of looking, not a particular decision. The old idea of God as judge was derived from a Roman court of law; the new model sometimes merged with the Old Testament portrayal of the ideal King David as a father of his people who loves and defends them.

In new-model theology wrath connotes not angry punishment but the bad consequences which God assigns, as any loving parent might, to wrongful behavior. It never means sending people to an eternal hell. In old-model theology, one sin is enough to condemn us to hell. New-model evangelicals {12} think about sin not in terms of judgment and hell, but in terms of bad behavior requiring discipline and correction in order to bring about change, but never exclusion.

Similarly, in new-model thinking, the church is one of the instruments of the love of God and not merely a stockade for the saved or an agency to save souls (old thinking). The new view produces a different motive for missions. The old model saw all the heathen as lost until they heard the gospel and made the right “faith decision.” Such a view gave a tremendous compulsion to go out and “reach the lost.” The new form of missions follows Jesus’ model in Matthew 28, i.e., teach all nations enrolling by baptism any who want to learn and then training them, forming them into church families.

Finally, there is a subtle shift in the meaning given to the title Son of God. Old-model theology stressed that our forgiveness was not purchased until Jesus actually died on the cross. The new thinking, based on C. S. Lewis’ Narnia stories, views the Son as eternally both Lion and Lamb. The cross is not seen as a judicial payment for our sins, but as the visible expression in a space-time body of Jesus’ eternal nature as Son. 20

Responses to the “Megashift” View

Five scholars respond to Brow’s “megashift” delineation. They all agree that a shift in evangelical theology has occurred. They do not all uniformly see the shift as negative, and indeed, would differ on the new definitions given by Brow.

Don Carson asks: If we admit that old-model evangelicalism has in some measure been hostage to antiquated notions badly in need of reformation, to what is new-model evangelicalism hostage? 21 David Wells simply argues that what we are seeing is not the emergence of a new model, but rather the dismembering of the old by the forces of modernity. 22 Robert Webber, professor of theology at Wheaton College, wholeheartedly agrees with Brow’s megashift thesis and adds his own personal testimony. He writes, “I have experienced the shift from the old to the new model and seek in my work to assist those making a similar journey.” 23

Clark Pinnock of McMaster Divinity College agrees with most of the new-model theology and states categorically that Brow’s “new” evangelical thinking is really the old Arminian or non-Augustinian thinking. He states what is new is that the dominance of Calvinist thinking is being challenged by a wave {13) of Arminian thinking breaking on its shores. The real issue, argues Pinnock, is one of control. He challenges: “Will the Augustinian old guard that dominates the structure of official evangelicalism gracefully surrender some of its power to a resurgent wave of Arminian thinking? Or will it fight to retain control?” 24

The most irenic voice in the megashift debate is by Donald Bloesch in a recent book. 25 He gently critiques elements in both the old and the new model and calls for each to be willing to learn from and be corrected by the other and for each “to submit cherished beliefs to the searing criticism of the transcendent Word of God.” 26 He states there is hope not only for a unified evangelicalism but for the unity and renewal of the church at large “if each recognizes that the one foundation for faith is not a set of beliefs but a living Person who speaks anew in every age through the Bible and the church’s commentary on Scripture.” 27

RECOVERY AND REVITALIZATION

Some analysts see North American evangelicalism’s accommodation to modern culture as fatal. In the changing climate brought on by modernity, observes David Wells, the historical Protestant faith has been reduced to “a mass of diverse, conflicting models. I cannot see it all surviving,” he adds. “That a sundering of the movement is coming seems utterly certain to me; the only question is when, how, and with what consequences.” 28

Others, following the analysis of James Davison Hunter, would agree with this pessimistic outlook. Hunter’s three-year study of evangelical students and faculty in nine Christian colleges and seven seminaries concludes that many younger evangelicals are uncertain about difficult doctrinal questions such as biblical inerrancy, the exclusivity of Christ as the only hope for heaven, and the belief in hell as a place of eternal torment for nonbelievers. They are also less likely to abide by the social mores of their forefathers. “Overcommitment and moral zeal (of the earlier generation) have, in the main, been displaced by sensibility and civility,” writes Hunter. 29 He holds a rather bleak outlook regarding the coming generation of evangelicals.

In a more positive vein, analysts like Richard Lovelace, {14} Clark Pinnock, and Donald Bloesch point the way to a recovery and revitalization of evangelicalism. Lovelace’s books-Dynamics of Spiritual Life: An Evangelical Theology of Renewal (1979) and his abridgement of much the same material in Renewal as a Way of Life (1985) 30-update Spener’s Pia Desideria (1675) giving a prescription for reformation and renewal in the evangelical church.

In his Tracking the Maze: Finding Our Way Through Modern Theology from an Evangelical Perspective, 31 Clark Pinnock classifies contemporary theology according to three types: the progressives (liberals/modernists), the conservatives (Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant authoritative definers of God’s truth in propositional form), and the moderates (those who integrate gospel truth with modern culture without sacrificing the good news). He places evangelicalism squarely in the moderate camp among those who try to achieve balance of text and context. He lists nine changes in the boundaries of evangelical theology which he sees as positive. 32 Pinnock concludes that this revitalized evangelical theology holds great promise and may even prove better suited to mount an effective alternative to the modernist experiment than neo-orthodoxy. 33

In my opinion, the most incisive analysis of the evangelical movement is given by Donald Bloesch, with some twenty-five books to his credit. Especially relevant are his The Crisis of Piety, The Evangelical Renaissance, The Ground of Certainty: Toward an Evangelical Theology of Revelation, The Orthodox Evangelicals, a two-volume Essentials of Evangelical Theology and The Future of Evangelical Christianity. The latter book, first published in 1983, was reissued in 1988 with a lengthy, insightful foreword entitled, “The Surprising Optimism of Donald Bloesch” by Mark Noll. 34

The kind of evangelicalism about which Bloesch is optimistic is that which can relive the best of historic Christianity while at the same time carefully reaping the benefits of modern thought. He writes: “It is possible to hold to the fundamentals of the faith and yet be thoroughly critical in the examination of the materials in which the fundamental truth of the faith is given to us.” 35 He affirms full scriptural authority while gently chiding those belabouring the inerrancy issue as missing the point of the Bible’s significance.

Genuine evangelical Christianity holds doctrine, {15} experience, and life in balance. He writes that “we are deficiently evangelical if we emphasize the person and work of Christ and treat lightly the effect of Christ in the lives of his people.” 36 To the experience of salvation belongs the imperative of discipleship and the urgency of mission. The eschatological hope gives meaning to this present age without denying that this-worldly hope can only be provisional. The ethical imperatives of the gospel call believers to tackle such issues as abortion on demand, the nuclear armaments race (an “intolerable social evil”), and the peace question, about which Bloeseh comments, “The Christian strategy for peace entails not only peacemaking, not only announcing the divine commandment against nuclear war but also, and above all, preaching the gospel of reconciliation.” 37

Finally, Bloesch affirms that renewal can only come to churches, be they Catholic or Protestant, through a return to biblical preaching. “In an age when the average sermon has degenerated into an after-dinner speech, random thoughts on the contemporary scene, or a soothing pep talk to carry us through the week, we need to rediscover the sacramental character of gospel preaching,” he writes. 38

The evangelical vision refocused along these lines would be nothing less than biblical Christianity. And biblical Christianity which is faithful and obedient to Christ will endure, draw people everywhere into the community of faith and bring glory to God.

NOTES

  1. Harold Jantz, “Evangelicals Have a Problem Explaining Themselves,” Christian Week (May 30, 1989) 7.
  2. I elaborate on the main elements in Fundamentalism in my “Earnestly Contending for the Faith: The Role of the Niagara Bible Conference in the Emergence of American Fundamentalism, 1875-1900” (Ph.D. dissertation, Simon Fraser University, 1981), pp. 28-45.
  3. Ronald H. Nash, Evangelicals in America. Nashville: Abingdon, 1987, p. 24. Evangelists like Sam Jones, Milan Williams, and the flamboyant Billy Sunday led Harper’s Weekly to call the revival meeting a “Salvation Circus”-William G. McLoughlin, Jr., Modern Revivalism: Charles Grandison Finney to Billy Graham. New York: Ronald, 1959, p. 441.
  4. Harold Ockenga, “Resurgent Evangelical Leadership,” Christianity Today (October 10, 1960) 15.
  5. Ockenga, “Resurgent Evangelical Leadership,” p. 15.
  6. {16}
  7. George Marsden, “From Fundamentalism to Evangelicalism: A Historical Analysis,” in The Evangelicals, rev. ed. David F. Wells and John D. Woodbridge, eds. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1977, p. 143.
  8. Marsden, “From Fundamentalism to Evangelicalism,” p. 143.
  9. Carl F. H. Henry, “Who Are the Evangelicals?” in Evangelical Affirmations. Kenneth S. Kantzer and Carl F.H. Henry, eds. Grand Rapids: Academic Books, 1990, p. 69.
  10. “The Evangelical Affirmations,” in Evangelical Affirmations, p. 29. All subsequent references and citations come from this chapter in Evangelical Affirmations, pp. 27-38.
  11. J. I. Packer, “Evangelicals and the Way of Salvation,” Evangelical Affirmations, pp. 124, 135. Packer has more recently issued a lengthy piece on “The Problem of Eternal Punishment” in Crux (September 1990) 18-25.
  12. David L. Edwards and John Stott, Evangelical Essentials: A Liberal-Evangelical Dialogue. Downers Grove IL: InterVarsity, 1988, p. 315.
  13. Edwards and Stott, Evangelical Essentials, p. 320.
  14. Evangelical Affirmations, p. 290.
  15. “Evangelical Spirituality: A Church Historian’s Perspective,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society (March 1988) 33.
  16. Michael Horton, The Agony of Deceit. Chicago: Moody Press, 1990. See reviews in Time (March 5, 1990) 62 and Christianity Today (October 6, 1990) 73-74.
  17. Horton, Agony of Deceit, p. 149.
  18. Horton, Agony of Deceit, pp. 243-251.
  19. Bruce Barron, Christianity Today (October 6, 1990) 74.
  20. Christianity Today (February 19, 1990) 12-17.
  21. Christianity Today (February 19, 1990) 12-14.
  22. Christianity Today (February 19, 1990) 15.
  23. Christianity Today (February 19, 1990) 16.
  24. Christianity Today (February 19, 1990) 16.
  25. Christianity Today (February 19, 1990) 15.
  26. Donald Bloesch, The Future of Evangelical Christianity: A Call for Unity Amid Diversity. Colorado Springs: Helmers and Howard, 1988.
  27. Christianity Today (February 19, 1990) 17.
  28. Christianity Today (February 19, 1990) 17.
  29. Christianity Today (February 19, 1990) 16.
  30. Evangelicalism: The Coming Generation. Chicago and London: University of Chicago, 1987, p. 212.
  31. Richard Lovelace, Dynamics of Spiritual Life: An Evangelical Theology of Renewal. Downers Grove IL: InterVarsity, 1979; Renewal as a Way of Life. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1985.
  32. Clark Pinnock, Tracking the Maze: Finding Our Way Through Modern Theology from an Evangelical Perspective. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1990.
  33. Pinnock, Tracking the Maze, pp. 67-68.
  34. Pinnock, Tracking the Maze, p. 119.
  35. Bloesch, The Future of Evangelical Christianity, pp. ix-xxii.
  36. Bloesch, The Future of Evangelical Christianity, p. 85.
  37. {17}
  38. Bloesch, The Future of Evangelical Christianity, p. 17.
  39. Bloesch, The Future of Evangelical Christianity, p. 138.
  40. Bloesch, The Future of Evangelical Christianity, p. 147.
Walter Unger is president of Columbia Bible College, Clearbrook, British Columbia.

Previous | Next