I just finished reading Roger Olson's book, How to be Evangelical Without being Conservative.
Without spoiling the book for you, I want to take some time to work out for myself (and for you my reader) where I am as an Evangelical.
Dr. Olson lays out 5 foundational truths of Evangelicalism.
1. "Biblicism - belief in the supreme authority of Scripture for faith and life".
2. "Conversionism - belief that authentic Christianity always includes a radical conversion to Jesus Christ by personal repentance and faith that begins a lifelong relationship with him"
3. "Crucicentrism - piety, devotional life and worship centered around the Cross of Jesus Christ"
4. "Activism - concern for and active involvement in social transformation through evangelism and social action"
5. "Respect for the Great Tradition of Christian Doctrine"
I agree with (and hopefully live out) these five truths, though I may disagree with Dr. Olson's claims later in his work. In his book, he addresses many contemporary issues and takes on some pretty big names. Without getting into details, I think it is important to address some of the very non-evangelical things he said in the book.
In discussing Open Theism, he makes this statement, "Of course, some evangelicals have tried to debate Open Theism using Scripture and not tradition, but their interpretations of scripture are very traditional and they don't seem willing to reconsider them."
Without presenting the entire argument against the idea that "God doesn't know the future", he has just said that some evangelicals presented the argument from scripture that corresponds to the traditional understanding of God and his timelessness. He seems to be saying that because it is "traditional" it is wrong. Instead of presenting moderate theological positions on which their may be serious disagreement among evangelicals, (soteriology, ecclesiology, or eschatology) he presents a radical (and in my opinion, heretical) theological position, and argues that evangelicals should be open to such thinking. I appreciate that he is seeking to avoid the traps of traditionalism in his theology, and I applaud him for that. However, he seems to be intentionally using radical examples to prove his anti-"conservative" views.
Oddly enough, I actually loved his chapters about America, the redistribution of wealth and "moralism". It was refreshing to be reminded that I am not the only Evangelical who questions American Nationalism, laissez-faire capitalism or the Moralizing of our Nation. I intend to discuss the issues he raised later, but as I am currently in ministry in the lowlands of South Carolina, without reliable internet, that may be delayed.
