Evangelicals of substance..Hmmmm?

Yes I hear all these suggestions in the comments. But as that eloquent Scottish pundit, Kenny Dalglish opined when asked about a certain fitba' job, 'Ehhh. Maybes aye.....an' ehhhh, maybes naw!' That's how I feel about some of the suggestions so far!

First, not sure any of those mentioned compare in stature to others over the past three hundred years- that may be a matter of historical persepctive. Maybe we don't fully recognise some people's contribution till the next generation. And Margaret, thanks for the thought, but modesty forbids...Stuart can speak for his self?

Second, where are the women - is Evangelicalism still so structured as to exclude / prevent / silence, the voice of women in roles of spiritual influence and gifted presence? (Please note I avoid the words leadership and authority!) I find it interesting that there is a stooshie going on at one of the Evangelical Anglican Colleges down south where Elaine Storkey is subject to disciplinary proceedings - the story is murky but has been all over the Christian blogosphere, with suggestions that issues of ministry and gender lurk in the background. Oh dear!

Third, people like Peterson and Yancey represent a moderate and almost journalistic form of evangelicalism - soft in a way that for example John Piper or Jim Packer are not. The modern publishing machinery and publicity technology market names and personalities in a way that perhaps inflates their value unfairly compared with previous figures whose influence was established more by personal reputation. is that true - fair - relevant?

Fourth, Jim Wallis and Tom Smail are two very intriguing suggestions - would both want to own the term Evangelical as their primary self-descriptor? The Sojourners, and Wallis as their founder, have made it impossible for Evangelicals to avoid the relation of Gospel to issues of justice, politics and culture. Smail has long been a key theological voice within the Charismatic movement, and with a deepening commitment to Anglican thought.

Fifth, Donald Bloesch is a self confessed Evangelical who may well be thought of by other evangelicals in the way previous generations both admired and were cautious about R. W. Dale, James Denney and P. T. Forsyth. Indeed one or two criticisms of this book on its first outing asked questions about the inclusion of Dale and Forsyth in a book about Evangelicals! But I DO think Bloesch is an Evangelical of significant stature and well worthy of study - in fact several theses and at least two books are dedicated to his thought. But while we are thinking about evangelicals that other evangelicals might not want to include, there is also Clark Pinnock.... and the late and hugely lamented, Stan Grenz...

Nobody has yet mentioned Tom Torrance - Hmmmm?

Comments

[Ruth G]

Hi Jim. I'm loving lurking here, and this has finally driven me out.... what about Jim McClendon, Steve Holmes and Ian Stackhouse?

[Jason]

Jim, is your goal to find those who ‘compare in stature to others over the past three hundred years’ or to find those who today exemplify the best of ‘Christian activity, writing, teaching’ and evangelical spirituality? If you are unconvinced about the depth of today’s offerings, then perhaps this in itself could form the basis of a final chapter. Though how do you do so without sounding like a grumpy old fundo whinging about how things aren’t not like they used to be?

Yes, I too wondered about the lack of female examples, but also about the total absence of those outside of the Anglo-American world. Surely we ought not be surprised to find examples of mature evangelical spirituality being nurtured outside of the West (or even in such God-forsaken places like Australia and New Zealand!), hence my mention of Brother Yun. He probably isn’t the best example but he is the one that came to mind.

I think your comments about Peterson are unfair. It is true that what you term ‘the modern publishing machinery and publicity technology’ do market Peterson well, but it seems to me that comparatively similar things could be said about Luther, Spurgeon, Stott and Lloyd-Jones in their own day. If you are going to excuse anyone who is well-marketed from your search then you had better end your book a decade or two back. For better or worse, these are our times.

In my view, Peterson represents some of the best evangelical spirituality and pastoral theology around. If millions of folk have found the same, then why should the richness and seriousness of his contribution be dismissed just because he is popular?

As far as I know, both Wallis and Smail consider themselves evangelicals – despite how pathetically and politically narrow this fuzzy term is banded around, especially in the USA. (As you are aware, this is part of the problem with your questions too – the defining of ‘evangelical’). I suggested Wallis because he represents a brand of activity-jubilee-spirituality that is certainly (to my mind) informed and shaped by evangelical convictions and he has had an enormous impact directly and indirectly on contemporary evangelicalism and spirituality.

I suggested Smail because I remain convinced that he is an important voice that would be taken much more seriously if he didn’t write so well. He also represents some of the best (if not the best) of anglo-charismatic theology around. The impact of the charismatic movement on contemporary mainstream evangelicalism ought to feature somewhere in your final chapter, if not in a larger way through dialogue with someone like Smail.

Donald Bloesch came to mind because he has not only written a 7 volume systematics ('Christian Foundations') and a 2 volume 'Essentials of Evangelical Theology', but also he has published some great books on prayer and spirituality. I think of 'The Struggle of Prayer' and 'The Crisis of Piety'.

Clark Pinnock are Stanley Grenz, as you suggest, are possible further examples. Grenz’s 'Prayer: The Cry for the Kingdom' (1988), 'Revisioning Evangelical Theology: A Fresh Agenda for the 21st Century' (1993), 'Created for Community: Connecting Christian Belief With Christian Living' (1996), '20th Century Theology: God & the World in a Transitional Age' (1997, with Roger Olson), 'Theology for the Community of God (2000), Renewing the Center: Evangelical Theology in a Post-Theological Era' (2000), 'The Social God and the Relational Self: A Trinitarian Theology of the Imago Dei' (2001), and 'Rediscovering the Triune God: The Trinity in Contemporary Theology' (2004), among other works, makes him a definite contender I would think. I remain unconvinced that Pinnock is to be taken seriously enough to be counted as one of two of the examples you are seeking.

You wrote, ‘Nobody has yet mentioned Tom Torrance’. Certainly the Torrance tradition has had an enormous (thank God!) impact on evangelicalism. I suggested JB, rather than TF, because if your book is concerned with exploring evangelical ‘spirituality’ then it seems to me that this was more JB’s contribution than it has been TF’s – both in his own writing, and perhaps even moreso through the plethora of (published and unpublished) students that he has supervised. Speaking personally, JB’s essay ‘The Vicarious Humanity of Christ’ (published in The Incarnation, ed. By TF Torrance) and his book 'Worship, Community & the Triune God of Grace' have been enormously influential.

While none of those I’ve mentioned might be as influential as Wesley, Edwards, Simeon, or Spurgeon, or as weighty as Forsyth, history may judge differently. Anyway, history is not the judge. Jim, you may need to make a decision that is based on criteria other than you used when you decided on Lloyd-Jones and Stott.

If we are talking influence, then Forsyth (shamefully) should probably not have been included. Of course, just because someone has extorted enormous influence in shaping an arm of the Church does not mean that they deserve a chance to bat on the team of your book.

If these comments don’t help, then I hope that at least they have not fogged up the issue.

Apologies for such a verbose response.

[Brodie]

Jim - help me out here, what are you meaning by "substance"? Do you mean intellectual rigour, someone who does deep theology yet is accessible to the masses? Or do you mean someone who others look at and say "there's a great woman of God, I want to learn from her", someone of integrity who perhaps is not the greatest thinker on the block but in their life reflects something very profound about the gospel in a way that challenges and inspires others?
Oh and if your still collecting names for your list what about NT Wright or Oliver O'Donovan?
Also I would agree with Jason on Pinnock - nice man heard him speak a couple of years back, has some interesting things to say but lacks the depth of say a Gregory Boyd, and hey I thought Piper, Gruden and their heavies chucked Pinnock out of the Alliance of Evangelical Theologians? (Not that I'm agreeing with Piper et al).