By Gary Weedman
A review of Evangelicalism and the Stone-Campbell Movement: Engaging Basic Christian Doctrine, Volume 2, William R. Baker, editor
With this second volume, William Baker continues to make a notable contribution to the interaction between the scholarship of the current Stone-Campbell (SC) Movement and a significant segment of the general evangelical world. Baker was one of the early participants from the SC fellowship in the Evangelical Theological Society (ETS), and along with Paul Pollard of Harding University, established an ongoing program unit, called the Stone-Campbell Adherents Group, within the ETS. This effort has spawned the Stone-Campbell Journal, edited by Baker, and the two volumes on Evangelicalism and the Stone-Campbell Movement.
Like the first volume, this work contains essays delivered at the Stone-Campbell Adherents Group, in this case from 2001″“05. Unlike the first volume, these essays are not grouped chronologically, but topically. It is organized into five parts: (1) Open Theism, (2) Christology in the Gospel of John, (3) the Church and the Lord”s Supper, (4) Eschatology in Dialogue with Preterism, and (5) the Role of the Old Testament as Christian Scriptures.
Four of these topics have three essays and one (Eschatology in Dialogue with Preterism) has two essays. Each topic has a combination of authors from colleges and universities from both the a cappella and from the independent streams.
Three faculty from Harding University, two from Lipscomb University, one from Abilene Christian University, and one from Oklahoma Christian University represent the a cappella group. Three faculty from Cincinnati Christian University, three from Lincoln Christian College and Seminary, one from Puget Sound Christian College, and one from TCM International Institute represent the independent institutions.
Each of these five topics has a notable evangelical scholar responding to one of the topics. Three of these scholars are graduates of the University of Aberdeen, one from the University of Sheffield, and one from the University of South Africa.
The responses of the evangelical scholars give evidence that the differences between the SC authors and evangelicals””at least those who are graduates of Aberdeen and Sheffield””are slight. Three of the SC authors are also graduates of Aberdeen or Sheffield.
OPEN THEISM
Surely the most contentious topic of the five covered in this volume is the issue of open theism. ETS made an important issue of this topic in 2003 when it considered a motion to expel theologians Clark Pinnock and John Sanders from its membership.
The action was initiated by Roger Nicole, a founding member, noted Reformed theologian, and past president of ETS. Nicole had much earlier led a successful campaign to remove Robert Gundry from membership because of a difference over a commentary he had writ-ten. In the case of Pinnock and Sanders the action was prompted by comments each had made in books dealing with open theism; both men took positions that the Reformed theology of Nicole and others could hardly abide. The motion to expel Pinnock and Sanders failed at the November 2003 meeting, though barely so for Sanders.
Each of the three essays on open theism finds at least some agreement. Most SC theologians would be more open to a position that directly challenges orthodox Calvinism than the typical ETS Reformed member. Furthermore, the SC heritage of avoiding systematizing theology becomes apparent in their writings. Alexander Campbell, especially, had disdain for systematizing theology, believing that such practice was but an occasion for wrangling over human-created paradigms. That attitude is evident throughout this section.
Even when areas of disagreement are identified with classic open theism, it is done so with respect and clearly identified as a matter of opinion rather than the rambunctious response from the traditional Reformed theologians.
LESS DISTANCE
The other topics find even less distance from the positions taken by the SC authors and the evangelical respondents. The section on the gospel of John explored the Christology of the “Word” of God, the use of this Gospel by early leaders of the SC, and a survey of the unity theme throughout the gospel.
Gary M. Burge, New Testament pro-fessor at Wheaton College, responds quite favorably to these essays, confessing unfamiliarity with the SC movement before being asked to write this response. However, he shows significant understanding, saying that Campbell had “a remarkable vision, one that might unite true believers into a community of the faithful that looked strictly to the Bible (and not old world ecclesiastical models).” He even extends the themes of the three essays by adding supporting materials from John”s epistles.
The response by noted evangelical scholar I. Howard Marshall is even more positively enthusiastic in response to the three essays on the Lord”s Supper. He says bluntly that “every major element in Stone-Campbell understanding is shared and indeed should be shared by evangelical Christians in other denominations.” He not only affirms the importance of the weekly observance of the Supper, he also claims “it is, therefore, precarious to insist that the president must be “˜ordained,” whatever that means.”
There is no doctrine or practice by the congregations of the SC movement that so distinguishes them from other evangelicals than the weekly observance of the Lord”s Supper presided over by “non-clergy” leaders of the congregation. It is remarkable that someone from outside this movement affirms so strongly this practice.
The final topic on the role of the Old Testament finds the three authors distancing themselves somewhat from the early leaders of the SC movement. Each has a PhD in Old Testament from a leading university. While each essentially agrees with the distinction between the old and new covenants as proposed by the early leaders of the movement, each also regrets the neglect of the Old Testament that has resulted from such a sharp disjunction.
The respondent to these essays compares this reassessment to a similar reassessment in the broader scholarly Christian world .
Like the first volume, this one confirms there are areas of great similarity between scholars in the SC movement and the evangelical community. The contributors from the SC movement know well their theological heritage and show little disagreement between the two groups. As they have interacted with leading international biblical and theological scholars, they have brought a healthy critique of that tradition without abandoning much of its core principles.
RELATING TO CONGREGATIONS
One question that is left unanswered for me is exactly how the relationship between the SC movement and the evangelical world is defined at the congregational level. While these scholars interact at a scholarly level, they do so with full awareness of their heritage, even when they may modify certain of its characteristics. It is not so clear to me that at the congregational level we always respond with such distinction. Many popular beliefs and practices characteristic of the evangelical movement become common in our congregations.
I applaud Baker”s determinism to keep in dialogue with evangelicals, recognizing also that much of our tradition we do not share with them. Thus, there are other parts of the greater Christian world with which dialogue could be profitable.
Richard Foster, in his Streams of Living Water, identifies six “streams” each of which is grounded in the life of Jesus and the early church (the contemplative, holiness, charismatic, social justice, evangelical, and incarnational). Each is necessary to make the church complete. Any one of the streams can overflow its banks and obliterate the other streams.
We need others like Baker who will engage these other streams in the way that he has done with the evangelical one.
Gary Weedman is president of Johnson Bible College, Knoxville, Tennessee.
0 Comments