The Galesburg Rule - A Contemporary Interpretation Part 1: The Neighbor of American Evangelicalism

Transcription

1 The Galesburg Rule - A Contemporary Interpretation Part 1: The Neighbor of American Evangelicalism By: Rev. Dr. Matthew Richard It has been said before that America is a melting pot of spirituality, any crosscountry trip will prove this as many types of churches dot the map, some with steeple rising high above the tree line others with no steeples but rather modern signage or sleek architecture. If we focus in on the Trinitarian tradition though, Roman Catholicism as well as the Eastern Orthodoxy stand at the one side of the spectrum, while at the other side of the spectrum one will find a plethora of Reformed/American Evangelical Churches. In the middle of this spectrum one will find the lonely way, Lutheranism. Indeed, Lutheranism in America finds itself being the lonely way as Rome/Orthodoxy neighbors it on the one side and Reformed/American Evangelicalism neighbors it on the other side. Whether a proper stigma or simply an imagined stigma, this range of theological span can be observed by people s stigmatic assessment that The Lutheran Church Missouri Synod s seminary in Fort Wayne leans ever so slightly toward Rome/Orthodoxy, whereas its seminary in St. Louis leans ever so slightly towards Reformed/American Evangelicalism. While it could be debated to what extent both of these theological traditions which seem to bookend the Trinitarian theological spectrum pull these seminaries or whether or not the stigmatic perception is fair to begin with, it remains true that Lutheranism is unique from both Rome/Orthodoxy and Reformed/American Evangelicalism, as it apparently stands between and/or above these theological traditions and practices. For the sake of this paper, I wish to address the uniqueness of Confessional Lutheranism in regard to its neighbor American Evangelicalism. 1 While it is most valuable to address the influence of Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy upon Lutheranism, I am not qualified to do so. However, in regard to American Evangelicalism, I would like to address the great divide and massive, yet subtle, differences that exist between Lutheranism and American Evangelicalism. By demonstrating the differences between these two theological entities and by establishing the theological tenets and practices of Evangelicalism, I hope to accomplish two things. First, I hope to demonstrate that there is indeed a great difference between Confessional Lutherans and American Evangelicals, thus demonstrating the 1 For the sake of simplicity, from this point forward in the paper I will be referring to the category of Reformed/American Evangelicalism simply as American Evangelicalism or simply Evangelicalism. 1

2 continual need for The Galesburg Rule. Otherwise stated, either a lack of understanding the distinctiveness of Lutheranism or a lack of understanding the drastic differences of other church denominations and movements will mellow out one s zeal to guard the Lutheran pulpit from foreign theology. In a word, if we are all pretty much saying the same thing, why guard the pulpit; if we are all worshipping the same Lord, why put up boundary lines that create cliques and cause division; if we are all pretty much the same, The Galesburg Rule is irrelevant, right? However, what if we are not the same and what if we are not saying the same thing? Secondly, I hope to raise awareness of the plethora of theologies that are present within American Evangelicalism. In other words, by highlighting the theological ethos of Evangelicalism, I hope to establish a foundation for parts two and three. Parts two and three will examine what happens when American Evangelical theology encroaches upon and moves into Lutheranism through pulpits, worship service practices, and/or the church s Bible studies. In other words, Parts two and three will examine the effects of opening the door to a plethora of foreign theology, epistemic assumptions, worldviews, and practices; all of which conflict with and undercut the tenets of Lutheranism. Thus, parts two and three are intended to demonstrate what happens when one dismisses The Galesburg Rule, that is, what happens when American Evangelical theology and practices not only encroach but move into the Lutheran Church. Richard 2 Defining American Evangelicalism While Confessional Lutheranism is fairly definable by its confessions in the Book of Concord and by its practices in the Lutheran Hymnal, American Evangelicalism is a bit more difficult to precisely define. Due to this ambiguity, it is most necessary to attempt to expound on American Evangelicalism s doctrine, roots, and ethos. Otherwise stated, what do the neighbors of American Evangelicalism look like, who are they related to, and where do they come from; who is in their family tree? Harold Senkbeil s Definition: In his book, Sanctification: Christ in Action, Harold Senkbeil identifies four different heritages/ancestors within the family tree of American Evangelicalism. They are: the New England Calvinists, the Arminian Revivalists, the European Pietists, and the Fundamentalistic/Modernist Controversy. 2 In commenting on all of these heritages converging into American Evangelicalism, Senkbeil offers an assessment of Evangelicalism saying, We have now completed our expedition in to the historical background of modern Evangelicalism. Though selective, our stops along the way have shown one consistent theme: all of the movements which have led to 2 Harold L. Senkbeil, Sanctification: Christ in Action (Milwaukee, WI: Northwestern Publishing House, 2005),

3 modern Evangelicalism have focused on the renewed Christian life. 3 While there is obviously much more to say about these four heritages/ancestors, this consistent, overarching theme of the renewed life will suffice for the time being. Sproul and Horton s Definition Two popular and respected Calvinist theologians in America, R.C. Sproul and Michael Horton, have defined American Evangelicalism not by the influences of a movement but by a man, a man named Charles Finney. Sproul states that Finney could be classified as the patron saint of 20th century Evangelicalism; a Hall of Famer for Evangelical Christianity in America. 4 Horton states that Finney is the tallest marker in the shift from Reformation orthodoxy, evident in the Great Awakening (under Edwards and Whitefield) to Arminian (indeed, even Pelagian) revivalism, evident from the 3 Ibid, 52. Senkbeil goes on to say that there are also soteriological differences between Lutheranism and Evangelicalism saying, Lutherans and Evangelicals may share a common respect for the authority of the Word of God and a common vocabulary in the proclamation of Christ s atoning work, but they each breathe a different atmosphere. Like Luther and Zwingli before them, they may shake hands but must unhappily conclude that they have a different spirit. The differences are not incidental to, but rather integral to the gospel: Is salvation God s action or the believer s? That has been the basic issue all along. It continues to be. 4 R.C. Sproul, The Pelagian Captivity of the Church %20Pelagian%20Captivity%20of%20the%20Church. pdf (19 June 2012). Second Great Awakening to the present. 5 Richard 3 Even though Finney lived during the nineteenth-century Second Great Awakening, his influence in the twentieth-century was still recognized. He was warmly accepted among Evangelicals and Evangelical institutions such as: Billy Graham, Jerry Falwell, Wheaton College, Promise Keepers, the Vineyard Movement, and so forth. 6 While Finney can be commended for his evangelistic fervor, there is a disturbing theological legacy that remains in his absence. For example, both Horton and Sproul referencing Finney s theological works show that Finney denied the doctrine of original sin, denied Christ s imputed righteousness, and purported what can only be classified as Pelagian theology. Furthermore, with this mancentered theological and practical disposition Finney, emphasized Christian perfectionism through moralism, and the baptism of the Holy Spirit. He introduced many new measures within the revival ethos of the nineteenth-century, inventions such as the anxious bench and altar calls. The obvious impact of Finney's theology was that the spiritual condition of mankind was elevated due to: sin being downplayed, the means of grace being replaced with new measures, and the work of the Holy Spirit in conversion 5 Michael Horton, The Disturbing Legacy of Charles Finney gacy%20of%20fenney.pdf (4 August 2013). 6 Ibid. 3

4 being exchanged for the workings of mankind s will, as well as an increased influence of Christian perfectionism. Holding to the family tree metaphor, with various historical heritages and ancestors, what characteristics are carried forth from Finneyism into the current personality of American Evangelicalism? According to both Horton and Sproul, Finney s Pelagianism is definitely something permeating in the personality of American Evangelicalism. While a fullfledged Pelagianism is certainly not fully embraced by all American Evangelicals, Sproul asserts that the semi-pelagian view of free will is especially prevalent. 7 Horton adds to the semi-pelagian freewill concerns by asserting that Finney s perfectionistic theology, as well as his pragmatism, have infiltrated certain aspects of American Evangelicalism. Otherwise stated, Finney puts forth a gospel that works, a pragmatic gospel that is malleable to contemporary perfectionistic movements and the Church Growth Movements. 8 Phillip Cary s Definition In attempting to define American Evangelicalism thus far, the personality, lineage, and family tree of American Evangelicalism consist of five ancestors/heritages. While these ancestral qualities certainly have some Church. Charles Finney. 7 Sproul, The Pelagian Captivity of the 8 Horton, The Disturbing Legacy of Richard 4 overlap, they each bring a different aspect to American Evangelicalism as a whole. While there is a danger of allowing the definition of American Evangelicalism to get too broad, I believe it is necessary to address several more movements that have been influential in shaping American Evangelicalism as it is known today. In my personal visits with Dr. Phillip Cary he has suggested that a major characteristic within what he calls New Evangelicalism, comes forth from the Keswick movement. According to Cary, in the course of the interaction between the nineteenth-century American Revivalism and the holiness tradition growing out of Methodist perfectionism, you get the crucial innovation of the doctrine of the baptism of the Holy Spirit or being filled with the Spirit, which fed into Pentecostalism, as well as Keswick and various offshoots of the Holiness movement like the Nazarenes. 9 In regard to Keswick theology though, this theology promoted higher life theology or what is commonly known as the second blessing. Keswick theology tried to answer the problem of sin with what is frequently called the second blessing but steered away from the perfectionism of the American Holiness teaching often found among the Methodists. 10 Even though it originated in Britain, it was brought to (18 June 2012). 9 Phillip Cary, Facebook message to author 10 George M. Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture: New Edition (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2006),

5 the United States and promoted by D.L. Moody. 11 Practically speaking, what this looked like was a two-tiered Christianity. The first stage could be classified as a carnal Christianity, and the second stage could be classified as spiritual Christianity. To move from the lower to the higher state takes a definite act of faith or consecration, the prerequisite to being filled with the Spirit. This consecration means an absolute surrender, almost always described by the Biblical term yielding. 12 Thus the main idea is a movement from the Christian s original conversion experience to receive a second experience within the realm of living the Christian life. Keswick theology is best explained in the following illustration. Our sinful nature is like an uninflated balloon with a cart (the weight of sin) attached. Christ fills the balloon and the resulting buoyancy overcomes the natural gravity of our sin. While Christ fills our lives we do not have a tendency to sin, yet we still are liable to sin. Were we to let Christ out of our lives, sin would immediately take over. 13 The resulting material principle of Keswick theology is the pressure to 11 Donald W. Dayton, Theological Roots of Pentecostalism (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 1987), Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture: New Edition, Ibid. Richard 5 yield, surrender, and/or empty oneself to God in order that one can be filled. This filling would then free the Christian from committing any known sin and certainly would eliminate any excuses for tolerating sin. With the addition of the Keswick Movement, the Evangelical family tree now has six very influential ancestors/heritages. It is my intention to identify one more family influence before a comprehensive assessment of our neighbors is conducted. Jonathan Fisk s Definition Rev. Fisk made the observation that present-day American Evangelicalism is effectively eighteenth-to nineteenthcentury Wesley-Methodism with a strong emphasis of the Baptist theology of baptism, along with premillennial dispensationalism. 14 Otherwise stated, the tenets of Methodism in regard to its soteriology, evangelistic methods, and emphasis on holiness provide a family portrait of American Evangelicalism. However, just like in any family portrait, things aren t always what they appear and if we look more closely we will see that in order to accurately reflect American Evangelicalism, Methodism s view of baptism and Methodism s view of the end times have been replaced with a Baptist view of baptism and premillennial dispensationalism Jonathan Fisk WEtv Live Becoming Lutheran, part Deux With Matt Richard, Youtube video, 5:29, posted by Jonathan Fisk, 15 May 2013, 5

6 Applying Fisk s observation, two more characteristics are gleaned that help in describing our neighbors, American Evangelicals. The two characteristics are American Evangelicalism s disregard for and struggle with the Lutheran view of the sacraments, as well as the embracement of premillennial dispensationalism. I suppose it could be argued that a disregard for and a struggle with the Lutheran sacraments should not be listed as a separate ancestor/heritage due to this disregard and struggle already being present in certain strains of Calvinism 16 and Pietism. 17 In other words, it could be argued that Senkbeil s identification of Calvinism and Pietism as ancestors/heritages already assumes aloofness for the Lutheran view of the sacraments within American Evangelicalism. Like a prominent nose or dimpled chin this characteristic has been passed down and is easily observable among these neighbors due to the heritage of Calvinism and Pietism that we have already discussed. Fisk s assessment of American Evangelicalism s disregard and struggle 15 Jonathan Fisk WEtv Live: Becoming Lutheran, with special guest Pastor Matt Richard, Youtube video, 14:06, posted by Jonathan Fisk, 6 February 2013, 16 Phillip Cary, Outward Signs: The Powerlessness of External Things in Augustine s Thought (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2008), passim. 17 Valentin Ernst Loescher, The Complete Timotheus Verinus, trans. James L. Langebartels and Robert J. Koester (Milwaukee, WI: Northwestern Publishing House, 2006), Richard 6 of the Lutheran sacraments is certainly worth highlighting. Thus, the disregard and struggle with the sacraments shall not be considered a separate family tree vein, but simply an important aspect of the family that needs recognition. In regard to dispensationalism, this ideology can be listed as another opinionated relative in the family tree due to it being a rather substantial movement in the United States, dating all the way back to John Nelson Darby in the nineteenth century. It is currently very prevalent in Pentecostal theology and has a prominent place within American Evangelicalism s material principle, as seen by the plethora of books in Evangelical bookstores such as the Left Behind Series and others. Carl S. Trueman s Definition I have provided seven theological profiles that converge into American Evangelicalism from five different theologians and pastors. They are: New England Calvinists, Arminian Revivalism, European Pietism, Fundamentalism, Finneyism, Keswick Holiness, and Dispensationalism with a special note to sacramental indifference. Obviously the merging of these seven heritages/ancestors creates a large diverse family, comparable to a town where everyone is somehow related to everyone else. Therefore, Carl Trueman s thoughts in his book The Real Scandal of the Evangelical Mind are most understandable. He states: 6

7 When asked if I am an evangelical, I generally respond with a question: What exactly do you mean by that term? In a world in which everyone from Joel Osteen to Brian McLaren to John MacArthur may be called an evangelical, I want to know into what pigeonhole my answer will place me. The implications of evangelicalism s lack of definition are manifold.... Without a clear definition, how can evangelicalism be studied in connection with phenomena that are, comparatively speaking, much easier to identify and analyze? Furthermore, if evangelicalism has no substantive existence in the present but is merely an oft-used term, then how can it have a future worth speaking of? More importantly, evangelicalism s lack of definition makes the drawing of boundary lines very difficult, if not impossible. Given that orthodox doctrine has provided a set of basic boundary lines for Christianity since biblical times, the lack of a clear theological identity for evangelicalism means that, whatever boundaries are drawn, they are probably not typical of historic Christianity. 18 Even though Trueman speaks of Evangelicalism s apparent indefinableness, is it completely undefinable? Richard 7 definition of Evangelicalism needs to be set forth with flexibility. It needs to be set forth with flexibility because the term is either perceived as a loose term by some or as a more narrow term by others. For example, a recent Gallup Poll indicated that 47% of Americans loosely identify themselves as Evangelical, while not everyone of that 47% would properly constitute as such (i.e., Roman Catholics and Atheists). 19 Thus, American Evangelicalism can be thought of, in the case of this Gallup Poll, as the current national-cultural form of American Christianity. On the other hand, American Evangelicalism can be used more narrowly to define any one of the particular streams that have been laid forth in the previous paragraphs. Looking back to Trueman, he does give characteristics of the family makeup asserting that Evangelicals focus on the primacy of experience, are minimal on doctrine, have a high emphasis on conversion, and embrace activism, that is, the living out of the Gospel. 20 As with Fisk s observation about the sacraments, Trueman does not provide another introduction of an ancestor/heritage but mainly a snapshot of Evangelicalism s current ethos. I do not believe that American Evangelicalism is totally undefinable; however, I do believe that one s 18 Carl R. Trueman, The Real Scandal of the Evangelical Mind (Chicago, IL: Moody Publishers, 2011), Kindle Edition Location Frank Newport and Joseph Carroll, Another Look at Evangelicals in America Today, 2 December 2005, Evangelicals-America-Today.aspx (6 August 2013). 20 Trueman, The Real Scandal of the Evangelical Mind, Kindle Edition Location

8 Definition Summary From this brief family tree, it is noticeable that the seven identified ancestors/heritages certainly flow into and out of each other as they interact through historical situations and persons. They weave through the terrain of history as they move towards converging together into the main family of what is called American Evangelicalism. Therefore, from the seven ancestors/heritages, as well as the feedback from six different theologians and pastors, I humbly set forth a theological definition of the current national-cultural form of American Evangelicalism as: 1. Having a diminished view of original sin and its consequences. 2. Having a semi-pelagian view of free will. 3. Focusing on the renewed Christian life by encouraging individuals to surrender to God. 4. Emphasizing personal experience over doctrine. 5. Practically functioning with a gospel that works (i.e., pragmatism) in regard to evangelism and activism. 6. Being Premillennial Dispensational. 7. Disregarding the central role of the sacraments and struggling to see them as efficacious. Let it be said that my definition of American Evangelicalism above is to be taken with flexibility, knowing that it may Richard 8 be too broad in some cases and too narrow in other cases. It is obviously not a one-size-fits-all definition. Conclusion As can be seen from the presented material above, there is indeed a great difference between Confessional Lutheranism and its neighbor, American Evangelicalism. Furthermore, American Evangelicalism has a plethora of presuppositions and theological flavors embedded in its theology and practices that often go unnoticed. Therefore, any intentional or mistaken attempts to amalgamate American Evangelicalism and Confessional Lutheranism together is of utmost concern, for by doing so, the Gospel, the Lutheran Confessions, and the Liturgy, as well as the current and future health of the saints may be jeopardized, confused, or damaged. Indeed, it seems that The Galesburg Rule is needed more than ever before due to not only the surfeit of Evangelical Theological assumptions, but also the vast array of theological oddities within America today all of which daily encroach upon the Lutheran Church s theology and practices. Discussion Questions 1) Were you aware of the great theological division between Confessional Lutheranism and its neighbor, American Evangelicalism? Did you realize that the neighbors are quite different? 2) Do you agree or disagree with the following? The degree that one 8

9 Richard 9 sees the differences between American Evangelicalism and Confessional Lutheranism, directly correlates to the degree that one adheres to The Galesburg Rule and supports its implications in relationship to Evangelical tenets and practices? 3) What specific tenets of American Evangelicalism and practices do you see encroaching upon Confessional Lutheran Churches? (i.e., see tenets on page 8) Is this happening subtly, blatantly, and/or accidentally? Questions Leading into Part 2 4) What happens to a Lutheran Church when the tenets of Evangelicalism are overtly or subtly taught from the pulpit or through Bible studies? What Lutheran Doctrines are undercut? 5) Does the amount of false theology really matter? How much false theology should one be concerned with? How should one respond to this pastorally with grace and integrity? 9