Response to Donald A. Carson

Joseph M. Stowell III

   Dr. Carson's fine paper offers much to be in harmony with and articulates well the essence of the key issues involved in the scope of the assignment. However, a few key questions arise. What will become of a movement whose name is becoming more symbolic than substantive? Can any articulation of the nature of the church ever be divorced from the marks of the church? Does not a biblical view of the church go beyond functional definition and embrace the priority of a personal commitment to Christ and an obedience to Scripture that produces the character of Christ (Ephesians 4:11-14)?

   In addition, should there not be a clear and primary emphasis on the place of mutually affirmed and accepted core doctrines as the key issue in the identity of evangelicalism, the nature and responsibility of the church and the standard in ecumenism? Because of what I see as the centrally strategic place of truth, this response will be an extrapolation of Dr. Carson's allusion to the importance of a core belief structure to the three areas addressed — particularly the complex area of ecumenism which alone could have, and perhaps should have, consumed the bulk of our statements.

   I beg the liberty, then, to respond in extension of, more than in tension with, Carson's work. I wish to respond by building upon

Page 388

his paper with a specific focus on the strategic nature of a core belief structure.

   The thesis of this response is that an unflinching commitment to a core belief structure is the fundamental key to the survival and success of the mission of Christ in us and through us. This could go unstated except for three assumptions that loom large, at least in my perception. Assumption number one is that increasingly the "evangelical movement" is becoming less and less a community marked by clear doctrinal agreement, leaving it as a signature community carrying on in terms of its name rather than its content. Secondly, this response assumes that the church has shied away from its responsibility of the jealous guardianship of its belief base by emphasizing the assertive aspects in its agenda of world evangelization. And, thirdly, that the standards of ecumenism tend to be viewed in terms of accomplishing the mission rather than regard for long-term continuation of doctrinal purity.

   In each of these three areas, a core belief structure struggles to hold its rightful place at the strategic center. Both revelation and church history demonstrate the foundational nature of core doctrine. When the church has been buffeted by scandals, immorality and selfish ambition, it has lived to tell the story. However, when the church has abandoned basic biblical positions, it has been set adrift in currents of pluralistic paganism, rarely to find its moorings again. Isn't this the thrust of the warning of Paul as he speaks about the place of "faith and knowledge" in the charter of the church (Ephesians 4:11-16)?

   In all that Dr. Carson has postulated, must there not be a clearer affirmation of the centrality of our unrepentant rootedness

Page 389

in mutually accepted doctrinal beliefs? I would like to suggest that this clear thread be woven into the tapestry of his statement, lest its primal significance somehow be missed. To do so, this response will deal with the significance of a basic belief structure at the core of evangelicalism, the church and its ecumenical practices.

   1. Evangelicalism, in order to succeed and survive, must establish a core belief structure which both defines and directs evangelicals in the pursuit of their cause.

   In addition to Carson's notations, Hunter's book, Evangelicalism: The Coming Generation,¹ documents a broadening belief structure in both lifestyle and doctrine. Christianity Today recently included, as an "evangelical scientist", a scholar who has reservations about the historical credibility of the first eleven chapters of Genesis.² Congress '88 here in Chicago included leading evangelicals, as well as the Cardinal of the Archdiocese of Chicago. This year's Lausanne II to be held in Manila welcomes selected Roman Catholics as full participants. Whether or not one wishes to attach a value judgment to these developments, it is clear that increasingly the movement is marked more by its name than by its theological core. While I do not wish to over-simplify, over-generalize, or overlook the changes taking place within traditions that were once distinctly separate, I do notice that there is more diversity and a broader constituency under the evangelical umbrella than ever before.

   It seems now that acceptability lies not so much in doctrinal homogeneity, but in whether or not we call a person or group "evangelical" and that the liberty to do that revolves around issues apart from a belief structure. "Evangelical" apparently means

Page 390

agreeing with our mission even though not in full agreement with our message. "Evangelical," as Carson points out, calls attention to the new Lutheran denomination (ELCA), which holds little in common with historical evangelicalism. Should the evangelical turf be open to those who may be willing to share our call to world evangelization, even though they may not agree about what constitutes evangelization?

   An aggressive mission can hardly be sufficient if it stands alone. Mission without a clear and undiminished commitment to fundamental doctrine is left without power. Of what good is the "great commission" if we do not adhere to the authority of the inerrant Word that holds us accountable? And of what hope is a message without a literal bodily resurrection, and what becomes of impelling grace proclamations if there is with them an admixture of works, sacramental and otherwise? Any movement from core belief structures significantly weakens the fervor and impetus of our mission and, I fear, may plant the seed of the ultimate dismantling of the mission.

   Is it not imperative that we anchor our identity in what we affirm to be true? Establishing ourselves as a community marked by a stated belief structure will be a difficult challenge to meet. First, we lack an authoritative "belief statement" that we can look to as a magnet around which we all can cluster. Secondly, the increasing complexity and proliferation of hermeneutical styles have seemingly clouded a clear and simple understanding of basic biblical assumptions of the past. Thirdly, fraternalism (whereby I may "sense" a kinship with someone who does not embrace historic evangelical beliefs and yet assume that this feeling of kinship is tantamount to a spiritual oneness) leads us to broader

Page 391

inclusion of some who may not truly qualify. Also, unwillingness to acknowledge that while all evangelicals are Christians, not all Christians are evangelicals, complicates the task. And, fear of being perceived as simplistic, sectarian, or worse yet, separatists, might cause some to have second thoughts.

   Yet, without establishing our identity in a common belief system, there is little left except the hollow symbol of a name. Is it not then imperative that at some point soon, a clear basic confession be established that will reaffirm the priority of doctrinal assent as step one for the privilege of wearing the name? Such a statement should be basic — not unlike the articulated fundamentals of 1910. It should reflect the Augustinian advice, "In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty and in all things charity." This core affirmation should be held with unflinching allegiance in a spirit of love and concern for those who differ.

   2. With this accomplished, there is then the responsibility to accept as a church our God-given task to be the guardian over and watchman for our biblical position. Let me say quickly that the truth does not need the church to guard its intrinsic veracity. Truth is truth. As H.G. Wells is purported to have said, "You can't shoot the truth." Or, in the words of Winston Churchill, "Truth is incontrovertible. Panic may resent it, ignorance may deride it, malice may distort it, but there it is.

   Yet, when it comes to the truth, God has given his church the responsibility, not merely of affirming its veracity, but also of safeguarding its place both in the church and in the world. Should we not, with Dr. Carson's permission, add to his section on ecclesiology an eighth point which I would entitle "guardian of the truth"?

Page 392

   Historically, the church has accepted its biblical mandate to defend the apostolic truth structures of Scripture (Acts 20:27-31). Yet now, even from within there are voices present that cast shadows of relativism and pluralism across doctrinal affirmations. There are innuendos that a strong affirmation of truth shackles a broader understanding of the world and truth itself. This threatens to render the church as an army of question marks with no exclamation points as marching orders. The spirit of pluralism makes "Thus saith the Lord" an outdated and unwelcome statement in our pulpits and threatens to leave our doctrinal core as optional rather than obligatory.

   Carson's emphasis on discipline as a characteristic of the true church is certainly appropriate. The church was intended to disassociate itself from anyone not holding to key apostolic affirmations which protect the purity of its teachings. In particular, any dilution of the gospel due to legal or sacramental necessities (Galatians 1, Philippians 3) or any distortion of the truth about Christ himself was to be eliminated (III John). It is not insignificant to note that the major departures today have been in these two arenas. The gospel has been reconfigured in liberal, liberation, social and legal terms in mainline churches and traditional Adventism and Roman Catholicism as is noted in Carson's work. Aberrations of the doctrine of Christ mark not only the cults of today, but also Protestant liberal theology. The biblical means for protecting the purity of these elements of truth has been exclusion of and separation from any influence from these sources.

   The truth must not be diluted or polluted from within or without, and it cannot be risked for any reason, not even for the advance of missions or for cultural acceptance. This is a principle

Page 393

which is plainly biblical but fraught with some applicational difficulties.

   Can we in the application of our stewardship of core truth resist the temptation to compromise in order to be accepted in the view of the larger religious or secular world? Can we bear being misunderstood as we stand for the purity of our core commitments? Can we resist becoming unbalanced and/or falling back into what the previous paper calls a siege mentality that carries one off into a protectionist mode that reduces the world conquest agenda to a weakened position? Can we be biblical separatists without succumbing to the tendency to separate beyond biblical imperatives?

   In spite of these challenges, we must not shrink from our ecclesiological responsibility to be gracious and courageous guardians for the purity of the faith once and for all delivered to the saints. And, as such, then we are to be known not by just a name but by this core biblical belief structure which we seek safely to guard and uphold.

   3. Establishing our identity in core biblical truth, and safeguarding it, lead us then to face the opportunities and challenges of ecumenism in light of both our doctrinal identity and stewardship. As a church we must function ecumenically in ways that uphold and do not endanger core belief structures in terms of both proclamation or perception.

   For my part, I will accept Dr. Carson's proposition that old line ecumenism has taken a lethal injection from pluralism and address this response to concerns about the new wave of ecumenism within evangelicalism where the standard for mutual endeavor seems rather unclear.

Page 394

   For some, the standard is set in terms of those who "call him Lord" or who "name the name of Christ" as though basic belief were subordinate to verbal assent. Christ's warning must be sounded here:

"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!' (Matthew 7:21-23)

   Equally troubling is the sometime inclusion of those who hold distinctively divergent views of the meaning and/or means of salvation, the deity of Christ and the historical credibility and authority of Scripture. At times, the standard for cooperative endeavors seems to be enthusiasm for our mission. Yet we must also be concerned that those we include may not introduce divergent definitions or motives which are foreign to the mission.

   In terms of the centrality of biblical truth and its purity, having standards other than core truth is risky business at best and disobedience at worst. On balance, it is a troubling trend.

   For us to say that we will limit partnership to those who hold without qualification our biblical core is a challenge we must face. Unlike mainline liberals and deviant cults, many who are not "doctrinal" evangelicals seem to hold to a large majority of our assumptions. It might seem that we have more in common with them than that which is not common. Yet, isn't the issue qualitative, not quantitative? The challenge is complicated in that many who do not embrace our belief will embrace our mission and even enhance our mission as we seek to reach into their constituencies for Christ. Yet, should not, as I have sought to demonstrate, the mission be preambled by our doctrinal commitments? To subordinate commitment to doctrinal purity to the priority of mission is to undermine the very heart and impetus of mission.

   Given the strategic role of mutually affirmed doctrine in our movement and our God-given responsibilities as a church to

Page 395

protect it, both are put at risk in any partnership that threatens practically or perceptually to infringe on that stewardship.

   At least two issues rise to the surface here, one of principle and one that is perceptual. If the biblical principle is to disengage from those who hold variant views of the gospel and Christ, then must we not obey? One may object that not all who travel in false systems are adherents to the system. What then of the perceptual dynamic of public association with a "reluctant" representative of that system? Is there not an implied endorsement of that false system even though it may not be verbalized? Do we say by associating with reluctant adherents of false systems that, though there are differences between our system and theirs, they really are insignificant in the light of our mutual mission? Is that what we want to say?

   Perhaps we as leaders, activists, or theologically sophisticated can cope with the dichotomy. But can those who fill the pews discern the difference? Do we not foster an undiscerning tendency to pluralism and the associated discounting of the importance of core doctrine among the masses that make up the movement? After all, the forward thrust of the church is not in academe or even in theologians' notebooks, but in the mass of common rather unsophisticated foot soldiers. Do we really want to risk disarming them in terms of their perception of the priority and purity of belief?

   If core biblical belief gives rise to our identity and if it is the commodity the church is held responsible to uphold and protect, then it should govern our partnerships in the advance of our mission.

Page 396

   In all of this, there is the danger of becoming captive to the sterility of the cold orthodoxy of a creedal community. Truth is foundational. It is centrally strategic. Yet the mission that forms our aggressive agenda must consume us, not apart from, but in the context of, our doctrinal footings. We must stand unashamedly, bearing the reproach of the cross, the scorn of even the religionists of our day if necessary. Then, having graciously affirmed our ground, we must go forth with all those who agree in kind to do the work of Christ undaunted and undistracted from the task.  

Questions for Discussion || Chapter 10 || Table of Contents

1.  Hunter, James Davison, Evangelicalism: The Coming Generation (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1987).

2. Durbin, Jr., Bill, "How It All Began," Christianity Today (August 12, 1988).