Our robust centre is not in prophecy conferences of the earth 20th century nor the theology of the 80s and 90s. It is in Paul, Ireneaus, Athanasius, Augustine, Maximos, Anselm, Aquinas, Calvin, Luther, and Turretin (among others!). The Spirit was not at rest; Christ built his church by the Spirit just as he promised in the Gospel.We don’t have to rely on our immediate inheritance. We have a convoy of robust theology, exploding from the first century up until the present time. So I affirm a robust centre for evangelicalism. I don’t think it’s in our recent past, however. It’s much deeper than that. But it is there, and it is for us and for our salvation.
Recently, I saw someone claim that evangelicalism has no robust centre. I do not remember who said it, or even the exact wording. I remember the idea. And the words have haunted my thoughts ever since.
While in an evangelical seminary, one of my theology professors taught that God has passions. God was said to be passible. And primary theologians of my movement throughout the last decades have affirmed: God is complex, in time, changes, has passions, has eternally existed in a relationship of authority and submission, and so on. None of these beliefs mark Christian orthodoxy. Just the opposite. They are without a doubt unorthodox.
I discussed many of these matters in an earlier article called, Can We Still Trust Evangelical Theology? In the article, I cite a number of Christian philosophers and theologians who argue for unorthodox positions. And many of them are key theologians of my movement (at least in North America). Here, I had argued that we can still trust evangelical theology.
I think I need to revise my argument. I still think we can trust evangelical theology. But I think we can only do so if we do the hard work of creating a theological culture where orthodoxy wedded to charity can thrive.
As I begin, I want to define what I mean when I say evangelical. I specifically mean the socially defined body of people who claim evangelicalism, whose heritage primarily hales from the mid 20th century. Other definitions exist. I do not use them here.
What Makes One Orthodox?
Here is what all orthodox Christians must believe, should believe, and have believed: “God is simple, immutable, impassible, infinite, eternal, and distinguishable through three subsisting persons in one simple essence.” Of course, you can be a Christian without knowing about these words or even affirming these concepts.
But the problem with holding to unorthodox beliefs is that it hurts you and others. It dampens our spiritual vitality. And we often will mislead those whom we disciple. To be a Christian means to trust in Jesus. Full stop. But orthodox belief, because it is true, is what we grow into as Christians—it is the truth of our confession deepened, enjoyed, and inhabited.
This is why I love and deeply appreciate Wayne Grudem, Bruce Ware, John Feinberg and others. Yes, they have expressed unorthodox views. But despite all of that, they are in Christ. And they are growing like I am. Wayne Grudem has a new systematic theology coming out this year. I will read it, enjoy it, and learn from it. And I probably will deeply disagree with parts of it.
Yet we all trust in Jesus Christ alone for our salvation. That is enough to be a Christian. The subsequent unorthodox beliefs—denying simplicity, immutability, impassibility, while affirming eternal relations of authority and submission are shockingly unorthodox—never break Christ’s love for us.
What sham that would be. Are we saved by precise theological formulations? Or by Jesus? The rub, of course, is that we can affirm things so unorthodox to the point that we create a schism or even fall into heresy. There, a line has been crossed.
Which line is it? What is the precise line in which one moves from saint to sinner, from orthodox to heretic? The obvious historical answer is when someone denies the rule of faith: namely, that the Father created, the Son redeems, the Spirit perfects. It is when someone denies their baptismal confession—their being baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Spirit.
It is when someone denies the Nicene Creed because of what it represents: the rule of faith contained in Scripture and preached by the apostles.
In short, it’s when you deny the Gospel. And most often in Scripture this doctrine involves how we live since Scripture overwhelmingly defines false doctrine as a vicious life.
Orthodox Living?
When the New Testament speaks of false teaching, it points to how someone lives. False teachers are false because of their way of life.
That is simply because doctrine includes not just what we believe but what we do. What we say and what we do intertwine and cannot be separated: “Watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers” (1 Tim 4:16).
