A Response to Scot McKnight’s “Letter to Holly”

I have great admiration for Scot McKnight. He is an important New Testament scholar, whose work has aided me enormously in my theological studies. I visit his blog daily and enjoy his commentary, reflections, and most of all, his charitable Christian spirit. In the conversations we have had via phone and internet, he has always been most helpful. I count him as a friend and more importantly, a brother in the Lord.

I approach this post with a little trepidation, for I do not feel I have the scholarly prowess to take on someone of Scot’s stature. However, Scot’s recent letter (to Holly) bothered me for several reasons. In it, Scot seeks to lay out the current state of evangelicalism.

I believe Scot is right to say that “evangelicalism is ‘all over the place.’” Our diversity has only grown in the past fifty years.  I also agree that “we are at a fork in the road,” and that “within the next decade or so, we may be forced to choose.”

I agree with much of what Scot writes in this post. But to be frank, it’s this paragraph that is actually “all over the place.” He writes:

Many in the evangelical church today want to “clean house” by pushing out those who don’t believe exactly as they think — and not all of the concerns are with the essentials. And the house cleaning seems to be concerned with issues that tie culture and church together — they are concerned about which political party one votes for, where one stands on abortion and stem cell research and homosexuality, and they routinely declare which candidate is the most sacred. And they are concerned about women in ministry and megachurches and how much doctrinal diversity we can handle — and they think that nearly every variation leads to a slippery slope that will end up in apostasy or (worse yet) being a liberal. A clear sign of this is that I’m hearing more and more about denominations that are tightening up their doctrinal statements. This kind of rhetoric reminds me of the old days of Fundamentalism. These folks don’t want evangelicalism to be “all over the place.” They want it to be like an energetic child in one place: to sit in one place and just be quiet.

Okay. Here’s my attempt to unpack this paragraph. First, Scot mentions those who are using evangelicalism for political purposes, declaring candidates to be God’s choice. There is a significant wing of evangelicalism that is very political and very partisan. But it’s a mistake to lump the Jerry Falwells and Pat Robertsons of evangelicalism in with the next group, which is…

… a group concerned that evangelicalism’s growing diversity could be detrimental. His mention of women in ministry and the “slippery slope” to apostasy is a mild slap at Wayne Grudem’s new book that seeks to show how evangelical arguments for egalitarianism are often the same arguments that later lead to liberalism. (See my book review here.) My question for Scot is this: Is concern over doctrinal diversity necessarily a bad thing? And could it be that too much diversity in some of the more important non-essentials lead to an unacceptable diversity in the fundamentals of our faith?

His next sentence takes on denominations that are tightening their doctrinal statements. I’m sure one of the groups he is referencing here is the Southern Baptist Convention, of which I am a part. 

If I am reading Scot right (and if I’m not, Scot, feel free to correct me!), it seems that he sees the big boat of evangelicalism floating gently downstream, away from its rocky fundamentalist past. Recently, some evangelicals have decided to return upstream to the old days of fundamentalism and their lurch to the right threatens to upset the boat and possibly split it apart.

From my vantage point, the current situation is much different, and much worse. I see our boat as moored to a dock that represents a foundation built on Scripture. The boat may drift a little and bob up and down and all around every now and then, but the ropes hold it to the dock. The fundamentalists in the boat are alarmed that some of their moderate friends are beginning to loosen the ropes and slowly move downstream. And that’s why “slippery slopes” and certain “non-essentials” matter very much to conservatives, not because the fundamentals have been threatened yet, but because the ropes are already getting very slack. The boundaries are disappearing. We fear the boat will go downstream and crash into the same reef of liberalism as the mainline boats of decades ago.

I am concerned that Scot sees the “tightening” of doctrinal statements as a regressive step back. Does he think that “loosening” doctrinal statements is the only way forward? Sure, groups like the Southern Baptist Convention are tightening up their doctrinal statements in the non-essentials. Of course, one would hope that a denomination would never have to change our confession in regards to the essentials of the Christian faith. If, as Scot admits, non-essentials aren’t important enough to divide over, why does the tightening up of ”non-essentials” in doctrinal statements bother him?

The danger in evangelicalism is not a drift to the right, but a drift to the left. I agree with Scot that the cultural isoloation and strident fundamentalist fighting of forty years ago is not the way to go. But neither do I want to see a return to last century’s hollow liberalism. Perhaps the reason some evangelicals are tightening the belt and defining the boundaries is because others are slowly letting them go.

written by Trevin Wax. © 2007 Kingdom People Blog