The Eclipse of God at Century’s End: Evangelicals Attempt Theology Without Theism R. Albert Mohler, Jr.

R. Albert Mohler, Jr. is President of The sense of an ending is not a fact of na- are not safe territory for the supernatural The Southern Baptist Theological Semi- ture, observed Frank Kermode, it is a fea- claims of Scripture, or for the doctrinal nary. He is the author of numerous schol- ture of human consciousness.1 We ascribe foundations of classical orthodoxy. arly articles and recently edited meaning to the turn of a new century, and What about the evangelicals? The sec- Theological Education in the Evangelical feel a sense of ending as the twentieth cen- ond half of the twentieth century began Tradition (Baker, 1997) with D. G. Hart. tury comes to a close. If a sense of ending with great promise. The newly resurgent This article was given as part of a series is not a fact of nature, it is certainly a fact evangelical movement quickly produced of lectures at First Baptist Church, of our experience. a credible body of theological literature in Wheaton, Illinois in April 1997. It will ap- As the last century closed, Friedrich the defense of Christianity’s historic doc- pear in the forthcoming The Future of Neitzsche proclaimed that God was dead, trines. Alarmed by the massive theologi- Evangelical Theology (Crossway). and that we had killed him. The twenti- cal accommodation of the age, the eth century has not been an era of great evangelicals contended for biblical truth theological achievements. The romantic and claimed an intentional continuity liberalism of the early decades gave way with the classical Christian tradition of or- to the unstable half-way house of neo-or- thodox doctrine. thodoxy, which in turn surrendered to a The closing years of the century have host of radical and revisionist theologies, demonstrated a very different pattern, united only in their denial of classical however. The ideological acids of moder- orthodoxy. nity, the theological accommodationism of The century also saw the development the age, and the temptations of the larger of a resurgent evangelicalism in English- academic culture have infected speaking Protestantism. Matured and evangelicalism to the point that the theo- chastened by the theological controversies logical integrity of the movement is clearly of the century’s first fifty years, the at stake. Having debated issues ranging evangelicals coalesced into a formidable from biblical inerrancy to the reality of intellectual, evangelistic, and cultural hell, evangelicals are now openly debat- movement. If the radical and revisionist ing the traditional doctrine of God repre- theologians were united in their rejection sented by classical theism. of classical orthodoxy, the evangelicals My argument is that the integrity of were defined and recognized by their fer- evangelicalism as a theological move- vent commitment to the classical, evan- ment, indeed the very coherence of evan- gelical, orthodox, and biblical convictions gelical theology is threatened by the rise of historic Christianity. of the various new “theisms” of the evan- As the century draws to a close, the gelical revisionists. Unless these trends are radical theologians have been even fur- reversed and evangelicals return to an ther radicalized, and the revisionists con- unapologetic embrace of biblical theism, tinue their program of eviscerating the evangelical theology will represent noth- historic claims of Christianity. The declin- ing less than the eclipse of God at ing precincts of “mainline” Protestantism century’s end. 6 The Doctrine of God in Crisis clear that there is no objective view of The very concept of God is among the ‘God:’ each generation has to create the most contested issues in contemporary image of God that works for it.”5 If this be thought and culture. To some, the notion true, we should shudder to think of what of God in this postmodern culture is a to- doctrine of God would “work” for this talizing and oppressive concept. To oth- generation. ers, the concept of God is merely a matter We see the eclipse of the God of the Bible of emotivism and sentiment. Clearly, to at century’s end. In the wake of the Enlight- suggest that the doctrine of God is in cri- enment, the prophets of extremity and the sis is not to suggest a fading interest in high priests of suspicion (Freud, Neitzsche, spirituality. To the contrary, few cultures and Marx), and those who followed them could exceed the sheer variety of variant have led the onward march of secularism spiritualities found in modern America. and protest atheism. Modern culture com- God, in fact, seems to have become a monly denies God as God, as well as the commercially popular topic of interest. In very notion of God as an objective referent. just the past few years, God has received Furthermore, discussion of God, at least the a full-length biography which reached the God of the Bible, has been evacuated from best seller’s lists. The volume, God: A Bi- the public square. This official atheism, ography, treated God as a narrative char- often masked by banal spirituality, is the acter who, though not the God of the result of a century of increased secularism 2 Bible, was a significant literary figure. In and secularization. addition, God is the subject of a recent 400- Inside the church, atheism has been page history. played out in a myriad of forms. Modern- Karen Armstrong, whose various writ- ism reduced God to a kindly, if incompe- ings on spiritual issues have catapulted tent cosmic grandfather. Stripped of her to fame, recently released A History of supernaturalism, God has been rendered 3 God. Nevertheless, Armstrong is not con- a mere concept in most liberal theology. cerned with the creator God who is sov- A myriad of secularizing theologies, rang- ereign and transcendent, but only with ing from Modern to Postmodern, has God as a cultural artifact, a literary char- made the doctrine of God a matter of ideo- acter, or a religious symbol. Armstrong logical controversy. Analytical philosophy claims as her warrant the decline of the reduced God to a symbol, and other philo- classical and biblical doctrine of God as a sophical trends have reduced deity to a culturally binding symbol. As she states, linguistic referent. Process Theology re- “When one conception of God has ceased duced God to a force within a pantheistic to have meaning or relevance, it has been cosmos, struggling with creation. Libera- quietly discarded and replaced by a new tion theology presented God as the Great 4 theology.” Thus, according to Armstrong, Emancipator, yet clearly with much work a doctrine of God reveals very little about to do. Revisionist theologies of various God, and very much about those who for- forms present God as a concept to be mulate the doctrine. molded and transformed at will. Feminist Indeed, Armstrong seems to have little theology has treated God as a patriarchal confidence that we can know much about oppressor, or transformed the concept of God himself. She explains that “it becomes God to include the feminine. In the wake 7 of modern feminism, the title “Lord” has tional and very much one of us, and we been rejected as oppressive and mascu- ask Him to help us when we’re in trouble line, and the Trinity has been reconstituted and look to Him to watch over us when on egalitarian terms. we’re asleep. The God of the modern The God of classical theism is out. What evangelical isn’t a God I could have much Vanderbilt Divinity School theologian Ed- respect for.”7 ward Farley calls, “the classical, catholic the- Though certainly true decades ago, ology of God” must be surrendered, he Tozer’s statement is even more clearly argues. As John A. T. Robinson said during warranted today. In popular evangelical the 1960s, “Our image of God must go.” piety we find a confusion of anthropomor- Various forms of protest atheism have phisms and feel-good conceptions of God. become commonplace. Karen Armstrong In many circles, God is merely a therapeu- rejects the classical doctrine of God as ab- tic category. Many evangelicals are now horrent: “An omnipresent, all-knowing mostly concerned about what good this tyrant is not so different from earthly dic- God will do for us, how well this God may tators who made everything and every- make us feel, and how much self-esteem body mere cogs in the machine which they this God may give us as His gift. control. An atheism that rejects such a God is amply justified.”6 Yet, protest atheism God in the Hands of Evangelical Theologians is not a force exclusively external to the The bankruptcy of modern evangelical church. To the contrary, the temptation of piety is both a symptom and a reflection protest atheism has been the driving force of the breakdown of the classical doctrine in much mainline Protestant theology. As of God among many evangelical theolo- we look to the end of this century, the God gians. This doctrinal shift reveals deep fis- of the Bible has been abandoned by many sures in the evangelical movement. of the Church’s theologians. The new developments among those What about evangelicalism? Surely we who call themselves evangelicals are strik- would be assured that within ingly similar to the pattern of the early evangelicalism the God of the Bible is wor- modernists and liberals. As the century shiped, recognized, and confessed. But a now draws to a close, some evangelicals look at popular evangelicalism reveals a have adopted the language and the cat- God of sentimentality not unlike the God egories of the liberalism which began the of the early modernists. The “user friendly” century. The evangelical movement was God of market-driven evangelicalism bears driven by an explicit commitment to stand little resemblance to the God of the Bible. for biblical truth, even as that truth was This God is often presented as nothing more under assault by the modern, secular, and than a domesticated deity; or, as R. C. Sproul anti-supernaturalistic world view. That is has lamented, “a cosmic bell-hop.” to say, evangelicalism grew out of an ex- Years ago, A. W. Tozer warned, “The plicit rejection of liberalism and modern- God of the modern evangelical rarely as- ism. To some extent, evangelicals knew tonishes anybody. He manages to stay who they were not only by the positive pretty much within the constitution. substance of what they confessed, but also Never breaks our by-laws. He’s a very by the negative measure of what others well-behaved God and very denomina- 8 denied. Yet, over the last thirty years, and mercy. His power is evident as om- evangelicalism has become itself marked nipotence, omniscience, and omnipres- by an increasing theological pluralism. ence. The doctrine of the Trinity affirms Doctrinal diversity is no longer an issue that this God is one in three and three and merely extraneous to evangelicalism. The one—one God in three persons. This God evangelical movement is now marked by is the sovereign Lord over all his creation, theological pluralism and diversity, even who rules, decrees, and reigns, and whose concerning the doctrine of God. creation of the cosmos was ex nihilo. The To some extent, many evangelicals ap- God of the Bible is the sovereign Lord over pear to believe that the health of all beings, objects, and all time. evangelicalism is established by how many Needless to say, this is a God far re- different positions, convictions, and con- moved from popular spirituality. This is fessions can be drawn within the tent. Early not the God referenced in popular, cul- evangelicals were willing to stand together, tural conversation, nor the God of much while acknowledging differences on bap- evangelical worship and piety. tism, church government, and other issues A study of religious belief conducted of denominational distinction. This early in the 1970s reveals just how radically our diversity pales in significance to the plu- culture has compromised the doctrine of ralism now urged upon evangelicalism by God. Sociologists asked the question, “Do many of its theologians. you believe in a God who can change the The doctrine of God is the central or- course of events on earth?” One answer, ganizing principle of Christian theology which became the title of the study, was and establishes the foundation for all “No, just the ordinary one.”8 That is to say, other theological concerns. Evangelicals modern men and women need no longer believe in the unity of truth. Therefore, a believe in a God who can change the shift in one doctrine—much less the cen- course of events on earth, just the “ordi- tral doctrine—necessarily implies and in- nary” God who is an innocent bystander. volves shifts and transformations in all Measured against the biblical revelation, other doctrines. however, this is not God at all. My concern in the face of an evangeli- The crisis of belief in the biblical doc- cal crisis of theism does not relate to trine of God is deeply rooted in modern simple belief in God. Rather, the crisis is culture. In his Bampton Lectures, philoso- focused on the classical Christian doctrine pher Alasdair MacIntyre identified mo- of God, as revealed in Holy Scripture and dernity as the root problem. The modern developed by the believing church worldview, he acknowledged, is inher- through centuries of theological develop- ently hostile to the traditional doctrine of ment. That is, the crisis of evangelical the- God. Indeed, the worldview of modernity ism is seen in the denial of the God of rejects any claim of transcendence or the classical theism as sovereign, transcen- supernatural. Thus, MacIntyre suggests dent, omnipotent, and omniscient. that “theology must choose between the The God of classical theism is self-ex- orthodox path—which many modern per- istent, self-sufficient, simple in His being, sons will find incomprehensible—or the and immutable. His moral character is path of adaptation, which will lead away revealed in attributes of love, holiness, from orthodoxy.”9 9 MacIntyre sets the issue clearly. These by the believing church. This God is out are the only two paths available to mod- of place in our modern world, surrounded ern theology. Those who continue to con- by the theological immaturity of the con- fess and worship the God of classical temporary church. The coming evangeli- theism will be increasingly marginalized cal generation appears largely defenseless in secular society. More to the point, the against the modern worldview.11 classical doctrine of God is now increas- Jenson argues that this bafflement is the ingly marginalized even within the church. inevitable consequence of modernity. Cur- Evangelicals who confess biblical theism rent ideologies rule out the supernatural, the must recognize that we will become in- transcendent, and the very notion of God creasingly incomprehensible to a secular Himself. God, suggests Jenson, suffers three culture. Our theological witness will grow great disabilities in the modern age: increasingly foreign and antiquarian to a culture opposed to authority and dismiss- God is useless in the context of a community that interprets itself ive of truth. To hold to the classical doc- and its world mechanically; God is trine of God is, in some quarters, to be offensive in the context of our prag- socially as well as theologically and ideo- matism of historical liberation; and God is particular in the context of logically displaced. To speak of God in universal acquaintance.12 terms of classical Christian theism is to em- ploy a language and reference a worldview Jenson’s list of God’s three apparent dis- unknown to many evangelicals. abilities in our age is instructive but not ex- As MacIntyre indicates, the only other haustive. Postmodern culture has clearly path is some form of adaptation. This is rejected the God of the Bible and has re- the path taken by mainstream Protestant- placed the self-revealing God of Holy ism and those who seek to negotiate a Scripture with a deity cut down to size in truce with the modern worldview. The order to fit modern ideological concep- result is, of course, a surrender of tran- tions. The secular worldview is so thor- scendence, and the loss of the coherence oughly committed to scientific naturalism of biblical theism. that no concept of God is now necessary Long ago, those committed to liberal- to explain the cosmos. For many, any con- ism chose the road of radical adaptation. cept of God is now useless or irrelevant. Divine transcendence and sovereignty What is at stake for the believing were forfeited, and God became merely church? As I stated above, the doctrine of symbolic—impotent but nevertheless intel- God is the central axiom of Christian the- lectually interesting and culturally useful. ology. Or, as J.I. Packer has argued, theism The God of modern liberalism may at best is the paradigm of Christian theology. That be consulted. He certainly is not feared. is to say that theism is “the basic concep- A generalized theological confusion tual structure in terms of which all particu- now marks the church. As Lutheran theo- lar views of doctrine should be formed and logian Robert Jenson has suggested, focused.” 13 As Packer continues, “Views “Plainly, western Christenism is now that reflect a different paradigm may be in- baffled by its God.”10 Evidently, many teresting, but they cannot be fully Chris- Christians are baffled by their God; that tian.”14 Packer is precisely correct. Classical is, the God of classical theism as confessed Christian theism is the paradigm of Chris- 10 tian theology, and thus is the form, the cal pattern has not gone as far as theological liberalism, the two share morphology, and structure of Christian the central process.17 thinking. No other paradigm, no matter how interesting and fascinating, can be Young evangelicals are not alone in fol- considered authentically Christian. lowing this process of cultural Where does evangelicalism stand on accommodationism. Older evangelicals this account? Ominous signs of evangeli- have largely paved the way for this pat- cal compromise are already apparent. In tern of theological acquiescence. The pat- 1990, the evangelical news magazine tern has played out sufficiently for Brow Christianity Today trumpeted what some to be confident of the eventual triumph of have called “The Evangelical Megashift.” a new theism within evangelicalism. Brow Robert Brow argued that evangelical the- understands that behind this shift in doc- ology has shifted from an Augustinian trine is a larger and more fundamental shift and Reformation foundation to a doctrine in consciousness. As he observed: of God far more congenial to modernity. Brow declared and championed this theo- Many readers of Christianity Today will recognize that they have moved logical revolution. What will this revolu- in some of these directions without tion reject? Rendered obsolete and out of being conscious of a model shift. step are such central doctrines as And the old model can be modified and given qualifications for a time. substitionary atonement, any penal un- But once three or four of these derstanding of the cross, forensic justifi- changes have occurred, our thinking is already organized around the new cation, imputed righteousness, and model. We may still use old-lan- eventually the notion of hell. This revolu- guage and assume we believe as tion has declared out of date a notion of before, but our hearts are changing our minds.18 God as omnipotent, omniscient, and sov- ereign. Brow is quite confident of the Brow is not alone in urging eventual victory of this theological revo- evangelicalism toward this theological lution. As he stated, “A whole generation revolution. He is joined by such figures as of young people has breathed this air.”15 Richard Rice, John Sanders, William Tasker, Clearly, Brow is correct in his assess- David Basinger, and Clark Pinnock. These, ment that an entire generation has joined by a few others, are the current breathed deeply the fumes of modernity.16 molders of the theological “megashift.” Research indicates that the hegemony of Of these, Clark Pinnock deserves spe- the modern world view is leading to theo- cial attention. If any single character in logical transformation and compromise in modern evangelicalism represents this evangelical ranks. As James Davison doctrinal revolution, it is Pinnock. More Hunter states, than any other evangelical theologian, Pinnock has intentionally represented and This overall course—of tradition conforming to the cognitive and nor- championed this megashift and the redi- mative assumptions of the modern rection of evangelical theology. worldview—is relatively new to Evangelicalism, but not to the theo- In The Openness of God, Pinnock sets logical enterprise generally. It has forth his justification for revising classi- gone furthest in liberal theological cal theism: “I believe that unless the por- traditions. And though the Evangeli- 11 trait of God is compelling, the credibility in his presentation of the traditional doc- of belief in God is bound to decline.”19 trine of God. Setting two rival conceptions of God in Pinnock claims to have retained a no- tension, Pinnock distinguishes between tion of God’s sovereignty. Nevertheless, the classical doctrine of God and the new he admits that the mode of God’s sover- “open” doctrine of God. He criticizes the eignty presented by his new conception classical doctrine of God as too Augustin- is radically different than sovereignty as ian and dependent upon formal philo- conceived in classical orthodoxy. Essen- sophical categories. This classical tially, Pinnock argues that the doctrine of conception, he argues, presents God as an God developed by the early church was aloof monarch, who is unchangeable, all- overly influenced by Hellenistic philoso- determining, and irresistible. Over against phy and a “tilt toward transcendence.” He this doctrine of God, Pinnock presents his blames Augustine and the early churches’ new model, with God conceived as a car- use of Greek philosophy as the fountain- ing parent, characterized by love and re- heads of a distorted doctrine of God sponsiveness, and attitudes of generosity, which, he charges, continued in develop- sincerity, openness, and vulnerability. God ment through the medieval synthesis, the the aloof monarch is here set against God Reformation, and continues even today in the caring parent. popular piety. At base, Pinnock argues Clearly, Pinnock can claim some bibli- that the classical doctrine of God is overly cal foundation for his notion of God as a dependent upon Greek philosophy and caring parent. The Bible presents God as insufficiently established in scripture. Father, a loving parent whose reign over The static and transcendent doctrine of creation is not dictatorial, but is the ex- God championed by classical orthodoxy pression of omnipotent love. But this pa- is, Pinnock charges, no longer culturally rental conception of God urged upon us compelling. It is a doctrine which fails to by Pinnock also suggests that the quali- fit congenially within the modern ties he identifies as openness and vulner- worldview and contemporary intellectual ability are inherent in the biblical notion culture. Rather than fight the trend, of God as parent. Pinnock suggests that evangelicalism will When applied to the doctrine of God, do well to adopt modernity’s thought the very notions of openness and vulner- forms. He states that ability demand explanation and clarifica- tion. To whom or to what is God Modern culture can actually assist us in this task because the contemporary understood to be open? How are we to horizon is more congenial to dynamic conceive God’s vulnerability? thinking about God than is the Greek First, we must recognize the false di- portrait. Today it is easier to invite people to find fulfillment in a dy- chotomy presented by Pinnock and the namic, personal God than it would other exponents of the new theism. Their be to ask them to find it in a deity pattern is to present the traditional doc- who is immutable and self-enclosed. Modern thinking has more room for trine of God in terms which are so imper- a God who is personal (even tri–per- sonal, remote, and static that the doctrine sonal) than it does for a God as abso- lute substance. We ought to be is seen to violate the texture of scripture. grateful for those features of modern Yet, Pinnock is neither fair nor accurate culture which make it easier to re- 12 20 cover the biblical witness. This empowerment is essentially rela- tional and limits God’s own sovereign Pinnock sets clearly the most important power, or at least His exercise of power. issue faced by evangelical theology. Is it As Pinnock explains: our task to force the biblical doctrine of God to answer to modern culture, or to Condescension is involved in God’s address modern culture with the biblical decision to make this kind of world. doctrine of God? If modern culture—or By willing the existence of signifi- cant beings with independence sta- any culture—establishes the baseline for tus alongside of himself, God the doctrine of God, such a doctrine will accepts limitations not imposed certainly bear little resemblance to the from without. In other words, in rul- ing over the world God is not all- God of the Bible. determining but may will to achieve Pinnock’s revisionism does not extend his goals through other agents, ac- only to the general conception of a doctrine cepting the limitations of this deci- sion. Yet this does not make God of God, but to the particulars as well. The “weak,” for it requires more power doctrine of the Trinity is re-conceived as a to rule over an undetermined world than it would over a determined community of persons rather than as one. Creating free creatures and modes of being, and Pinnock urges a so- working with them does not contra- cial understanding of the Trinity as a re- dict God’s omnipotence but requires it. Only Omnipotence has the requi- placement for the historic affirmation of an site degree and quality of power to ontological trinitarianism. Providence is be (in Henry Boer’s words) an “ad redefined, for the God of freewill theism is hoc” God. one who responds and adapts to surprises and to the unex- stripped of the traditional understandings pected, God sets goals for creation of omniscience and omnipotence. Instead, and redemption and realizes them Pinnock defines providence in these terms: “ad hoc” in history. If Plan A fails, God is ready with Plan B.22 “At great cost, God is leading the world forward to the place where it will reflect This extended statement must be taken the goodness that God himself enjoys.”21 in one piece in order to see the full effect. Though Pinnock denies that his new By these words the theological revolution- doctrine of God is a form of Process The- aries set forth the case clearly. God’s ology, the pantheistic structure of process rulership over all creation is reduced to an philosophy is evident in Pinnock’s sys- “ad hoc” sovereignty. In creation, Pinnock tem. He claims to hold to a doctrine of cre- argues, God necessarily took a great risk, ation ex nihilo, but God appears to be and refused to be an all-determining deity. collapsed into the cosmic system after the This notion of “ad hoc” sovereignty act of creation. Pinnock fails to demon- shakes our theological foundations. The strate how his new theism avoids the ad- God of the Bible, whom Pinnock claims mitted biblical failures of Process Theism. to present more faithfully than classical In the new evangelical theism, God’s theism, is not a God who exercises an “ad power is re-defined in terms of partner- hoc” sovereignty. His sovereignty is ab- ship with his people. In language which solute and unconditional, and, though would fit well within modern political presented in intimate and personal terms, discourse, God’s partnership is exercised does not compromise God’s essential through his empowerment of creation. character or power. The theism Pinnock 13 presents understands God to be ready low for Plans A, B, C, D, E, etc. as necessi- with Plan B when His Plan A fails. But the tated by subsequent world events that are God of the Bible is not a God whose plans unexpected and unknown by God. ever fail. Clearly, this requires a thorough redefi- If God’s providence and power are radi- nition of divine sovereignty. As Pinnock cally redefined, God’s omniscience is basi- defines God’s sovereignty, it means that cally eviscerated. The relationship between human freedom and divine foreknowledge God is sovereign according to the Bible in the sense of having the power has been argued since the earliest centuries to exist in himself and the power to of the church. Origen and Celsus argued the call forth the universe out of nothing issue and, in a modern context, Pinnock by his Word. But God’s sovereignty does not have to mean what some now raises the issue as a necessary redefini- theists and atheists claim, namely, the tion of the doctrine of God. As he argues, power to determine each detail in the 27 “Philosophically speaking, if choices are real history of the world. and freedom significant, future decisions God, according this system, is “the cannot be exhaustively foreknown.”23 He ground of the world’s existence and the continues, “It would seriously undermine source of all its possibilities.”28 the reality of our decisions if they were God brings His will to effect by His known in advance. . . .”24 Without embar- power “to anticipate the obstructions the rassment, Pinnock claims modern libertar- creatures can throw in his way and re- ian notions of human freedom and spond to each new challenge in an effec- autonomy as adequate justification for lim- tive manner.”29 The God presented by iting the knowledge of God. He continues those who advocate this “creative love his argument, “I would contend that the theism” is responsive and clever, but not Bible does not represent God in possession sovereign in any legitimate sense. This of exhaustive knowledge of all future con- God is resourceful, but does not insist in tingents. On the contrary, it presents God having his way. He allows his creatures as a dynamic agent who deals with the fu- to frustrate his plans and obstruct his de- ture as an open question.”25 This radical re- sign. Human freedom is set against divine vision of the traditional doctrine, he admits, sovereignty in such a way that one claim is “a faintly heretical possibility.”26 limits the other. God’s sovereignty is further re-defined In Pinnock’s argument, divine sover- in terms of his “ad hoc” conception. God eignty and foreknowledge are limited by does the best He can do under the circum- a very straightforward assertion of human stances, argues Pinnock. In taking the risk freedom. As Pinnock acknowledges, “I of creation, God accepted the vulnerabil- stand against classical theism which has ity that was inherent in creating a universe tried to argue that God can control and of free creatures and contingent objects. foresee all things in a world where hu- This is necessary, he argues, in order to mans are free.”30 ensure genuine human freedom and the meaningfulness of human existence. The Theological Challenge: God, as presented by Pinnock, is al- The Recovery of Theism ways ready with Plan B when Plan A fails. This brief review of current theologi- We must presume that Pinnock would al- cal revisionism among evangelicals 14 hardly begins to raise the full scope ENDNOTES 16 James Davison Hunter identifies 1 of issues at stake. My concern is di- Frank Kermode, The Sense of an End- this process as “Cognitive Bargain- rected at the heart of these issues— ing: Studies in the Theory of Fiction ing.” the call for a revised doctrine of God. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 17 Hunter, Evangelicalism, 48. Those who demand the transforma- 1967). 18 Robert Brow, “The Evangelical 2 tion of the classical Christian doctrine Jack Miles, God: A Biography (New Megashift,” 12. of God claim the radical shift of thought York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1995). 19 Clark Pinnock, The Openness of God 3 in modern culture as sufficient cause Karen Armstrong, A History of God (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, for their doctrinal modification. (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1993). 1994) 101. 4 In response, while theology must Ibid., xx. 20 Ibid., 107. 5 always take modern thought forms Ibid. 21 Ibid., 111. 6 into consideration, the biblical doctrine Ibid., 383. 22 Ibid., 113. 7 of God cannot be surrendered. Our task A. W. Tozer, The Quotable Tozer, Vol- 23 Ibid., 123. is not to ensure that our doctrine of God ume 2 (Camp Hill, PA.: Christian 24 Ibid. is culturally compelling, but that it is Publications, 1994) 78. 25 David Basinger and Randall 8 biblically faithful. Grace Davie, “An Ordinary God: Basinger, eds., Predestination and The “creative love theism” advo- The Paradox of Religion in Contem- Freewill: Four Views of Divine Sover- cated by an increasing number of porary Britain,” The British Journal eignty and Human Freedom (Downers evangelicals represents a clear and of Sociology, 41 (1990) 395-422. Grove: InterVarsity Press 1986) 139. 9 present challenge to the doctrinal integ- Cited in David Wells, “Modernity Contributers to the volume in- rity of the evangelical movement. This and Theology: The Doctrine of cluded John Feinberg, Norman finite theism fails the test of biblical fi- God,” in Faith and Modernity, ed. by Geisler, Bruce Reichenbach, and delity and presents a God hardly recog- Philip Sampson, Vinay Samuel, and Clark Pinnock. nizable in the light of scripture and Chris Sugden (Oxford: Regnum 26 Ibid. nearly 2000 years of Christian theology. Books, 1994) 125-126. 27 Ibid., 145. 10 B.B. Warfield once remarked that Robert W. Jenson, “The Christian 28 Ibid. God could be removed altogether Doctrine of God,” in Keeping the 29 Ibid., 146. from some systematic theologies Faith: Essays to Mark the Centenary of 30 Ibid., 151. without any material impact on the Lux Mundi, ed. Geoffrey Wain- 31 His specific concern was C.G. other doctrines in the system .31 My wright (Philadelphia: Fortress Press Finney’s Systematic Theology. fear is that this indictment can be gen- 1988) 25. 11 eralized to much contemporary evan- James Davison Hunter, Evangelical- gelical theology. As the culture draws ism: The Coming Generation (Chi- to a close, evangelicals are not argu- cago: University of Chicago Press, ing over the denominational issues 1987). 12 that marked the debate of the twen- Jenson, “The Christian Doctrine of tieth century’s early years. Sadly God,” 27. 13 evangelicals now debate the central James Packer, “Taking Stock in The- doctrine of Christian theism. The ology,” in Evangelicals Today, ed. question is whether evangelicals will John King (London: Lutterworth affirm and worship the sovereign and Press, 1973) 25 14 purposeful God of the Bible, or shift Ibid. 15 their allegiance to the limited God of Robert Brow, “The Evangelical the modern megashift. Megashift,” Christianity Today, Feb- ruary 19, 1990, 12. 15