Missiology
Southwestern Journal of Theology
Volume 49, No. 2 – Spring 2007
Managing Editor: Malcolm B. Yarnell III
By Carl Raschke. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2004; 240 p. $22.00.
As the title of the book suggests, Raschke believes we are on the brink of another sweeping reform of the church, one that is similar in thrust and focus to that of the sixteenth century. This new reformation is identified with the changes in thought brought on by the questioning of enlightenment foundationalism in the postmodern movement. Raschke sees his task as threefold: 1) to correct misconceptions of postmodernity among evangelical scholars and ministers; 2) to demonstrate that evangelicalism is really tied to enlightenment thought; and 3) to explain how postmodern thought can aid evangelicalism in being a “progressive rather than reactionary force” in the world (9).
In his historical analysis, Raschke notes that the post-structuralism out of which postmodernism grew was really a questioning of the prevailing scientism (as epitomized in logical positivism) of the day. Evangelical- ism had long fought against the notion that reason and logic should have a place of primacy (over against mere faith), and so postmodernism really serves to strengthen its claims. In Raschke’s words, postmodernism had the ability to undercut the “priestly posturing on the part of the secu- lar rationalists” (37). Raschke argues that the evangelical movement has strayed from the Reformation spirit and has instead wedded itself to Enlightenment rationalism and British empiricism. This wedding has stifled theological development and led to as dead an orthodoxy as the Catholic church of Luther’s day. Raschke hopes to call evangelicals back to the Reformation ideals of sola fide, sola scriptura, and the priesthood of believers. He believes that these ideals, or the spirit that drove them in the Reformation era, are to be found in the evangelical postmodern movement as epitomized in the Emerging Church movement.
Raschke contends that Luther’s emphasis on faith alone was a reaction against the via moderna of his own day (the relatively recent stress on human will in salvation). Similarly, postmodernism is a reaction against modernity, while evangelicalism, with its stress on logic and political action, is simply a part of modernity. Whereas the presuppositional apologetics of early Dutch Reformed theology focused on the differences in worldviews of believers and unbelievers, the political activities of current evangelicals (e.g., Reconstructionism) evinces an acceptance of the modern worldview and a fundamental lack of faith. According to Raschke, the aspirations of evangelicals in the political arena point to a theology of glory rather than a theology of the cross and thereby prefer knowledge to faith: “Theologies of glory—whether they be Scholastic, Calvinist, commonsense realist, Hegelian, positivist, foundationalist, or presuppositionalist—all share the common trait of making the claim that a particular reformulation of our understanding of truth and language is sufficient for understanding God”
(110). However, one would be hard pressed to find any evangelical proponents of inerrancy claiming to have a complete understanding of God, or claiming that language is not an accommodation. But to say that verbal revelation must include an element of condescension is not to say that it must thereby include errors, as Raschke suggests. It is instead to note that it cannot be comprehensive or exhaustive of God’s nature. But this is a very different claim!
Raschke’s comparisons of the Reformers and the spirit of the Reformation with postmodernism are hardly convincing. In essence, he claims that since Luther questioned the established wisdom of his day, and that postmodernism does as well, their views are the same. There are many problems with this approach. The claims that Luther reacted against the moderns of his own day and that evangelicalism is really just a product of modernism, are both suspect. But perhaps the greatest problem is Raschke’s failure to admit Luther’s basis for reformation—the Bible as properly interpreted. It is to this topic that Raschke turns in his discussion of sola scriptura.
Raschke argues that evangelicals have also abandoned the Reforma- tion idea of sola scriptura insofar as their emphasis on inerrancy has led to a misplaced trust in human reason rather than in God. He claims that this caused the goal of Bible interpretation to shift from hearing God’s voice to identifying propositional truth, which in turn, led to an exaltation of doctrine to (virtually) the status of revelation. Raschke suggests that the very use of the term, “inerrancy,” “betrays a certain skittishness about whether we can trust God, or profess to trust God, without some sort of ‘cognitive’ as well as confessional insurance” (129). This could not be further from the truth. Raschke fails to inform his readers that the doctrine of inerrancy was largely developed and codified in response to claims by liberal and neo-orthodox theologians that the Bible had actual errors in it. He also misleads his readers by suggesting that the doctrine of inerrancy somehow questions the sufficiency of trusting the Bible because it is a word from God. In point of fact, inerrantists have argued for the doctrine on this very basis—inerrancy is merely the logical presentation of the beliefs of Paul, Augustine, and Luther regarding the truthfulness of God’s Word because it is from Him. It is merely the claim that its truthfulness extends to everything it claims. Inerrantists make no claims of inerrancy for doctrines (even if some are still true). Raschke also misrepresents evangelical notions of saving faith when he claims that it is cognitive and devoid of the heart. In reality, evangelicals view saving faith as involving not only intellectual assent, but also an emotive or affective component. The evangelical claim
that intellectual assent is a necessary component of salvation is something the Reformers would surely have agreed with; Calvin spoke of a necessary work of the Holy Spirit on one’s mind enabling him to understand the meaning of Scripture and Luther wedded his theology to the dictates of his conscience. Similarly, it is unlikely that Raschke really believes that saving faith includes no cognitive element; surely some level of understanding of who Jesus is and what He did is necessary for saving faith!
It is his contention that emphasis on truth of the very words is stifling of personal encounter with God because it demands only one meaning for each passage, while the emphasis of postmodernism on multiple meanings for passages allows believers to hear God speaking to them through His Word in various ways. God can say different things to different people by means of the same text/passage because that text gains new meanings as persons read it. However, Raschke has failed to note that, while most inerrantists do argue for only one meaning of a text, they also admit of several applications of a text. The various applications are grounded in the one meaning, and this is what guards against the possibility of relativist readings of the Bible, something evangelicals have constantly warned against in postmodernism.
Raschke moves to the third Reformation doctrine, the priesthood of believers, and claims that postmodernism more closely approximates the Reformers’ emphasis of relationality in the imago dei than evangelicalism, which he believes is akin to the medieval scholastic emphasis on rationality and morality. According to Raschke, both mainline and evangelical churches view the work of God in the church primarily as top-down; the ministry of the Holy Spirit is conceived as coming through the vocational priesthood to the congregants. By contrast, postmodern churches, who utilize cell groups, recognize the value of horizontal work of the Holy Spirit by means of the congregants. Raschke seems to suggest that this can only be accomplished by means of the cell-group model, or at least cannot be accomplished through the traditional Sunday School program (though he give no reasons why this would be the case). His characterization may be true of some evangelical churches, but it is an oversimplification and too sweeping a generalization to be taken seriously of all. In fact, evangelicals have always included an appeal to heart as well as mind.
While some of the details of his presentation could be questioned, much of what Raschke says in this section is of value. His emphasis upon the leading of the Spirit and the ministering work of the laity is to be taken seriously and evangelical church leaders should take note. Ironically, his criticisms focus on the personal desires of church members and utilization of marketing strategies for determining programs echo arguments made against prevailing church growth wisdom from many evangelical inerrantists. In fact, many of these same problems have been cited in the so-called “Emergent Church” movement, the very movement which Raschke commends to his readers. This, then, is precisely the point—the importation of business strategies into church development, management, and even worship is not merely a problem for traditional evangelicals, though we certainly have our share of guilt. In fact, it seems to be an error tied largely to Western American consumerism, and this is a problem all churches face, emergent or otherwise.
One of the values of Raschke’s work is that it clearly demonstrates the hostility toward evangelical commitments found in postmodernism. Raschke’s arguments against inerrancy, while simply a regurgitation of those presented by liberal theologians, show how even a conservative post-modernism is incompatible with evangelicalism. Thus, those evangelical scholars and pastors who flirt with postmodernism in any of its forms, endanger their students and congregations by denying the truth of the Bible and proclaiming a subjectivist approach to hermeneutics.
