Harold John Ockenga and Pastor-Theologians: An Interview with Owen Strachan, Part 2
Written by Nathan Finn, Posted in History, Ministry, SBC, Theology
This is the second half of an interview with Boyce College professor Owen Strachan. We’re discussing the twentieth-century pastor-theologian and evangelical statesman Harold John Ockenga. We’re also discussing the ongoing importance of pastor-theologians. You can read the first part of the interview here.
Nathan Finn: We are both involved in various ways with The Gospel Coalition. Do you think TGC is one attempt to recapture the spirit of Ockenga, Carl Henry, and Billy Graham for the twenty-first century?
Owen Strachan: Absolutely. Tim Keller has talked about TGC attempting to revive and inhabit what he calls “classic evangelicalism,” which was developed by the three evangelical horsemen you just mentioned, with Ockenga as the statesman, Henry as the theologian, and Graham as the evangelist and public face of the movement. I personally see early neo-evangelicalism as a positive initiative, and so I am glad to see others picking up the mantle. There really is something powerful in evangelical unity and cobelligerence, in coming together around a doctrinal core for the purposes of advancing the gospel and strengthening the church. There are other aims that can be accomplished as well in such unity. My own dissertation focuses on how Ockenga and others stimulated a new interest in the life of the mind and the production of a potent theological and cultural apologetic that would provide an answer to skepticism and teach Christians how to take intellectual dominion of the world. I stand behind such a program and appreciate what the neo-evangelicals did along these lines. Of course, I think it is essential that groups uniting across denominational lines adhere closely to a theological core and vision. It also seems good for those cooperating based on common soteriology and missiology to make clear that such cooperation in no way minimizes the importance of the scriptural ordinances. TGC in my limited estimation is aware of these pitfalls and has thus far sidestepped them, in part because leaders like Don Carson knew Carl Henry very well and no doubt learned from him. I see a bright future for such ventures where they avoid the soft doctrinal core of neo-evangelicalism and the big-box evangelical tendency to downplay baptism and the Lord’s supper, which Christ has given his church for its identity, its witness, and its accountability to God. We need strong local churches anchored in confessional traditions; we also stand to thrive when like-minded believers unite for strategic purposes, as witnessed in early neo-evangelicalism in the form of Fuller Theological Seminary, Christianity Today, and the National Association of Evangelicals.
NAF: We are both Southern Baptists. In recent years, I’ve sensed a renewed emphasis in the SBC on the importance of pastor-theologians. Do you sense this as well, or am I just confused?
OS: You are not confused. Let not your mind be troubled. I see exactly what you see, and it thrills me. There is a growing and widespread interest in this historic model of the pastorate, exemplified by the ministries of such historic figures as Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Edwards, Spurgeon, Criswell, Lloyd-Jones, Dever, and Piper. The younger generation of SBC students and pastors (and young evangelicals more broadly) has learned at the literary feet of many of these figures. They see a direct connection between the growth they have experienced through such ministry and the work these figures put into learning well in order to know the Scriptures and teach them with excellence. The important thing is always that the Word is preached. But when the word is handled skillfully and with excellence, Christians stand to thrive and flourish and brim with health. The younger generation has seen this, they’ve benefited from exceptional theological ministry in their own lives from a wide range of pastor-theologians, and they themselves hunger not simply to preach moral homilies and inspiring stories but to feed the people meat and not milk in order that they would take Christocentric dominion of all the earth and “remanate” glory to the author of life, as Edwards put it (there’s your mandatory Jonathan Edwards reference, Nathan!). The vision, if I may put it rather colloquially, sells itself. The proof is in the pudding. Provided pastors do not grow enamored with degrees or see themselves as undertaking theological training in order to host exclusivistic book clubs devoted to obscure passages of Hegel or Barth, this cycle will only continue–pastor-theologians who have devoted themselves to intensive study feeding people rich meals, who are in turn stirred to do the same. Theology is not airy; theology is practical. As Ligon Duncan said at Together for the Gospel some years back, “doctrine is for life.” Many today understand this and hunger to know more theology in order to know God more.
This whole movement is a massive sign of health in the SBC and the modern church. May it only continue, and may the students pouring into the schools at which you and I teach, sister schools, only spread the vision further.
NAF: Besides your forthcoming dissertation, what are some good resources you’d recommend for those who want to know more about Ockenga?
OS: Resources are scarce. Thankfully, Garth Rosell of Gordon-Conwell has written an engaging and informative text on Ockenga entitled The Surprising Work of God: Harold John Ockenga, Billy Graham, and the Rebirth of Evangelicalism. That is the first and best place to go. John Marion Adams wrote a dissertation on Ockenga entitled “The Making of a Neo-Evangelical Statesman: The Case of Harold John Ockenga” that is quite good. Carpenter’s Revive Us Again has helpful material. George Marsden’s novel-like Reforming Fundamentalism includes a good deal of material on the pastor-theologian. These resources are a place to start.
NAF: Besides the Piper-Carson book, what about resources for those who are committed to being pastor-theologians (or theologians who are also pastors)?
OS: There aren’t a ton of resources here, either. I would go to Douglas Sweeney’s Jonathan Edwards and the Ministry of the Word for starters. He has several words at the close of the book about the need for pastor-theologians. Doug has really helped to shape my vision for this topic. Bruce Gordon’s Calvin will shed light on the topic. Brooks Holifield’s God’s Ambassadors and Gentlemen Theologians have some rich material on this subject. There is a great need for further writing and thinking on this topic.
Thank you for the chance to respond to these questions, Nathan. Really appreciate it—and your ministry at Southeastern.
Nathan & Owen:
Thank you for opening up this subject, which strikes many sparks and raises a number of questions. How about these:
1)The idea that TGC somehow continues the original neo-evangelical agenda of the 1940′s is very interesting, but quite problematic when one considers how inclusive the NAE was at its founding and how virtually Calvinist TGC is. If TGC wants to ‘inherit the mantle’of Graham, Ockenga, and Henry, then it has some doctrinal comprehension to consider. I say this as a Calvinist pan-evangelical. Is it contestable that the early NAE was broader than today’s TGC? How can TGC be the new NAE when it addresses only a portion of American evangelicalism?
2) The supposition that Henry, Ockenga and Graham set an original ‘course’for post-war evangelicalism which has been departed from in recent times is very problematic. By all accounts, Graham found less and less distinctively evangelical turf needing defending from about 1960 onwards. The name of the game thereafter was inclusion. Ockenga, a fusion of Wesleyan piety and the Calvinism which he acquired at Princeton and Westminster was not exactly a militant conservative. As Marsden describes it, it was during his days as a fly-in president of Fuller that the theological embraciveness beyond what was originally contemplated took hold (though Marsden allows that Ockenga as an in-residence president might have guided things to a different conclusion). This leaves Henry. It was the hallmark of Henry’s editorship at CT magazine that he recruited writers (especially Europeans) who were clearly outside the evangelical circle because he thought that North American evangelicals needed to know their names and their ideas. Again, comprehension.
I want to concur with you that post-WWII conservative evangelicalism has frayed badly and needs a recovery. The question is: can TGC fill this role? And: could Henry, Ockenga, and Graham identify with today’s TGC? I consider these very open questions.
Ken,
It’s an honor to hear from you. I guess I’ll jump on Nathan’s site and give my thoughts. I definitely think TGC is narrower than the NAE, though TGC is broader than some might think. The council includes members from all over the theological spectrum, and I’m sure if we looked at the conference attendee list we would be startled to see the breadth of those who came.
I don’t think TGC is NAE 2.0. But there is a vision that TGC seeks to embody that has significant resonance with the NAE and other neo-evangelical ventures. TGC wants to be the center of evangelicalism, which is definitely what Ockenga et al wanted for their institutions. We can debate how close each group came (or comes) to this goal, but there certainly is a link between the two. Ockenga expressly championed cobelligerence centered in a “low Calvinism” which has overlap with TGC, to be sure. I’ll talk more about this in my dissertation provided I finish it and promptly enter a work-induced coma.
I think you’re right about the fragmentation of neo-evangelicalism. Quite right. That’s why I used the modifier “early” to discuss neo-evangelicalism. I love the initial vision of the three horsemen and their colleagues. But I don’t think they executed it very well. Frankly, I think your critique hits the mark in several places. That was why I talked about a strong doctrinal core, which I don’t think the neo-evs had. That is a major weakness of the movement and the major reason it collapsed. But I love the early vision, bold, theological, robust and dominion-taking as it was. Again, this vision will hopefully come out in my dissertation.
I think that HJO and CFHH would like a lot of what TGC stands for. I won’t speak for Graham, but I think he would resonate with much of its work.
I’ll say this in closing: I want very strong confessional movements in evangelicalism. The local church is the center of God’s kingdom work. But I think there is a place–not first place, but a place–for cobelligerence across denominational/connectional lines. TGC is making a go at that (as is T4g), and I support that movement, provided a strong vision/doctrinal core is in place, alongside care to not usurp the local church or make it seem as if the big stuff happens at conferences. In my limited understanding, that’s precisely what Carson, Keller and others are steering clear of, the institution-building of the neo-evs that suggested, at least in part, that the real action happens outside of the local church and the confessional traditions in which it must be anchored.
Appreciate the discussion, Ken. Stimulating thoughts from a man I and others have learned from.
Ken,
I agree completely that TGC is simply one slice of the evangelical pie. I do think, however, that it is an influential slice and one that reaches beyond simply broadly Calvinistic, complementarian evangelicals. Much like Owen, I see TGC as an attempt to reclaim the pre-1960 neo-evangelical vision. Most of the differences are, I think, related to the different context we find ourselves in.
For example, the pre-1960 neo-evangelicals were very influenced by revivalism and dispensationalism. This was in part because of the movement’s roots in fundamentalism. TGC doesn’t have the same roots. TGC arises in a context where inerrancy and gender roles have been the defining debates, Calvinism is much more popular, and dispensationalism is much less popular. I think this contextual difference accounts for many of the theological differences, though I agree with Owen that Henry and Ockenga would perhaps feel very at home in TGC.
I would argue TGC is attempting to reclaim what is *best* about the older neo-evangelical coalition and apply it into our contemporary context. And for my part, I’m very sympathetic to the vision TGC represents.
Thanks for your very thoughtful questions.
NAF
Owen & Hathan:
Thanks for your gracious extensive replies. I am concerned primarily with the fact that TGC (the best evangelical thing going just now) is not embracive enough of the spectrum of evangelical opinion of the NAE as founded. You mention revivalism and dispensationalism as being originally well-represented, but not now. But these constituencies have not gone away. Friends in Methodism tell me that it is so very easy for friends of evangelicalism within Methodism to conclude that evangelicalism has no room for them. Dispensationalism may not be the abrasive force that it once was, but such schools as Dallas and Talbot still have massive followings.
The irony seems to be this: CT and the NAE still do a better job of taking original and subsequent evangelical diversity into account than does TGC. And that is why I ask the question of whether HJO, BG and CFHH – who were ‘big tent’ evangelicals if they were anything – would see their emphasis really continued in TGC. Enough said.
Owen,
Though The Surprising Work of God was written from a friendly and respectful perspective, I didn’t find it to paint a particularly flattering image of HJO personally. I’m thinking of the overtly ambitious tone of his personal correspondence and, as I recall, his conviction that intellectual credibility was essential to the success of the new evangelicalism. Was that fair reading, in your opinion?
Ben,
Good question. Rosell is definitively appreciative of HJO. I thought more that while Rosell is aware of HJO’s weaknesses, he saw him as a pretty important and helpful figure for modern evangelicals. That was my take.
HJO definitely was ambitious, and there definitely is a danger in thinking that the gospel requires credibility. One can avoid both problems, though.
OS
Ted,Are you speaking of ecvagelinalism doctrinally or sociologically? If ecvagelinalism is used in reference to the evangel, then Modalists would be excluded. They do not hold to the true gospel. (NOTE: they may still be saved, but their heretical teaching would not allow us to conclude that they are. We cannot see their hearts only their profession. We should present them with the truth and urge them to turn from their false belief.)If ecvagelinalism is being used to refer to social characteristics then some might include Oneness Pentecostals but they would also include Open Theists, Catholics, etc.I believe Doran is using the term doctrinally. If so, then it is certainly accurate/true to say that Modalists are not a part of ecvagelinalism.BE
Have you read Iain Murray’s “Evangelicalism Divided”? If so, any bearings on the subject of these 2 posts?