In some sense people are always a product of their time. The same is true for the beginnings of Evangelicalism – it’s in part a product of its time. Bebbingto, in his book Evangelicalism in Modern Britain: A history from 1730’s to the 1980s argues that the Evangelical doctrine of assurance is in part a product of the enlightenment. I am not arguing at this point whether or not this is good or bad, but simply that the cultural mood of the Enlightenment gave Evangelicalism the tools to postulate a transformed doctrine of assurance. In an earlier post I pointed out that Bebbington seems to argue that this shift in the doctrine of assurance is really what differentiates Evangelicalism from Protestantism. Furthermore, it is one of the major driving factors behind why evangelicalism is the way it is, particularly its emphasis on evangelism which is rooted in wanting other people to know the same assurance of salvation.
Bebbington locates this turning point from which the Evangelical doctrine of assurance arose at a precise point in history, namely during Jonathan Edwards pastoral work in the 1734-5 revival in Northampton, Massachusetts. What constitutes this turning point is the type of pastoral work that Edwards carries out during this time. Edwards met with those who claimed to have had a conversion experience and interviewed them. If he was convinced that the person had undergone a true conversion he assured people of their salvation. Bebbington notes that the, “Received Puritan practice would have been to encourage them to wrestle through their own doubts and fears over a protracted period. [….] Guidance was essential to avoid the sheer distress that some would otherwise unnecessarily suffer; and confident avowals of conversion that resulted from his practice stimulated an awakening of spiritual concern in others” (47). Thus according to Bebbington this constitutes the creation of an Evangelical framework for interpreting Christian experience.
Bebbingto raises the rhetorical question of why Edwards could have been so bold to break with Puritan tradition. He then argues it was because of Edwards confident of the powers of human knowledge. Bebbington explains Edwards position the following way: “A person … can receive a firm understanding of spiritual things through a ‘new sense’ which is as real as sight or smell. Unbelievers might languish in ignorance of God, but at conversion the Holy Spirit originates ‘a new inward perception or sensation of their minds’. Assured knowledge of God is therefore possible.” This conviction is reflected in Edwards pastoral work during the revival.
Bebbington connects this confidence in knowledge and experience with the Enlightenment. He argues, “The emerging Enlightenemnt was generating an imperative to enquire into the nature of things” (48). Thus it was possible to inquire into God’s work in a person’s life. Bebbington continues, “For Locke, knowledge derived from the senses is certain. Edwards was simply extending the range of senses available to a human being when he put the capacity to embrace the gospel in that category. Once seen in that light, knowledge of God is also indubitable. It is something not to be brooded over in solitude but to be joyously affirmed. Edward derived his confidence about salvation from the atmosphere of the English Enlightenment” (48). Thus the evangelical doctrine of assurance was made possible through the philosophical discoveries of the Enlightenment.
One obvious challenge to the Evangelical doctrine of assurance today comes from our postmodern culture which rejects this type of certainty. If assurance has really been a key components that has been driving the Evangelical motor from its beginnings, what should our response be to the postmodern challenge. Much ink has been spilled on how this cultural shift from modernity to postmodernity has called for different modes of evangelism and Gospel sharing. Are our activism, our missional efforts weakened because the surrounding world questions our efforts (since our plausibility structures are undermined – Peter Berger)? How have Evangelicals so far dealt with the fact that one of our distinctive (assurance) is being culturally severely challenged?
No comments:
Post a Comment