Gerald McDermott on Evangelicals Divided

Gerald McDermott, ‘Evangelicals Divided: The Battle between Meliorists and Traditionists to Define Evangelicalism’, First Things (April 2011).

In the April 2011 edition of First Things, Gerald McDermott outlines what he sees as the differences between ‘Meliorists’ and ‘Traditionists’ in evangelicalism.

In short:

‘Evangelical theology has long been divided between those who emphasize human freedom to choose salvation (Arminians) and those who stress God’s sovereignty in the history of salvation (the Reformed). Now this old division has been overshadowed by a larger division between new opposing camps we may call the Meliorists and the Traditionists. The former think we must improve and sometimes change substantially the tradition of historic orthodoxy. The latter think that while we might sometimes need to adjust our approaches to the tradition, generally we ought to learn from it rather than change it. Most of the Meliorists are Arminian, and most of the Traditionists are Reformed, though there are exceptions on both sides.’

This division, he argues, has developed from challenges by some of those who call themselves ‘post-conservatives’ (he focuses particularly on Roger Olson in this respect).

He thinks that present divisions between the two camps ‘will widen along two tracks: theological method and the nature of Scripture’.

He also makes it clear where he sees himself:

‘The problem with post-conservative Meliorism is not just what its leaders are now saying; it is that their approach will lead both themselves and their students further and further afield from historic orthodoxy.’

He suggests three reasons for this: (1) ‘Meliorists exalt experience at the expense of cognitive understanding or doctrine’; (2) ‘there is a new hesitation among Meliorists to support plenary inspiration’; (3) ‘the Meliorists’ lack of a clear view of authority’.

Interestingly, some theological heavy-weights get involved in the comments afterwards.